Support NeoGAF

[Kurtofan]

why? how? without proof?

You seem to think that all atheists are hardcore cartesian scientists who need evidence to believe in something.
You can be an average joe and still be atheist,maybe because you were raised as one;or maybe because you just don't believe in gods for whatever reasons.
You can be a gullibe atheist who think the Loch ness monster exists by seeing a fake picture,but who still won't believe in God because he never saw him.

 

[Jackson50]

 

[grumble]

When nerves are deprived of oxygen, they enter into a state of hyper-excitability and this is generally thought of as the cause of the NDE. This doctor's kind of a wacko. No afterlife, sorry.

I guess if it makes you feel better though, keep on believing.

 

[racerx]

You should probably seek better sources before coming to any conclusions.

I wonder how many of those 'perfect recalls' of memories were influenced by the interviewer.

Like what? You want a Nature or Science or Scientific American article on NDE's and psychic premonitions?

The editorial staff would get fired and the entire scientific community would laugh at them if they even remotely considered to look at actual studies of NDEs and such.

For the foreseeable future, no mainstream publication is going to publish or peer review anything remotely connected with spiritual phenomenons.

Look, no one is going to find absolute proof that consciousness exists beyond death. How would you even get proof of something like this?

Look at the moon landings. for the record, I believe Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, but there are certain people that believe the moon landings were fake. What proof can you show these people that the moon landing actually happened? Nothing. Moon rocks? Some would claim that they are fake.

People can't prove the moon landings took place, so how do you expect people to prove that consciousness exists beyond death?

 

[Zaptruder]

Why are so many people (athiests and non-athiests alike) never willing to even entertain the possibility that they may be wrong?

Because the need for a high degree of convincing evidence might sometimes appear as an unwillingness to change ones position.

Just as the inability to understand and disseminate convincing evidence may sometimes be conflated as been unwilling to change ones position.

 

[gkryhewy]

People can't prove the moon landings took place, so how do you expect people to prove that consciousness exists beyond death?

WTF? The moon landings are demonstrably true because of the lunar laser ranging experiment. A reflective dish remains on the surface of the moon, and scientists use this dish to laser-measure the distance between the earth and moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Of course, there are lots of retards for whom empirical evidence holds no sway.

 

[Zaptruder]

I haven't studied this kind of stuff but I'm interested in it. If you know any good books or documentaries on the subject, please list some because I want to know more.

I consider myself an atheist but sometimes I wonder if there's not some legitimacy to the things that some people claim. The vids posted on the first page about reincarnation could be a hoax but you see so many stories and such about these kinds of things that you have to wonder if there's a piece of us that acts as a soul.

NDEs, ghost stories, reincarnation, etc. This kind of stuff fascinates me even if I don't really believe it.

Somewhat related, I remember awhile back hearing about organ transplants and how sometimes the person who receives the organ would inherit some of the donors memories, as if the organ contained a fragment of the donors mind. I don't know how true that is, but stuff like this, the idea that pieces of you can exist outside your body makes me wonder if not everything dies when we die. Maybe there's a part or pieces of us that live on.

My knowledge and understanding comes from a wide variety of sources as well as a bit of my own critical thinking and assessment of the available material.

But here are some books I wouldn't mind reading myself...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195179595/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0192805851/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974707708/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0316180661/?tag=neogaf0e-20

I think the review for the first book sums up the current scientific positions relatively well.

The specifics are all very hazy (within the framework of actual science), but nonetheless we do have enough information to conclude very definitively on a few very important questions.

Says David Chalmers, an Australian mathematician- turned-philosopher: The heart of the science of consciousness is trying to understand the first-person perspective-- to explain subjective experiences objectively. In grappling with what neuroscientists call the hard problem--the struggle to explain how neural processes create subjective experiences--the experts are long on theories but short on answers. Nearly all agree that classical dualism doesn't work--that the mind and brain cannot be made of distinct substances. Many refer instead to the neural correlates of consciousness, the neural activity present during a person's conscious experience. Blackmore queries the thinkers on such issues as life after death, the self and free will. Most say they do not believe in extracorporeal survival, in contrast with 55 percent of U.S. residents. Most also agree that scientific evidence does not support the notion of free will, despite the gripping feeling that it exists.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Because you're going in looking for something that isn't there.

You're looking for a specific node or part of the brain... a 'point of the soul' or a pineal gland...

You're looking for the magic tree, when you should be looking for the magic in the forest.

Those that look for conciousness as a specific function or point of the brain are flumoxed. Those that understand it to be the totality of the interaction of the processes are better able to comprehend its nature.

Sure, I'm interested in NDEs. But I'm not hanging my hat on it. The 'atypical and prototypical' nature of neural behaviour at NDEs aren't really enough reason for me to call into question the rest of the congruency that exists in the natural sciences.

You have no idea what it is I'm looking for, and you entirely misunderstood my point. I was actually emphasizing the whole-brain activity of generating consciousness, just that fully understanding the theoretical explanations for or mechanics of consciousness itself would shed light on if there is any awareness after death. I can't think of any part of your post that actually applies to me. Thanks for the condescending attitude though.

edit: I'm fully acquainted with both neuropsychology and cognitive psychology. I'm only in my second year but it's my major.

edit2: And obviously mind-body dualism has been an outmoded belief for a long time now. However that says absolutely nothing about if the brain might be in a sense 'containing' or acting as a medium of expression for consciousness. It's unfalisfiable but some component of consciousness (however small) may be materially transcendent. Perhaps even archetypal or something really trippy.

 

[racerx]

Does consciousness exist beyond death? If not, then explain after death communications?
Explain NDEs? Explain OOBE?

For those that are interested, here is the youtube link showing scientific proof, at least scientifically as possible, that some sort of unexplainable phenomenon is at work....

Life AfterDeath Parts 1- 9
Link to Part 1 -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFv5UcxQ7Xs

the other 8 parts are on the same channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv8sVPkaciE#t=4m45s
is a link to part 3 where they do some tests on mediums and their abilities.

Listen to these people. How can you explain what's going on here?

 

[Zaptruder]

You have no idea what it is I'm looking for, and you entirely misunderstood my point. I was actually emphasizing the whole-brain activity of generating consciousness, just that fully understanding the theoretical explanations for or mechanics of consciousness itself would shed light on if there is any awareness after death. I can't think of any part of your post that actually applies to me. Thanks for the condescending attitude though.

edit: I'm fully acquainted with both neuropsychology and cognitive psychology. I'm only in my second year but it's my major.

Sorry. I'm not as switched on as I'd like to be at this time of the night.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue explicitly for at this point. Care to shed some light (that I can read in the morning), on your thoughts on dualism? If that is what you're arguing for. If not, then I don't know why we're arguing.

But if you'd like to discuss general thoughts on the subject of conciousness, lets PM instead. Better than having it drowned out in a sea of back and forth on a series of popularly debated and heavily interelated topics (i.e. religion, theism, the after life, etc.)

 

[Government-man]

I imagined like a catalog of all the chicks you've ever wanted to bone and you can spend however much time boning them all as you want.

Funny, I actually imagined the same thing. I guess this consistency, much like post 8, perhaps after all lends some gravity to the whole concept.

Spoiler

I'm joking, though not about the catalog of chicks

 

[racerx]

WTF? The moon landings are demonstrably true because of the lunar laser ranging experiment. A reflective dish remains on the surface of the moon, and scientists use this dish to laser-measure the distance between the earth and moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Of course, there are lots of retards for whom empirical evidence holds no sway.

prove it. prove to me that an actual mirror is on the moon. Prove to me that an actual laser experiment was done.

Think about it, why can't someone just claim that the mirror was placed on the moon and why can't they simply make up fake data.

If I said that I've measure my room this morning, and someone claimed I didn't, how could I prove to them that I did. I can't.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Like what? You want a Nature or Science or Scientific American article on NDE's and psychic premonitions?

The editorial staff would get fired and the entire scientific community would laugh at them if they even remotely considered to look at actual studies of NDEs and such.

For the foreseeable future, no mainstream publication is going to publish or peer review anything remotely connected with spiritual phenomenons.

Do you actually read any of these publications? They've both covered NDE's in multiple articles, as have other mainstream journals.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Bullshit. NDE is just brain activity along the lines of your life flashing before your eyes. IMO, it's just a memory dump. I've had my life flash before my eyes a number of times, and it's always just hectic brain activity as I struggle to survive the calamity I'm experiencing at the moment. We only use a fraction of our brain, so it doesn't surprise me that in moments of sheer terror, or near death, that we access extra areas of the brain. So you access all these prior memories, involuntarily. I imagine NDE is just some sort of REM/lucid dream state. The afterlife is a crock of shit for zealots who've given up on understanding the natural world.

Death should be no different from being knocked unconscious. You simply black out and that's it. PEACE.

 

[racerx]

Bullshit. NDE is just brain activity along the lines of your life flashing before your eyes. IMO, it's just a memory dump. I've had my life flash before my eyes a number of times, and it's always just hectic brain activity as I struggle to survive the calamity I'm experiencing at the moment. We only use a fraction of our brain, so it doesn't surprise me that in moments of sheer terror, or near death, that we access extra areas of the brain. So you access all these prior memories, involuntarily. I imagine NDE is just some sort of REM/lucid dream state. The afterlife is a crock of shit for zealots who've given up on understanding the natural world.

Death should be no different from being knocked unconscious. You simply black out and that's it. PEACE.

If you want to believe that, sure go ahead. But testimonial evidence shows people are aware of things that they shouldn't be aware of.

 

[Peronthious]

I just quickly skimmed so I may have missed this, but how diverse was this study? If it was only made up of certain cultures, that could have been a factor in the experiences.

 

[speculawyer]

What a load of rubbish

This.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Sorry. I'm not as switched on as I'd like to be at this time of the night.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue explicitly for at this point. Care to shed some light (that I can read in the morning), on your thoughts on dualism? If that is what you're arguing for. If not, then I don't know why we're arguing.

But if you'd like to discuss general thoughts on the subject of conciousness, lets PM instead. Better than having it drowned out in a sea of back and forth on a series of popularly debated and heavily interelated topics (i.e. religion, theism, the after life, etc.)

That's alright. Lately I've just been reading into as many neuro-cognitive correlates to meditation as I could. One article stands out for me:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693206/

In the later part it implicates that experienced meditators in Vipassana or Open-focus meditation probably experience widespread dynamic activity throughout the cortex and I also believe the limbic system. Perhaps related to the gamma rhythm in EEG and associated with perceptual binding and enhanced awareness.

Personally I thought there were some parallels between this dynamic activity and that in NDE's. Which is why I broght up the parallel of yogic practices (ie: Death Yoga and Dream Yoga) to use the death experience as a way of attaining realization. This dynamic activity probably sheds light on how conscious is actually generated in a dynamic, holistic fashion as insight into the neurocorrelates of meditation does.

Now as for perhaps a more 'non-material' aspect of consciousness: it's more of an openmindedness since we don't know very much. Like the implication of widespread gamma syncrhony in the EEG, or where the hell the damn engram is. Maybe there's an EMF component to the brain that minutely alters the generation of action potential in neurons in a more general or widespread way? Who knows at this point.

edit: And now I have to go to work, I'll come back to this discussion later.

 

[uraldix]

I just quickly skimmed so I may have missed this, but how diverse was this study? If it was only made up of certain cultures, that could have been a factor in the experiences.

States that all walks of life are part of the study. The article also states that the people were unconscious or clinically dead and neither of those means that the brain has stopped working.

 

[Pimpwerx]

If you want to believe that, sure go ahead. But testimonial evidence shows people are aware of things that they shouldn't be aware of.

Like UFOs? Give me a fucking break. How gullible are people these days? I'm not gonna call you an idiot, but this is as unsound logic as you can find. Testimonial evidence of crazy people is not empirical evidence. Experiments should be repeatable. This NDE shit is all malarkey. Same with out of body experiences and all that jazz. No scientific evidence or logic to support it. What gland generates a soul? What would keep said soul tethered to the body? Might as well believe in magic and unicorns and leprechauns. In this day and age, common sense and science reign supreme. PEACE.

 

[gkryhewy]

prove it. prove to me that an actual mirror is on the moon. Prove to me that an actual laser experiment was done.

Think about it, why can't someone just claim that the mirror was placed on the moon and why can't they simply make up fake data.

If I said that I've measure my room this morning, and someone claimed I didn't, how could I prove to them that I did. I can't.

:lol This is ridiculous. I think you're confusing the oft-quoted "can't prove a negative!" notion with its corollary. But you can - in fact - prove a positive, and I already have. If someone irrationally defies empirical proof, that does not invalidate the proof.

 

[Price Dalton]

This is more of an argument against an afterlife, I would believe since there is no conversion of mass or energy when you die. All of your mass is intact and you don't give off a high pulse of energy upon death either :lol so there is neither a conversion of mass nor energy upon your death.

http://news.discovery.com/human/near-death-brain.html

A study of seven terminally ill patients found identical surges in brain activity moments before death, providing what may be physiological evidence of "out of body" experiences reported by people who survive near-death ordeals.

 

[CharlieDigital]

http://news.discovery.com/human/near-death-brain.html

Surges in brain activity != high energy pulse?

You can have a surge in brain activity while you're in REM sleep. Does that mean you're dying?

 

[Price Dalton]

Surges in brain activity != high energy pulse?

You can have a surge in brain activity while you're in REM sleep. Does that mean you're dying?

Dude, I wasn't arguing with you, or trying to make a point. I just thought you'd find it interesting.

I'm guessing REM sleep and the moments before death are actually pretty damn similar.

 

[racerx]

:lol This is ridiculous. I think you're confusing the oft-quoted "can't prove a negative!" notion with its corollary. But you can - in fact - prove a positive, and I already have. If someone irrationally defies empirical proof, that does not invalidate the proof.

well, since you can't prove that an actual mirror is on the moon, I guess there isn't one.
/eyerooll

Again, for the record, I believe Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon and that an actual mirror does exist.

My point is that there are some things that can't be proven with absolute certainty. As with the moon landings, NDEs can't ever be proven.


I've never been to France. Does France exist? I certainly believe so. But why should I? Because of the testimonial from other people who 've claimed to have visited France, from the details of their testimony, from newspaper articles, etc... I don't have absolute proof that France exists, but I do believe it with all my heart and mind. If France is fake, then there sure was/is quite a bit of coordination with the various people to pull this off.

The same applies with the notion that the mind exist independently of the brain. Read the books on OOBE, read books on NDEs, have your own experiences, look into the details of people's testimony, and you'll reach the same conclusion that I did - that the mind does exist independent of the brain.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Dude, I wasn't arguing with you, or trying to make a point. I just thought you'd find it interesting.

I'm guessing REM sleep and the moments before death are actually pretty damn similar.

If you find that interesting, you might also find it interesting that a recent study found that similar memories have similar mappings in individuals (scientists asked individuals to memorize certain scenarios and then had them recount the scenarios; what they found was that the patterns of brain activity were predictable which would seem to indicate that the memory mechanism isn't random and entirely different across individuals. For a given experience, individuals have predictable pathways of mapping them to neurons -- in other words, we're wired far more similarly than we'd like to believe).

Story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124581153

Computers One Step Closer To Reading Your Mind

Machines that decode your thoughts aren't limited to the realm of science fiction anymore.

A computer program that analyzes brain scans was able to tell which of three short films people were thinking about, according to a study in the journal Current Biology.

"We were able to predict just from their brain activity which of those memories they were recalling," says Eleanor A. Maguire, one of the study's authors and a professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London.

She and her colleagues wanted to know whether traces of these so-called episodic memories could be detected in brain scans.

So they found 10 volunteers who agreed to watch several very short films. One showed a woman taking a letter out of her handbag and putting it in a mailbox. In another clip, a woman finishes a cup of coffee and throws the cup in a trash can.

The volunteers watched the films over and over, until they had formed a strong memory of each episode. "Then we popped the people in the scanner and had them recall these movies," Maguire says.

Data from these scans of activity in the hippocampus was analyzed by a computer program that looked for distinct patterns of activity associated with each film. And Maguire says the program found them. "In every single case it was able to predict with high accuracy which of the memories those 10 participants were recalling," she says.

That was what the scientists expected to find. What surprised them, though, was how similar the patterns were across all 10 brains. The brain activity associated with each film clip "was incredibly consistent," Maguire says.​

This part is important if you are considering why people across race, age, gender, and time seem to experience the same things in NDEs:

Other scientists doing similar work have also found surprising consistency from brain to brain. And they say that's the case for lots of thoughts, not just episodic memories.

"We all have very similar patterns for a given concept," says Marcel Just, director of the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Most brains react in pretty much the same way when they see a face, for example, Just says. And by studying a particular brain in detail, it's often possible to get much more specific information, he says. He pointed to the work of researchers at Carnegie Mellon, who have been asking people to think about the faces of various family members. In many cases, "we can decode which one they're thinking about," Just says.​

 

[LCGeek]

NDE are interesting experiences but they bring up too much BS from many angles. No matter what when death comes up you always have some group that has never experienced saying what it most likely is like despite no actual proof for their argument. I see nature life as a state in constant transformation therefore our lives are effected by the same rules that govern the rest of existence. Sure what we are in a focused sense ends but not the things that made us or that led us to our end.

 

[Mad Max]

well, since you can't prove that an actual mirror is on the moon, I guess there isn't one.
/eyerooll

Again, for the record, I believe Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon and that an actual mirror does exist.

My point is that there are some things that can't be proven with absolute certainty. As with the moon landings, NDEs can't ever be proven.


I've never been to France. Does France exist? I certainly believe so. But why should I? Because of the testimonial from other people who 've claimed to have visited France, from the details of their testimony, from newspaper articles, etc... I don't have absolute proof that France exists, but I do believe it with all my heart and mind. If France is fake, then there sure was/is quite a bit of coordination with the various people to pull this off.

The same applies with the notion that the mind exist independently of the brain. Read the books on OOBE, read books on NDEs, have your own experiences, look into the details of people's testimony, and you'll reach the same conclusion that I did - that the mind does exist independent of the brain.

But how do you even know those books aren't just made up, how can you be sure? Were you there, in the persons mind, when they had these experiences?

 

[gkryhewy]

But how do you even know those books aren't just made up, how can you be sure? Were you there, in the persons mind, when they had these experiences?

Further, how can we be totally sure that these books really have been printed? What if he's actually reading Star Trek novels, and hallucinates the content into paranormal pseudoscience?

What a waste of time.

 

[Socreges]

Well, from OP:

I don't have the source, but I assume he's not just making his bullet points up.

Why would you assume that? We can't assume anything. That's why we at least need citation.

Meaning that one is equally, or identically, just as, as much, having the same level of, being as stupid as each other.

He said "qualify", not "define".

My point is that there are some things that can't be proven with absolute certainty. As with the moon landings, NDEs can't ever be proven.

I don't think the two are analogical. If we're going to throw the moon landings in as not being "absolutely certain" and therefore should be approached with the exact same amount of skepticism as NDEs or alien probings or whatever other fictions people like to believe, then let's also forever doubt our own existence.

 

[way more]

My point is that there are some things that can't be proven with absolute certainty. As with the moon landings, NDEs can't ever be proven.

You've stepped off the deep end and are treading in the waters of solipsism. No, we can't prove we are in the Matrix, ergo, we can not prove anything. Yet empirical evidence rests on the bedrock that recorded observations can be independently verified. This is how we know Pluto and electrons exist. Ghosts and such have never been proven therefore we don't accept them.

 

[djtiesto]

This article makes me want to watch Flatliners again. That would be a good movie for a remake.

Heh, I remember that movie, saw it late one night on TV a while back. Pretty low budget but I remember thinking the main concept of the movie was pretty cool. I wouldn't mind seeing another movie explore something like this.

 

[racerx]

But how do you even know those books aren't just made up, how can you be sure? Were you there, in the persons mind, when they had these experiences?

I don't. But just as with France, I've come to believe in the after life after much reading and listening of testimonial. I would be willing to make any bet that both France and the after life exist.

Look, I understand the atheist mindset, I was one for like 20 years. And just about nothing anyone could have told me during that time would have convinced me otherwise. No one consciously chooses to be a believer or an atheist. In the end, everything comes down to personal experience.

Watch "life afterlife". I gave the youtube link in one of my earlier posts. Whether or not you believe in NDEs or OOBEs or ADCs, I think most would agree there is there is something going on that modern science can't adequately explain.

 

[Krowley]

I agree that this guy's evidence is far from being proof, but I find it interesting that these experiences are so conveniently appropriate for the situation.

If you take hallucinogenics, your mind generates completely random experiences. there is usually no way to completely control what kind of hallucinations you will have. Dreams are the same way, most dreams are at least semi incoherent, and almost nobody can control their dreaming mind.

This whole sequence of events.. rising above the body, seeing a light, interacting with dead relatives and seeing a heavenly place is awfully specific and consistent for a brain that is in shock from lack of oxygen. It would seem likely that you would see more cases where people describe random hallucinatory experiences that don't make sense. Why would the brain have such a specific and sensible kind of hallucination right around the time of death? Why would NDE's perfectly fit with the idea of a soul going to another plain of existence? There is no evolutionary pressure for the brain to generate comforting death visions. Obviously when you are on the verge of death, you aren't going to be passing your genes on anymore. Why don't most people just have dreams about giant frogs or exploding teeth or some other random shit when they die.

So basically on this basis alone, I tend to give the NDE more credibility than many other people. Especially when you consider the fact that specifics like meeting dead relatives seem to be very common in all cultures, and even among athiests, and young children that don't have a concept of the afterlife yet. Why would the brain be programmed with such an exact type of experience that even culture and specific religious beliefs don't have much of an influence?

Some people may say that you can generate these experiences with drugs, or brain oxygen deprivation, and my answer would be that maybe this is because depriving your brain of oxygen, or taking certain drugs actually temporarily unhinges your consciousness from your body. that doesn't disprove the phenomenon in any way.

It's one of those unprovable things, but I find it very curious that so many people are so skeptical of it.

edit// I'm skeptical about some things, but I'm inclined to usually say "where there's smoke, there is probably some kind of fire" and it seems that most skeptics are so rabid that they seem to think "You can show me smoke all day, but if I can't see the fire with my own eyes, and touch it and get burned by it, I'm not going to believe it's there".

It was this kind of thinking that made scientists so slow to believe in ideas like continental drift.

Continental drift is a great example actually because there was tons of very strong circumstantial evidence supporting the idea, but for many decades scientists acted like anybody who believed in it were total crackpots. The level of disbelief went well beyond healthy skepticism into the realm of outright illogical denial. NDE's aren't quite as bad because the evidence isn't nearly as strong, but it's strong enough to be interesting.

 

[danwarb]

A functioning brain seems to be pretty vital for any kind of consciousness.

 

[joelseph]

A functioning brain seems to be pretty vital for any kind of consciousness.

All things abstract rely on the brain, it is what creates them.

 

[Krowley]

A functioning brain seems to be pretty vital for any kind of consciousness.

Unless consciousness is not connected to the brain, but is using it like a microprocessor..

Maybe the consciousness is a hard drive of sorts, while the brain is just the CPU and RAM, broadcasting the consciousness.

Maybe that is why some people with dementia can have huge parts of their brain become dysfunctional, but have good days when they are absolutely like their old self, and then lapse again. Maybe the memories and everything are still on the hard drive, but the brains ability to access them is faulty, and as the brain deteriorates, the ability to access the HDD gets worse and worse.

On a religious level, that is basically my own personal view of the soul and consciousness.

 

[theJwac]

I don't understand opinions like this. We have absolutely no idea what happens when people die. Everybody makes a lot of theories, and some may have more basis in science than others, but at the end of the day there's a whole lot about this universe that humans don't even come close to understanding yet.

Emerson, do you have any memories prior to your birth? Do you have any memories prior to your conception?

I do not, nor does anyone else I've asked that question to. There is a correlation between people having a sense of self and existing with having a living physical body. If that body dies what makes you think that you wouldn't go back to that state you were in for all eternity before you were conceived: nothingness.

 

[sneakypete]

Check out What Dreams May Come. Its very relevant.

The same author wrote I am Legend. Both short stores, both awesome.

 

[racerx]

Emerson, do you have any memories prior to your birth? Do you have any memories prior to your conception?

I do not, nor does anyone else I've asked that question to. There is a correlation between people having a sense of self and existing with having a living physical body. If that body dies what makes you think that you wouldn't go back to that state you were in for all eternity before you were conceived: nothingness.

I don't remember anything before my birth. In fact, I don't remember anything during my life before the age of 3 years. Does that mean I didn't exist and I had no thoughts what so ever during that period 0 - 3 years of my life?

Just because you of no memory of an existence before birth, doesn't mean you didn't exist before birth.

There are people who do claim at least the have had prior memories to their current one.

Here is one story of a kid who has memories of world war 2 while in the US navy.

 

[Mudkips]

For more than 10 years, Dr. Long studied thousands of accounts of NDEs and created the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF)

For more than 10 years, Dr. Long has swindled his way into gobs of grant money. Now he's come to us trying to get his name in the paper because someone is thinking about not renewing his grant.

Fixed.

 

[joseph1594]

NDE's aren't proof of an afterlife. NDE's can actually be explained to be one of the crazy things your brain does under extreme trauma and near death. In fact, I think the feeling of a NDE can be replicated in a laboratory, without even having to get someone near death.

 

[theJwac]

I don't remember anything before my birth. In fact, I don't remember anything during my life before the age of 3 years. Does that mean I didn't exist and I had no thoughts what so ever during that period 0 - 3 years of my life?

Just because you of no memory of an existence before birth, doesn't mean you didn't exist before birth.

There are people who do claim at least the have had prior memories to their current one.

Here is one story of a kid who has memories of world war 2 while in the US navy.

Reincarnation != afterlife in the context of the OP post. People who claim to be reincarnated are either lying or delusional.

You bring up an excellent point about not remembering anything prior to being 3 years old. Of course, there is no afterlife, but you've made it clear that I'm the wrong person to try to explain why they believe so. Thankfully, the afterlife will cease to exist regardless of my inability to debate the topic.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

For more than 10 years, Dr. Long has swindled his way into gobs of grant money. Now he's come to us trying to get his name in the paper because someone is thinking about not renewing his grant.

Why would it be a swindle to get a grant to do a study on NDEs? Setting aside the idea of an afterlife, the fact is NDE's are real. What I mean by real is that they happen, people have these experiences and remember them. Are they not worth trying to understand both biologically and psychologically?

 

[danwarb]

Unless consciousness is not connected to the brain, but is using it like a microprocessor..

Maybe the consciousness is a hard drive of sorts, while the brain is just the CPU and RAM, broadcasting the consciousness.

Maybe that is why some people with dementia can have huge parts of their brain become dysfunctional, but have good days when they are absolutely like their old self, and then lapse again. Maybe the memories and everything are still on the hard drive, but the brains ability to access them is faulty, and as the brain deteriorates, the ability to access the HDD gets worse and worse.

On a religious level, that is basically my own personal view of the soul and consciousness.

Long-term memory definitely exists in the brain, we can see its structure change as it learns new things.

Whatever comes after death, I'm pretty sure it isn't anything like 'life' for the individual, since all of our senses are part of our bodies and need to be processed by our living brains.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Can we establish that anyone clinging to any shred of hope of this article being true is taking the creationist/religious view of things? I can't mesh any of this nonsense with science fact. PEACE.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I agree that this guy's evidence is far from being proof, but I find it interesting that these experiences are so conveniently appropriate for the situation.

If you take hallucinogenics, your mind generates completely random experiences. there is usually no way to completely control what kind of hallucinations you will have. Dreams are the same way, most dreams are at least semi incoherent, and almost nobody can control their dreaming mind.

This whole sequence of events.. rising above the body, seeing a light, interacting with dead relatives and seeing a heavenly place is awfully specific and consistent for a brain that is in shock from lack of oxygen. It would seem likely that you would see more cases where people describe random hallucinatory experiences that don't make sense. Why would the brain have such a specific and sensible kind of hallucination right around the time of death? Why would NDE's perfectly fit with the idea of a soul going to another plain of existence? There is no evolutionary pressure for the brain to generate comforting death visions. Obviously when you are on the verge of death, you aren't going to be passing your genes on anymore. Why don't most people just have dreams about giant frogs or exploding teeth or some other random shit when they die.

So basically on this basis alone, I tend to give the NDE more credibility than many other people. Especially when you consider the fact that specifics like meeting dead relatives seem to be very common in all cultures, and even among athiests, and young children that don't have a concept of the afterlife yet. Why would the brain be programmed with such an exact type of experience that even culture and specific religious beliefs don't have much of an influence?

Some people may say that you can generate these experiences with drugs, or brain oxygen deprivation, and my answer would be that maybe this is because depriving your brain of oxygen, or taking certain drugs actually temporarily unhinges your consciousness from your body. that doesn't disprove the phenomenon in any way.

It's one of those unprovable things, but I find it very curious that so many people are so skeptical of it.

edit// I'm skeptical about some things, but I'm inclined to usually say "where there's smoke, there is probably some kind of fire" and it seems that most skeptics are so rabid that they seem to think "You can show me smoke all day, but if I can't see the fire with my own eyes, and touch it and get burned by it, I'm not going to believe it's there".

It was this kind of thinking that made scientists so slow to believe in ideas like continental drift.

Continental drift is a great example actually because there was tons of very strong circumstantial evidence supporting the idea, but for many decades scientists acted like anybody who believed in it were total crackpots. The level of disbelief went well beyond healthy skepticism into the realm of outright illogical denial. NDE's aren't quite as bad because the evidence isn't nearly as strong, but it's strong enough to be interesting.

Or, your brain doesn't function properly. Your brain can't recall memories correctly, and is not properly interpreting what your senses are reporting. I figure its something like schizophrenia when you start to die.

In a way to counter the argument you so brilliantly played: I find it so curious you give this conscious drifting theory so much credence.

 

[Dresden]

If you want to believe that, sure go ahead. But testimonial evidence shows people are aware of things that they shouldn't be aware of.

Testimonial evidence also led people to believe they were abused by Satanists when they were children, back in the 90's. :lol

It's just too open for abuse by anyone with an agenda. Ask some leading questions and there goes your credibility.

 

[Eteric Rice]

edit: I've always kind of entertained the idea in the back of my head that our brains/bodies are just a biological 'interface' and that spirit or consciousness is actually projected onto it like a film onto a screen. Basically the conditions are optimal to support this event, the body acts as a medium through which to 'conduct' the spirit, but they may not be entirely dependant upon each other.

I've always thought of something similar. Sort of like our bodies are here to interface with the world we're in.

I've also thought that if there is a God, he wouldn't need to directly intervene to change an event, but simply change the variables that leads to the specific event. So it's not like God would need to show himself, he could simply change things from behind the curtain and we wouldn't even know anything had changed.

He might be manipulating events in time and we wouldn't even know. :O

 

[trinest]

My take is what was said to be "evidence" dosn't prove anything- its just interesting. More research is needed.