Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: roarer on 13/08/2006 09:26:00
-
I am submitting this post on this forum because recently here on Australian TV a program was shown on this subject and where it was shown that scientific experiments are being carried out in Canada and perhaps other places regarding this what may be described as a natural phenomenon and which occurs initially within the brain upon the cessation of life. A further conclusion is that the brain is reacting naturally in a way as to make dying (for the human being as tranquil and as unstressful as possible). Thereafter the scientific conclusion continues....once death is established..there is a nothingness...a void.
There is one qualification however where some who had NDE experiences were of the "demonic" nature which can be described as perhaps a vision of hell. However the majority experienced "tranquil" NDE's. My theory (ah yes and yet another) is that the people who experience demonic NDE's are being treated (not unlike others who experience "tranquil" NDE's) by drugs by medical staff (for the purpose of bringing them back to life) and that these particular people are effected by these drugs (due to some allergy to them which is medically unkown) and where it seriously and psychologically distorts this natural phenomenon which prevents them from experiencing a "tranquil" NDE and instead they experience some sort of "psychidelic" effect.
These experiments do raise some questions rather than answer them.
As the whole world revolves around logical argument...if death results in nothingness and voidness what would be the point of nature in making the initial effort in embellishing the "road to death" when the outcome is nothingness anyway? Alternatively...why not a sudden void......sudden nothingness?
On the evidence we have presently therefore, is that the natural processes of embellishing death is for the purpose of a....void outcome.......a pointless exercise! My conclusion is that nature does not act in a pointless fashion.
It must follow therefore that these scientific experiments are not proving or disproving an "afterlife" They are merely reinforcing, by circumstantial evidence and logic....that there may be an "afterlife"
-
These experiments probably neither prove nor disprove anything, but neither do I believe that your interpretation is correct.
The human body is a complex system, and it does not have an 'off' switch – death does not come about because all of a sudden someone pulls the power cable for the human body, it comes about because the human body and mind are overwhelmed and bit by bit begin to fail. At a cellular level, and to a substantial degree at the organ level, there is a clear and consistent progression of the sequences in which this failure occurs. Clearly, some of the simpler systems will survive longer, and the more complex systems will fail sooner. Also, the body will try and put greater efforts to protect some of the core systems than some of the peripheral systems.
The pain system clearly is there as an early warning of danger in order to allow the body to respond to that danger. When the body is already severely damaged, is is a little too late for early warning systems to be of use. The body at that time does not need early warning, it needs damage control and repair systems to be the priority. Ultimately, if that damage control and repair fails, then there is no hope left, but long before that happens, the early warning systems start to become redundant (particularly since many of the escape systems that they would have triggered are already so compromised that the body no longer has any means of responding to that warning anyway).
George
-
where do you sign up for the near death experimentation? Im looking for some extra cash.
-
yes I wholly agree Another_Someone that the body does "progressively" (for want of a better word) die....but there remains valid questions to this...and one is "Why does nature (as this seems to be a natural phenomenon) take the trouble to warn us in anticipation (of this "progressive death") by way of an NDE (as you are implying that this is that warning) when the outcome is just voidness ? For example...why not the alternative......."a progressive death"...but in the absence of any anticipatory warning.
This is like someone who jumps off a very high bridge in order to commit suicide into a river and you come along in a helicopter beside him (whilst he is on the way down) and telling him..."listen buddy you are going to die when you hit that river" I think you get the gist.
-
Interesting topic! I am going to listen in if you all don't mind!!
Karen
-
This forum requires an immense amount of analytical thinking by the contributors in order to credibly commence a, or respond to,topics. Now that Karen the moderator has nudged it along...I remain unresponded to it unless my last post is challenged. And this is where it gets hard....and that analytical thinking comes in. This is the beauty of a forum like this.....one mind is never enough!! It takes many minds...but there must be challenges otherwise that advantage is lost.
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
yes I wholly agree Another_Someone that the body does "progressively" (for want of a better word) die....but there remains valid questions to this...and one is "Why does nature (as this seems to be a natural phenomenon) take the trouble to warn us in anticipation (of this "progressive death") by way of an NDE (as you are implying that this is that warning) when the outcome is just voidness ? For example...why not the alternative......."a progressive death"...but in the absence of any anticipatory warning.
This is like someone who jumps off a very high bridge in order to commit suicide into a river and you come along in a helicopter beside him (whilst he is on the way down) and telling him..."listen buddy you are going to die when you hit that river" I think you get the gist.
I don't think I was saying that an NDE is a warning, but rather that it is a failure to warn.
The warning systems are the pain that you feel when you get a serious trauma. What I was saying is not like a helicopter trying to shout to you that you are about to die, but rather it is like the man standing beside you on the bridge telling you that you are going to die if you jump off the bridge, but after you jump, the sound of that man becomes fainter and fainter until you fail to hear him at all.
George
-
Hi George so good to see you back!! I was headed to bed when I thought I should stop and see where this topic has led...
So I thought I would say; I have had 3 near death experiences 4 if you want to include incident drowning as a child.. at which time I felt the same thing although I don't believe my heart stopped on the latter water experience! I only recall bits and peices of what I felt during the time I was gone if you will from my body! I can only tell you I came away with a profound knowledge of God or spirituality or whatever you choose to use for your own expression of God. I was 6 months old the first experience. Within a short time, 24 hours or more time and shifts of sugical staff I was pronounced dead three times. I won't go into details, you can look up in previous posts if you would like to read more, but I find this topic interesting as I don't find it a lesson or warning as there was no fear, but an oportunitiy to learn more and grow.. in the knowledge that there is so much more.I had really not thought about warning systems until last october and again a couple weeks ago.. Your body has a great system of nerves and capacity to feel and respond to sickness and changes inside you, which act like an indicator of atmosheric readings for you to acknowledge what your internal organs are telling you and how your body is working...That is if you so choose to listen to your body! A couple weeks ago I was very stressed and not doing well mentally due to such stress. In my absent minded state I went many days forgetting to take my meds... I have a heart problem a murmur left from my congenital heart problems.. two rounds of open heart surgery! So needless to say I had developed an infection without knowing after a recent surgery, and had alot of water build up around my heart.. I noticed some weird things and took myself to the doctor.. He was very angry with me and immediately started a series of antibiotics and water pills and moitored me closely.. Greatfully I had a friend who insisted that I get checked, I listened for the first time in my life and if I hadn't I wouldn't be here today! I am still whipped tired as messing with the ticker seems to wear your tail feathers out! I thought I was catching a bug!! Anyway my body was slapping me in the face with warnings, but I was not taking them seriously! Pain is serious warning to get help! THats all beside the point I have a definite opinion for myself and what I KNOW to be my own self absolute truth in this area... But I will say science should go hand in hand with spirtuality as we have these incrdeible bodies that are capable of such understanding and knowledge..that I believe we were meant to have knowledge and use it to help ourselves and others. We need to listen learn and explore untill we find the anwers what ever they may be for ourselves, My answer may not be yours, but for myself it is my absolute truth. I am not a debaiter, but I do like to hear all the sides.. and find life facinating to behold!! Please do go on as I find both sides very intrigueing! I'll not take sides LOL!!
Karen
-
Telling someone s/he is going to die PRIOR to jumping off a bridge is BEFORE THE FACT of death. The NDE is NOT before the fact of death..but rather, and this is at worst case scenario, DURING the fact of death....where the hospital staff in the ER is using shock and/or other implements, some drugs, to restore the essential bodily functions to normal. This is when the patient has NO HEARBEAT where s/he is TECHNICALLY dead.... or where s/he has ALREADY jumped off that bridge..is either dead...or on the way to death
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
Telling someone s/he is going to die PRIOR to jumping off a bridge is BEFORE THE FACT of death. The NDE is NOT before the fact of death..but rather, and this is at worst case scenario, DURING the fact of death....where the hospital staff in the ER is using shock and/or other implements, some drugs, to restore the essential bodily functions to normal. This is when the patient has NO HEARBEAT where s/he is TECHNICALLY dead.... or where s/he has ALREADY jumped off that bridge..is either dead...or on the way to death
The fact that it is referred to as a Near Death Experience might just hint at the fact that an NDE is not actually during death, but close to death.
Semantics aside, yes I did understand what your analogy meant, and that the NDE was the process of falling.
What I was saying was that the NDE was in effect a loss of reality, a loss of contact with the guy who is telling you are in danger. The NDE is not a danger signal, it is the loss of danger signals.
George
-
Nice points George!
Karen
-
This forum requires an immense amount of analytical thinking by the contributors in order to credibly commence a, or respond to,topics. Now that Karen the moderator has nudged it along...I remain unresponded to it unless my last post is challenged. And this is where it gets hard....and that analytical thinking comes in. This is the beauty of a forum like this.....one mind is never enough!! It takes many minds...but there must be challenges otherwise that advantage is lost.
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
yes I wholly agree Another_Someone that the body does "progressively" (for want of a better word) die....but there remains valid questions to this...and one is "Why does nature (as this seems to be a natural phenomenon) take the trouble to warn us in anticipation (of this "progressive death") by way of an NDE (as you are implying that this is that warning) when the outcome is just voidness ? For example...why not the alternative......."a progressive death"...but in the absence of any anticipatory warning.
This is like someone who jumps off a very high bridge in order to commit suicide into a river and you come along in a helicopter beside him (whilst he is on the way down) and telling him..."listen buddy you are going to die when you hit that river" I think you get the gist.
I don't think I was saying that an NDE is a warning, but rather that it is a failure to warn.
The warning systems are the pain that you feel when you get a serious trauma. What I was saying is not like a helicopter trying to shout to you that you are about to die, but rather it is like the man standing beside you on the bridge telling you that you are going to die if you jump off the bridge, but after you jump, the sound of that man becomes fainter and fainter until you fail to hear him at all.
George
-
Telling someone s/he is going to die PRIOR to jumping off a bridge is BEFORE THE FACT of death. The NDE is NOT before the fact of death..but rather, and this is at worst case scenario, DURING the fact of death....where the hospital staff in the ER is using shock and/or other implements, some drugs, to restore the essential bodily functions to normal. This is when the patient has NO HEARBEAT where s/he is TECHNICALLY dead.... or where s/he has ALREADY jumped off that bridge..is either dead...or on the way to death
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
Telling someone s/he is going to die PRIOR to jumping off a bridge is BEFORE THE FACT of death. The NDE is NOT before the fact of death..but rather, and this is at worst case scenario, DURING the fact of death....where the hospital staff in the ER is using shock and/or other implements, some drugs, to restore the essential bodily functions to normal. This is when the patient has NO HEARBEAT where s/he is TECHNICALLY dead.... or where s/he has ALREADY jumped off that bridge..is either dead...or on the way to death
The fact that it is referred to as a Near Death Experience might just hint at the fact that an NDE is not actually during death, but close to death.
Semantics aside, yes I did understand what your analogy meant, and that the NDE was the process of falling.
What I was saying was that the NDE was in effect a loss of reality, a loss of contact with the guy who is telling you are in danger. The NDE is not a danger signal, it is the loss of danger signals.
George
-
Nice points George!
Karen
-
Now I see...what you are saying is that quote'"the NDE is a loss of danger signals" end quote. If I understand that correctly then this means that you think that the NDE (as in concurrence with many skeptics) is a naturally occuring calming effect just prior to death for the purpose of sliding us into that death in the absence of any stress (mental or otherwise.).
I am not religious..I was brought up a Catholic..but I have not been to any religious functions for years...some 30 years or more...I do not believe in ANY religion whatsoever. I think that they actually DIVIDE rather than unite their populations. On top of that nature has equipped the human with a conscience and the capability to know right from wrong...and that is all that is required. Instructions from religions regarding rights and wrongs etc are in my view superfluous.In addition as the instructions are given my human beings they are open to misrepresentation and/or misinterpretation...and may be wholly incorrect.
I do believe however that there is life after death and that some supernatural being (we call God) does exist if only in name only.And the NDE is but a glance into it.
-
It is certainly a glance into that! I agree on that point from my experiences!!
Karen
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
Now I see...what you are saying is that quote'"the NDE is a loss of danger signals" end quote. If I understand that correctly then this means that you think that the NDE (as in concurrence with many skeptics) is a naturally occuring calming effect just prior to death
Yes.
quote:
for the purpose of sliding us into that death in the absence of any stress (mental or otherwise.).
No – I am not suggesting any particular 'purpose' – merely an absence of any contrary purpose (i.e. the body is so far damaged that there is no longer any point in retaining the danger signals, and in any case, the lines of communications themselves are already severely damaged – thus the calming effect is an incidental by-product rather than a deliberate purpose).
quote:
I do believe however that there is life after death and that some supernatural being (we call God) does exist if only in name only.And the NDE is but a glance into it.
It is a common view by some people on the process.
I do not share your view, but neither will I attempt to dissuade you from the view.
What I was trying to show was the physical processes that lead to an NDE experience - if you also believe there is a parallel spiritual process that is separate from the physical, I will leave that up to you.
George
-
AS....I believe that the following is the crux of your disagreement with me:
I believe that nature and all within it....is in existance for a PURPOSE. When I say nature I do NOT only mean..the sun...the moon...stars..the sea.....but all flora and fauna and the way the human being THINKS and ACTS FREELY but within the context of his/her EMOTIONS which is an extremely important facet of nature which is instilled into the human and within this context one must include the NDE. So nature INCLUDES everything which is in EXISTANCE on this planet. When you said that the NDE is not there for any particular purpose.....I wholly disagree. There is a purpose.....all we have to do is to find it
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
When you said that the NDE is not there for any particular purpose.....I wholly disagree. There is a purpose.....all we have to do is to find it
OK, I have thought about this a bit more, and there is at least one circumstance where I can think this might have a benefit, not to the individual, but to the collective species or herd.
If an individual animal is in danger, particularly if it is a young animal in the proximity of its mother, then it will let out a cry for help so that its mother may come to its assistance. Once the young animal is already so damaged that there is little hope of its mother being able to afford it help, it makes sense to cease the alarm calls, since it is unlikely that its mother can any longer save its life, but the continued alarm calls may cause the mother to unnecessarily endanger its own life.
In some societies, such as human society, there is an even wider network of mutual protection, and thus the calming effect of the NDE may well be a way for the dying person to accept their own death, and to cease asking for help from others to afford it protection, and thus cease asking others to continue to endanger their own lives in order to afford that futile attempt to save its life.
And just thinking a little more along these lines, I was wondering if maybe this had some similarity to the processes involved in PTSD and depression – except that in these cases, there is no immediate threat to life, and the process kicks in too early, but the victim nonetheless feels they are beyond help and ceases to help themselves, or ask for help from others. In the case of PTSD, some people do respond by developing a similar sense of separation from the traumatic situation (even if the trauma is more psychological than physical) that an NDE victim feels, as if looking at the situation from the outside, and thus seeing the situation as if it was happening to someone else.
George
-
I come to this from a different point of view. I do not believe in a God who acts and controls the universe outside of the laws of physics in any way and I do not believe in any form of afterlife because it is totally illogical and pointless. Death is an essential part of life and evolution. Without death and replacement change is impossible and change is essential for survival in a changing environment. However I do believe in Religion as an essential part of making good life decisions and am a regular churchgoer begause the symbology of an all seeing all knowing God is in my mind one of the best and simplest models for a succesful collective life plan.
I am lucky in that I have not yet had any near death experiences myself but have occasionslly hurt mydelf quite badly and note when this happens, there is little or no initial pain and the body shuts down various systems for a while. The pain only appears later to stop you moving things while the healing process is taking place. My guess is that near death experiences are related to this process of anesthesia. A bit like being put under for an operation (although this tends to happen reather quickly) except that you just don't wake up.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
Now I see...what you are saying is that quote'"the NDE is a loss of danger signals" end quote. If I understand that correctly then this means that you think that the NDE (as in concurrence with many skeptics) is a naturally occuring calming effect just prior to death for the purpose of sliding us into that death in the absence of any stress (mental or otherwise.).
I am not religious..I was brought up a Catholic..but I have not been to any religious functions for years...some 30 years or more...I do not believe in ANY religion whatsoever. I think that they actually DIVIDE rather than unite their populations. On top of that nature has equipped the human with a conscience and the capability to know right from wrong...and that is all that is required. Instructions from religions regarding rights and wrongs etc are in my view superfluous.In addition as the instructions are given my human beings they are open to misrepresentation and/or misinterpretation...and may be wholly incorrect.
I do believe however that there is life after death and that some supernatural being (we call God) does exist if only in name only.And the NDE is but a glance into it.
-
It is certainly a glance into that! I agree on that point from my experiences!!
Karen
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
Now I see...what you are saying is that quote'"the NDE is a loss of danger signals" end quote. If I understand that correctly then this means that you think that the NDE (as in concurrence with many skeptics) is a naturally occuring calming effect just prior to death
Yes.
quote:
for the purpose of sliding us into that death in the absence of any stress (mental or otherwise.).
No – I am not suggesting any particular 'purpose' – merely an absence of any contrary purpose (i.e. the body is so far damaged that there is no longer any point in retaining the danger signals, and in any case, the lines of communications themselves are already severely damaged – thus the calming effect is an incidental by-product rather than a deliberate purpose).
quote:
I do believe however that there is life after death and that some supernatural being (we call God) does exist if only in name only.And the NDE is but a glance into it.
It is a common view by some people on the process.
I do not share your view, but neither will I attempt to dissuade you from the view.
What I was trying to show was the physical processes that lead to an NDE experience - if you also believe there is a parallel spiritual process that is separate from the physical, I will leave that up to you.
George
-
AS....I believe that the following is the crux of your disagreement with me:
I believe that nature and all within it....is in existance for a PURPOSE. When I say nature I do NOT only mean..the sun...the moon...stars..the sea.....but all flora and fauna and the way the human being THINKS and ACTS FREELY but within the context of his/her EMOTIONS which is an extremely important facet of nature which is instilled into the human and within this context one must include the NDE. So nature INCLUDES everything which is in EXISTANCE on this planet. When you said that the NDE is not there for any particular purpose.....I wholly disagree. There is a purpose.....all we have to do is to find it
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
When you said that the NDE is not there for any particular purpose.....I wholly disagree. There is a purpose.....all we have to do is to find it
OK, I have thought about this a bit more, and there is at least one circumstance where I can think this might have a benefit, not to the individual, but to the collective species or herd.
If an individual animal is in danger, particularly if it is a young animal in the proximity of its mother, then it will let out a cry for help so that its mother may come to its assistance. Once the young animal is already so damaged that there is little hope of its mother being able to afford it help, it makes sense to cease the alarm calls, since it is unlikely that its mother can any longer save its life, but the continued alarm calls may cause the mother to unnecessarily endanger its own life.
In some societies, such as human society, there is an even wider network of mutual protection, and thus the calming effect of the NDE may well be a way for the dying person to accept their own death, and to cease asking for help from others to afford it protection, and thus cease asking others to continue to endanger their own lives in order to afford that futile attempt to save its life.
And just thinking a little more along these lines, I was wondering if maybe this had some similarity to the processes involved in PTSD and depression – except that in these cases, there is no immediate threat to life, and the process kicks in too early, but the victim nonetheless feels they are beyond help and ceases to help themselves, or ask for help from others. In the case of PTSD, some people do respond by developing a similar sense of separation from the traumatic situation (even if the trauma is more psychological than physical) that an NDE victim feels, as if looking at the situation from the outside, and thus seeing the situation as if it was happening to someone else.
George
-
I come to this from a different point of view. I do not believe in a God who acts and controls the universe outside of the laws of physics in any way and I do not believe in any form of afterlife because it is totally illogical and pointless. Death is an essential part of life and evolution. Without death and replacement change is impossible and change is essential for survival in a changing environment. However I do believe in Religion as an essential part of making good life decisions and am a regular churchgoer begause the symbology of an all seeing all knowing God is in my mind one of the best and simplest models for a succesful collective life plan.
I am lucky in that I have not yet had any near death experiences myself but have occasionslly hurt mydelf quite badly and note when this happens, there is little or no initial pain and the body shuts down various systems for a while. The pain only appears later to stop you moving things while the healing process is taking place. My guess is that near death experiences are related to this process of anesthesia. A bit like being put under for an operation (although this tends to happen reather quickly) except that you just don't wake up.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
Heaven and hell must exist, because I'm posting from hell right now (detroit, michigan)
-
the "near death experience" experience has been felt by pilots exposed to incredible G-forces. they usually black out or "gray" out, and have "spiritual" experiences, even though they arent in particular danger of dying.
logic wins again!
-
LOL to Bostjan.
Can I throw in a couple of pennies now ?
If someone is dieing from an illness or from natural causes, then at some stage unconsciousness prevails before the body totally shuts down.
Keeping conscious expels a lot of energy and so consciousness goes bye-bye as the body weakens and continues to turn off.
Seems like a perfectly viable progression of events to me.
I tell you, I would much rather prefer to lose consciousness before dieing than be conscious while the body systematically turns off.
As far as NDE's...well...loss of oxygen just makes your mind drunk and you just wither away into a dream land.....Those who recover, just regain their consciousness like waking up !
In MY opinion.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
You know this is the first forum..and I mean the FIRST forum (and I have been on many) that I find really challenging. You people are good.....sorry...excellent in your analyses. The moderator...Another_Someone..you may have hit the nail of the NDE on the head. I have always believed that the NDE is a "glance" in the afterlife as I believe in it...however now I am not so sure after Another Someone afforded us his/her theory of the purpose of that NDE. And it does sound so plausable as I believe nature is there NOT to GUARANTEE the survival of the human (it cannot do that).. but to.MAXIMISE the chances of that survival. And it does this by a complex system of incentives as distinct from that of forcing the human to enact certain things or in a certain way. And the theory that the NDE is there to quote "safeguard the human species" wholly satisfies this theory.
-
This is a great site and the people are great! we hope you stay and explore further!
Karen
-
I don't know if I'm gona get banned for this, but roarer u chat SHIZZZZZZZZ m8.
religion has nothing to do wiv any of it, u die and then ur gone FULL STOP . but b4 u get to the death part u have ure NDE. so da NDE doesnt have anythin 2 do wiv goin anywhere else at all, cos your souls still inside ure body, get me?. and your making it like a argument more than what you think on the subject, youre just a bored gobshiAHEM.
Off tha topic now once youve properley crossed over into wonderland then your dead, and can't be brought back, I think anyway. No-one will never know what happens after you die, because the people who do know this are dead. So really its not even worth thinkin about that untill we meet our makers..an speaking of religion agen I tell u what im goin 2 smash god (if he does exist) in the face for making the world such a dump :)
-
quote:
Originally posted by ScouseLad
I don't know if I'm gona get banned for this, but roarer u chat SHIZZZZZZZZ m8.
You will not get banned - people have done worse, even if it does not reflect well on them.
quote:
religion has nothing to do wiv any of it, u die and then ur gone FULL STOP . but b4 u get to the death part u have ure NDE. so da NDE doesnt have anythin 2 do wiv goin anywhere else at all, cos your souls still inside ure body, get me?. and your making it like a argument more than what you think on the subject, youre just a bored gobshiAHEM.
Off tha topic now once youve properley crossed over into wonderland then your dead, and can't be brought back, I think anyway. No-one will never know what happens after you die, because the people who do know this are dead. So really its not even worth thinkin about that untill we meet our makers..an speaking of religion agen I tell u what im goin 2 smash god (if he does exist) in the face for making the world such a dump :)
The point is that the above is as much as statement of belief as any contrary view. What we were trying to do was put some rationality behind that belief, and not merely to state is as a belief.
Simply say 'this is how it is' is not a rational position. Saying this is why it is so becomes a rational position. It is true that no position can be absent of axioms, but at least one can seek to minimise those axioms, and from those minimum axioms to build a rational infrastructure.
George
-
I am writing a feature about near death experiences for a women's consumer magazine. If anyone on here has had an NDE that they would be willing to discuss for the magazine please email me on dawn@tonicmagazine.co.uk.
-
I have another theory fellas...so hear me out. What IF....what IF....there is really an afterlife...a life in "soul" mode where you can travel to anywhere in milliseconds....no pain exists...no mortgage payments exist..you never become thirsty..you never become hungry. you have no need for money.... no diseases exist.....in short you are in eternal blissful life...a life which is the diametric opposite to this life in "body" mode..where there is pain..where diseases exists....etc etc.
Now what IF....nature...aha..there is that again....AT ALL COSTS and deliberately prevents you the human from learning about this life. What if this is "nature's work"...that we either are prevented from learning about this other life.....or that we plainly disbelieve it?
And why would nature deliberately do this?
I shall simply ask this. What would occur should it be PROVEN that there is a another life after death in soul mode (as described above)
Well..what may occur is that perhaps many millions..if not billions of people...in an act of desperation shall commit SUICIDE...in order to have a better life..in the afterlife. This goes against nature's purpose..that is to MAXIMISE the chances of the human being's survival on this planet.
-
I have another theory which relates to this topic.
What if....an afterlife really exists....in a "soul mode" where travelling takes milliseconds to accomplish...where there is the non-existance of pain...hunger...thirst..disease...cruelity....mortgage payments.....and no need for any financial resources whatsover to survive.....in short a life of unmitigated bliss as it is unknown to us in "body mode" and as espoused by the various religions ?
And...what if this..shall we call it..an extraordinary "afterlife"? can be CONCLUSIVELY AND SCIENTIFICALLY proven..what would occur?
Well under these circumstances I would estimate that many millions...perhaps billions would want to EXPERIENCE such a life (of bliss) (as compared to certain desperate and dire situations which the human species experience from time to time in "body mode"). And there is only one way to do so....and that would be via death....perhaps by suicide.
As nature's purpose is to maximise the chances of survival of the human species and in view of that prospect of death by suicide..it would be in the human species' interests in order to maximise that chance of survival for it to remain permanently ignorant and be disbelieving of that "afterlife" In effect that doubt is preventing the extinction of the human species.
Perhaps this continuing doubt where this 'afterlife" shall NEVER be conclusively proven is part of the natural processes for the purpose as stated above.
Would nature be ingenious like no other in this case?
P.S. I think that there is a misconception on this forum that I am religious or that I connect religion with this topic. This is wholly incorrect.
I was brought up a Catholic however I am not religious nor do I believe in ANY religion. I do believe however in that suprnatural being we deem as God...who I think is abstract but whose tangible"'weapon" is what we call.....nature.
-
I like your opinion and have a great deal of respect for it.. I think we as humans have a long long way to go before we are able to fully comprehend all that our universe and bodies entail, but I too believe in a God.. I also believe that we control most of our own destiny to an extent and that we have been given the ability to use our brain in a way that was meant to guide us through knowledge, trial and error etc.
Karen
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
I have another theory fellas...so hear me out. What IF....what IF....there is really an afterlife...a life in "soul" mode where you can travel to anywhere in milliseconds....no pain exists...no mortgage payments exist..you never become thirsty..you never become hungry. you have no need for money.... no diseases exist.....in short you are in eternal blissful life...a life which is the diametric opposite to this life in "body" mode..where there is pain..where diseases exists....etc etc.
Now what IF....nature...aha..there is that again....AT ALL COSTS and deliberately prevents you the human from learning about this life. What if this is "nature's work"...that we either are prevented from learning about this other life.....or that we plainly disbelieve it?
And why would nature deliberately do this?
I shall simply ask this. What would occur should it be PROVEN that there is a another life after death in soul mode (as described above)
Well..what may occur is that perhaps many millions..if not billions of people...in an act of desperation shall commit SUICIDE...in order to have a better life..in the afterlife. This goes against nature's purpose..that is to MAXIMISE the chances of the human being's survival on this planet.
Some very big IFs.
Firstly, if nature prevents us from learning about it, then how can you prove is, or even say anything about it – it would be unnatural to do so.
Science is the art of explaining the observable. If we speculate upon scenarios that by their nature are unobservable in any way, then we are left with an infinity of possibilities, and no way to discriminate between them. It is certainly possible that any one of these unobservable scenarios may be the correct scenario, but how would we ever be capable of determining which one of these infinite scenarios is the correct one. Our ability to discriminate between all the infinite possibilities must rely upon that which we can sense (i.e. that which allows us to learn about, and not which nature prevents us from learning about).
Secondly, I actually do not agree with you that if there was this supposed afterlife, everyone would commit suicide.
People choose to live for many reasons, and avoidance of pain and suffering is not in most cases the primary one. Women are willing to give birth, despite that birth can be a very painful experience. If avoidance of pain was their primary motive in life, why would they give birth? Is not the one thing you have excluded in your picture of the afterlife the ability to give birth, to rear children?
Thirdly, if you think about the 'soul' as some part of us that lives on beyond the life of our body, then you also have to put some thought into how this soul would live within our body while we are alive? How does the soul relate to our understanding of the mind and the brain? How does the soul relate even to our notions of atomic physics, and its relationship to the human body (or even the soul of non-human entities – would they exist?)? And finally, how does the human soul, which as I understand you is separate from the human body, relate to the ageing processes of the human body (I am not talking about the wrinkling of the skin, but rather the ageing process by which the mind of a baby changes to the mind of an adolescent, and later the mind of an ever more mature adult, and maybe ultimately leading to dementia – where is the soul in all of this)?
George
-
going strictly on science, this is very simple to explain. your memories are stored in your brain. your brain is made of material. it is scientifiaclly held that memories are material. anything your immaterial self would experience without the brain is not stored as memories in the brain.
with this in mind, it is easy to conclude that any scientific explanation of a near death experience must be a dream-like hallucination of the brain.
anything deduced from religious axia such as the existance of an eternal soul or as the existance of an afterlife may be impossible to argue, as the antecedent is stated in such a way that can neither be proven nor disproven
-
[Some very big IFs.
Firstly, if nature prevents us from learning about it, then how can you prove is, or even say anything about it – it would be unnatural to do so.
AS..this can be explained quite credibly. We are NOT supposed to know about that "afterlife". However since the early 70's when resuscitation techniques were improved in bringing people "back from the dead"..these NDE's were occuring in a major way. You see bringing people back from the dead is UNNATURAL in itself! When someone dies..nature dictates that s/he should REMAIN dead..not brought back to life
-
im so sick of this "nature dictates" garbage. humans ARE NATURE. any advances we make medically are not "unnatural". you say that bringing people back with resuccitation is unnatural; the logical extension of this is that all medical practice is "unnatural". in fact, having the chicken bone squeezed out of your throat is unnatural! if you choked on it, its NATURAL for you to die. cutting off part of your breast to keep cancer from spreading is unnatural: nature dictates humans should remain with their breasts throughout life.
-
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
im so sick of this "nature dictates" garbage. humans ARE NATURE. any advances we make medically are not "unnatural". you say that bringing people back with resuccitation is unnatural; the logical extension of this is that all medical practice is "unnatural". in fact, having the chicken bone squeezed out of your throat is unnatural! if you choked on it, its NATURAL for you to die. cutting off part of your breast to keep cancer from spreading is unnatural: nature dictates humans should remain with their breasts throughout life.
I think that Leonard's (roarer) way of expressing himself is a little imprecise, but I think his intention can probably be better expressed by saying “what was within the realms of possibility until recent times. I do agree that the fact that humans have extended what is possible does not make it unnatural for them to have done so.
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
AS..this can be explained quite credibly. We are NOT supposed to know about that "afterlife". However since the early 70's when resuscitation techniques were improved in bringing people "back from the dead"..these NDE's were occuring in a major way. You see bringing people back from the dead is UNNATURAL in itself! When someone dies..nature dictates that s/he should REMAIN dead..not brought back to life
I don't think that near death experiences are new. It is certainly true that recent medical advances have allowed recovery from a far wider range of life threatening conditions, and so the number of people who have experienced NDE's has increased, but there are situations throughout time where people (and no doubt other animals) have survived extraordinary situations (e.g. remaining underwater for a matter of hours).
I have also suggested (as has been done by others) that much of what is involved in NDE's (i.e. the loss of pain, the sense of detachment from your environment) is similar in nature to the shock response people have in much lesser trauma.
It is also a contradiction to both call it a near death experience, and to talk about bringing people back from the dead (as if they were some sort of zombie, or Frankenstein's monster).
What we are doing is creating conditions where people can survive ever greater degrees of trauma. This may colloquially be regarded by some as 'bringing them back from the dead', and while that may be a very dramatic way of phrasing it, it is not at all technically accurate; we cannot bring anyone back from the dead.
You have not yet explained what it is that is 'brought back from the dead'? You have referred above to a "soul mode", but how does this “soul mode” relate to the living body?
George
-
Well AS..in a modern ER in any hospital and in any country...it is actually documented that numerous times per week....under emergency conditions...patients die and are brought back to life by modern resuscitation. What is brought back from the dead? The body is brought back from the dead!! Under these conditions.....the heart stops COMPLETELY....whereby the brain is being STARVED from oxygen.This is technically....DEATH!! The ER team have only a limited time to resuscitate the patient lest beyond a certain point...s/he cannot be brought back. As contrary to that as implied by a poster..I am not condemning modern medicine for going against nature....I am simply stating that nature...which permits the human species to live in liberty under a policy of "free will"....could not forsee and/or prevent (because of that policy) the capability of the human to IMPROVE resuscitation methods to a point whereby perhaps that "afterlife" (which nature itself perhaps prevents the human species from experiencing) can be "accessed". That is what I meant by "unnatural"
-
If you define death as when the heart isn't beating, you are technically dead something like 80% of the time when you are at rest. Although I think there were one or two cases of reported resuscitation after ceasation of brain function, but they could be in error or who knows.
-
Well Bastjan..if we commence to split hairs as to when a person is REALLY and technically dead..we'll never finish the debate. Not even modern medicine can tell you that...as yet!! It is impossible for a heart to stop beating and for that person to remain conscious. How can that occur? I am not an expert on anatomy...but I do know that the heart is the generator of the body. If it stops for a certain period (I think that it is about 3 to 5 minutes) there is a good chance that the person may have brain damage (due to lack of oxygen). What you have mentioned are extremely rare cases.
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
I am not condemning modern medicine for going against nature....I am simply stating that nature...which permits the human species to live in liberty under a policy of "free will"....could not forsee and/or prevent (because of that policy) the capability of the human to IMPROVE resuscitation methods to a point whereby perhaps that "afterlife" (which nature itself perhaps prevents the human species from experiencing) can be "accessed". That is what I meant by "unnatural"
As Gecko has said, we do not, and cannot, go against nature. We do only what nature allows us to do – we are not outside nature, we are not unnatural beings. The laws of nature that apply to everything else apply also to us.
Furthermore, to talk about nature as 'foreseeing' anything is to imply that nature has some grand design that we should adhere to. Nature does not foresee anything, it merely lays down the rules, and allows circumstance to lead where it will (clearly, this is an atheist perspective, but it is a necessary scientific perspective – once you start regarding nature itself as being a sentient entity, and also regard the sentience of nature to be separate from the sentience of humanity, then you are delving into metaphysics, not physics).
George
-
As...I must admit that you are right. I used the INCORRECT word there. Of course nature does not forsee anything. However it has but ONE purpose only. To maximise the chances of survival of EVERYTHING in this world. For example: Birds: Here in Australia presently winter is offcially over. It is spring. Birds have started NESTING!! Now why does nature NOT PERMIT birds to simply start nesting in WINTER....but always in every country on earth in SPRING? Simple?? if they do so in winter and their young are hatched...FEATHERLESS....they MAY perish with the cold.By nesting in spring.....those baby birds have a BETTER chance of survival.....as spring is MILDER than winter.
-
Ahem: 'The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards."'
So if your heart stops beating, but then starts again, you are not dead, by definition of death. Not to split hairs, as this is the official definition in the United States. If you have an official definition from another country that says otherwise, that's fine. If you want to use a term to describe something, though, you should have a clear definition of the term, certainly.
Again, I'm not trying to shoot you down, just trying to get on the same page and proceed in a clear light so we may understand the idea better.
-
so no one has been "brought back" from death, and no one ever can be, because by definition, its a loss of heart and/or brain function thats irreversible!
so even if medical practice could reccusitate people after a whole year with no brain or heart function, if they once again had the functions, then they were never dead, because it was reversible!
i get a big kick out of the whole idea.
-
Roarer you seem to be convinced of this "soul stuff" and happy about the violation of the conservation of energy etc. but these do NOT occur. Your ideas may be encouraged by modern science talking about things like "dark matter" and "dark energy" as places to hide your "soul stuff" but this would not work. The reason that it is "dark" is that it just does not interact with things in the electromagnetic way that we interact with the universe. we are electromagnetic beings and even the strong and weak nuclear forces have now been reconciled with electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. the remaining gravitational forces that govern the general size and shape of our universe are so unbelievably weak that they are not relavant except for the fact that they hold us and the atmosphere on the earth and provide the initial drive to enable the sun to perfom nuclear synthesis to keep us warm and build more atoms to form planets and eventually life.
Any "soul stuff" must have a physical existence and there is clearly no place in our universe for it to exist. Metaphysics as a philosophical idea means "beyond physics" but it does not refer to "magic" it refers to the wonderous way the simple physical laws organise themselves by recycling processes to extend their temporal interaction existance and evolve life. You would do much better to spend your limited lifetime trying to understand this than trying to glimpse into a world that does not and cannot exist. There is absolutely no life beyond death and it is essential for the universe to work that there isn't. If you think a little bit about it you will eventually understand why.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
I tell you...I ONLY use the words "soul mode" and "body mode" NOT because I am religious..but because there are NO other words I can think of to distinguish between the two. I suppose I can define those "states"..is that the right word?.....like "death"...and "life"..or something similiar. But I bet that even if I used these words....they would be challenged.
Now to the defintion of death. What does medical science define the state where the heart stops and the brain is starved of oxygen..if it is NOT death? Is there a medical or scientific definition of this and if so what is it called?
-
you can define death in your own mind however you like. to me, it is irreversible, but to many christians, they throw out the notion of irreversible death based on faith. from a semantical point of view, we have to define death a certain way for it to have meaning. the medical community in the US defined it as i stated. i don't know how it is defined in australia, but it very well may be different. the medical term for a cardiac arrest is, of course, a cardiac arrest. people can die from them, but sometimes survive.
-
Bostjan....I have a feeling that many on this forum is being pedantic.
Science defines death as being quote "irreversable"....so this implies that when a patient is brought back by modern resuscitation techniques this was in fact reversable...thereby it WAS NOT actually DEATH!! Is this what is being implied here Alright then what happens if those modern resuscitation techniques..FAIL to bring back that patient. Then we can say.."Oh well..that was quote "irreversable" so that was actually....death"!! Are you serious....really...or are you trying to pull someone's leg
-
OK, I think we have ascertained that any precise point of irreversible death is flexible, but I would ask whether anyone would doubt that a fossilised skeleton is so far gone that it is not able to be brought back to a fully functioning organism (the DNA may be used to clone the animal – even that is not always the case; but what about the brain, the experiences of its life that are more than merely the contents of the DNA)?
George
-
Well, as morbid as this topic is, i keep coming back.
Look, the point is that resesutation is not the same thing as rezzurection. A brain is not the same thing as a spirit, and memories are not the same as a soul. There seems to be a lot of confusion about these things.
-
AS...I would think that a skeleton would be thought of.....even under any minimal scientific equation....as having been past the point of no return.....in dying!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan
Look, the point is that resesutation is not the same thing as rezzurection. A brain is not the same thing as a spirit, and memories are not the same as a soul. There seems to be a lot of confusion about these things.
Are you saying that the after having passed into an afterlife, you believe the person has lost all of their memories of this life (i.e. if two people meet up in the afterlife, they would not remember each other from their earthly lives, and even if they had been the closest of companions within this life, they would meet as strangers in the next)?
George
-
I have a theory...(oh not again roarer!!) that the 'afterlife" is the antithesis of this life.....e.g. we suffer pain and dire consequences in this life....NONE in the other!! We get hungry and thirsty in this life...we do NOT in the other etc.
Now if we believe this theory.... if we have a family..mother..father..brothers..sisters..sons..daughters in this life....in the "afterlife"..you would ONLY be YOU (this is confirmed by the way by those who experienced NDE's)....and no OTHER! You may not need them in that life anyway!!!Families are in this life for the sole purpose (once again) of nature to MAXIMISE the chances of survival of the human species. Can you imagine the chaos if NO ONE has any family...or families do not exist. Murders would remain unsolved and other things could occur
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
I have a theory...(oh not again roarer!!)
LOL [:)]
quote:
that the 'afterlife" is the antithesis of this life.....e.g. we suffer pain and dire consequences in this life....NONE in the other!! We get hungry and thirsty in this life...we do NOT in the other etc.
Given that you do not seem to have made allowances for people to eat in the afterlife, it is very fortunate that they do not get hungry.
quote:
Now if we believe this theory.... if we have a family..mother..father..brothers..sisters..sons..daughters in this life....in the "afterlife"..you would ONLY be YOU (this is confirmed by the way by those who experienced NDE's)....and no OTHER!
So, you believe that in the afterlife, we have no link with the present life, because we have no memory of it; and we have no contact with any other human being either. Do we have contact with any inanimate objects (we clearly have no need to have contact with food, drink, clothing, or shelter; and it does not seem to me logical to suggest that we would exist in a place where inanimate objects exist but that is devoid of anything animate)?
If we are in a place without memory, and without any current environment with which to interact, then we seem in effect to be in a void. By what means do you regard this 'afterlife' to be a life at all?
George
-
Perhaps this is the afterlife after all. We could have all been superheroes in another universe who all got exposed to kryptonite and ended up here. [:0)]
Seriously though, assuming there is an afterlife, if I can take the memories in my brain, why shouldn't I also take my colourblindness? Why wouldn't I take my ulcers? Why not take the cash in my pocket and my car, then? Memories are synapses wired into my grey matter, so what makes them so much different from any other material object aside from the fact that we hold them to be more important for survival? We know memories can be created and destroyed.
-
The reason I am not convinced that there is NO "afterlife" is the fact that it's detractors do not have convincing arguments..including learned people (e.g. Dr. Susan Blackmore.)
On the other hand the circumstantial evidence of that "afterlife"...is ALL in this life. The way "nature" is virtually programmed, not to force..but to give incentive, to maximise the chances of survival of the human species.
All this had to have a "creator"...as creations....have to have a "creator"..they could not come from nowhere.
As I said...that evidence is NOT CONCLUSIVE....which as we discussed previously...may be in the best interest of the human species.
-
No one will ever convince anyone anything about an afterlife, because it's a made-up idea in our imaginations with no tangible connection to the real world. That doesn't mean that it cannot exist, it just means that we cannot know about it now, and will not know about this life if and when an afterlife comes about. That is all. Any theories about the afterlife are pure speculation, including the theory that there is not one. It's just like arguing about the existance of god. It cannot be done by either side, unless you decide that god must have some tangible connection to what we can see, which no one wants to do.
And if I'm wrong, you had better watch out for the zombies sneaking up behind you! LOL
-
quote:
Originally posted by roarer
The reason I am not convinced that there is NO "afterlife" is the fact that it's detractors do not have convincing arguments..including learned people (e.g. Dr. Susan Blackmore.)
On the other hand the circumstantial evidence of that "afterlife"...is ALL in this life. The way "nature" is virtually programmed, not to force..but to give incentive, to maximise the chances of survival of the human species.
All this had to have a "creator"...as creations....have to have a "creator"..they could not come from nowhere.
As I said...that evidence is NOT CONCLUSIVE....which as we discussed previously...may be in the best interest of the human species.
I am sorry to say that the above statement, while a perfectly valid exposition of your own beliefs, fails miserably in terms of logic.
To say that you are not convinced of something because the arguments are not convincing is a circular statement – it tells me nothing other than that you personally do not find the arguments convincing. It may well be that you would never find any argument convincing, no matter how logically complete and absolute that argument was – the statement you have given tells me nothing of the facts, but only about your own position on the matter.
The debate about a creator, whatever its merits or otherwise, is totally separate from the arguments pertaining to an afterlife. It is perfectly feasible that even if an afterlife were to be shown to exist, that there would still be no creator. It is also feasible that even if you could show that there was a creator, that this creator would not have created an afterlife. In fact, I would suggest that in practice it would be far more logical that if there was a creator, and He had a purpose in creating us, that He would have given us a finite lifespan that was just long enough to achieve His purpose and no more. It is also very plausible that such a creator might have given us to believe that we had an afterlife to come, but there is no pragmatic reason to believe that he would have actually delivered on that expectation.
George
-
AS and Bostjan...your arguments do have some validity. I suppose I could be at the other end of the spectrum..where nothing will convince me that THERE IS an afterlife.And as to the other argument. We have tangible (and physical) "creations" here on this planet....e.g moon, stars..trees...sea....etc....NON-MAN-MADE entities. Where did they come from? Who "created" them? We can agree that they have been "created"...They did not just happen.If they are "created"...then there must be a "creator"? Who is s/he? This "creator" would have to be of immense genius.....do we agree?
So the question follows:
Would a "creator" of such an immense genius be capable of creating a "state" which is so sophisticated that it takes an unknown imagination to understand it? This "state" is of course....an "afterlife" (as we call it here on this planet)
-
There are two answers:
1) Someone created them. In that case, who created this person? Where is this person now and why are they not creating more stuff that we can see?
2) They just happened. In that case, why did they happen? Why did it stop happening?
Neither is generally satisfactory to the skeptical mind, but the search for explaination the last thirty years or so has been almost completely concerned with trying to learn more about situation number two.
So where do things come from?
The moon came from stardust collected into a ball due to a well in gravitational potential. Then it was shaped by bombardment with other smaller particles created by similar means on a smaller scale.
Where do star come from? Stars come from planetary nebulae, where gasses collect into balls as above, except the gravity becomes high enough to force hydrogen to fuse into deuterium and then forces deuterium to fuse into helium. This releases lots of energy and causes the ball of gas to become a star.
Where do trees come from? They come from germs in seeds and nuts. When exposed to certain temperatures and light, a chemical is activated that starts a chain reaction of mineral and water gathering from outside the seed or nut. This process grows larger, by cellular reproduction, until there is a tree.
Where did the sea come from? The temperature and atmospheric conditions on earth were such that ice was allowed to exist in liquid, ice, and vapor forms all at once. Other worlds exist with seas of other substances, as determined by their temperature and pressure. We ended up with water. Gravity pulled the liquid water to the lowest points on the surface to form the sea.
There are many things we do not know, however. Some people still believe the moon came out of the center of the earth. Some children still believe the moon is made of cheese. A majority of westerners believe that god created the moon out of nothing.
-
My friend Bostjan...you have fallen into that scientific trap where you are attempting to disprove the existance of a "creator" by stating the METHOD of conception of those non man-made entities.
Where did the moon come from?.....and then you proceeded to state the method on how this occured. This does NOTHING to disprove a "creator'...it simply reinforces it. Has it occured to you and the scientific community in general....that this was the method.....as used by the "creator". In case you did not understand I shall endeavor to submit an analogy.
A car model is designed and made in a factory. Someone from that enterprise comes along and tells us about the METHOD..on how this is made in that factory.....and the specific machines used for producing that car model
Does this mean that car was not DESIGNED or CREATED by someone?
-
I agree that it does nothing to disprove a 'creater,' but I disagree with your statement that it reinforces it.
There is nothing to prove the existance of a creator, and nothing out there to disprove it. This is why no one can prove monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism nor agnosticism.
The simple argument that keeps all schools of thought from destroying one another is that the creator, creators, or lack of creator is/are very elusive in leaving signs for us to see as far as identification is concerned.
-
I wholly contend that the entities which are NOT man made on this planet is tangible and PHYSICAL evidence of a "creator" at work irrespective of the method under which they were conceived.Why?
As logic makes the world go around...the logic behind this is simply the following:
1) A TV set and a car (man made objects) had a creator.....MAN
2) The moon and stars (non-man made objects AND BEING AS PHYSICAL AND TANGIBLE AS A CAR AND A TV SET) had similiarly...a creator...........UNKNOWN.
However just because s/he is UNKNOWN does not mean that s/he IS NOT creator
I say UNKNOWN simply because I am NOT religious. The various religions claim that the suprenatural being we are referring to is....GOD.
I am not.
-
The tangible creator of the stars and the moon is gravity. If everything must have a creator and there is a god, who created god? Super-god? Proto-god? That line of thinking is illogical.
-
Bostjan...let me clarify your contentions here. You are NOT contradicting the fact that a TV set and a car (which are physical and tangible) was created by man.You are however contradicting the fact that the moon....stars...which are NOT figments of our imaginations...but cannot be but categorised as being EQUALLY physical and tangible as that TV set and the car were created. You are therefore contending that they came from nowhere (e.g from gravity) If ALL entities are physical and tangible....and two of them (e.g. TV set and car)are proven to be created..how can you argue then that the remaining entities are not? It is either ALL or nothing. Conversely...we may argue that the moon and stars...came from nothing....and so did the TV set and car?????
And...I am not claiming that there is a God...or a super God. All I claimed was the theory that there may be an abstract being of unimaginable genius...whose only tangible "weapon" is...nature. It may well be that NATURE is that abstract being.
-
Wow, last I checked, 'all or nothing' was not a valid logical argument.
If all apples are fruits…and two of them are grown in New Zeeland…how can you argue then that the remaining apples are not? You say it's either all or nothing, so either the two apples didn't come from New Zeeland, or all of the apples must come from New Zeeland by an analogous argument.
Again, the god arguments are an easy place to get confused, because you want there to be logical explainations, but there are not. Or so I claim. If you want to make a logical argument, make sure that it is truly logical. I'm not going to say that I can prove that there is a god or that there is no god, but I am saying that you cannot, either.
-
I'll put it in another way. I believe that every entity which is TANGIBLE AND PHYSICAL on this planet....has been created (via a natural method)...that is...they did not come from nothing.
The entitites which are created by Man....can be proven.
However it would the height of banality for anyone to contend that the moon...stars...sea.....trees.....sun....human species......etc...were created by Man. And Bostjan before you say that the human species..IS created by humans ...via the "sex act and/or pregnancy"..I shall tell you now....that the "sex act and/or pregnancy" is but the METHOD under which the human being is created. Who created.....the "sex act and/or preganancy"? You will probably say..."Oh no one....it just WAS THERE"!! It came from NOWHERE!! The "sex act and/or pregnancy" are (once again) TANGIBLE AND PHYSICAL enitities.....
-
Sex act is a physical entity?
You saying anything came from anything else, when you can neither see nor measure the instant when it was created nor any evidence of the person who created it, is pure conjecture! You can believe that all you want, yet, you cannot argue a fact based on conjecture. Evolution is a theory which was formulated based on evidence. There has been much evidence to support evolution. No people were around to see humans evolve from apes over thousands of years, though, so we can never prove that humans evolved from apes. No one was there to see god create the universe, so why are some people so sure that they can prove that he/she/it did? It doesn't make any sense!
And if I said humans use the method of sex act to create more humans, then I would have just told you who created them, as well as what method they used. [;)]
-
Quote" No one saw God create the world..so why do people say that he did" end quote
I am NOT saying and have never said that God created anything. All I said was that ALL physical and/or tangible entities on this planet are CREATED simply because...we can SEE them...we CAN PRACTICE them (as in the sex act etc)..in some instances we CAN TOUCH THEM...(e.g. trees...sea....etc). We have the PHYSICAL AND TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. Now if we accept that ALL entities in this STATE...were CREATED....NOT.....that they came from NOWHERE.....then we have to accept that they had a......CREATOR. Now when we say ALL entities we have to include......EVERTHING physical...which means MAN MADE ENTITIES...which are easily IDENTIFIED....and NON MAN MADE entities..again which are easily IDENTIFIED.
-
Overview of OBE and NDE investigation:
http://cref.tripod.com/article_oberesearch.htm
See also, Ring & Cooper's "Mindsight":
http://www.nderf.org/Mindsight.htm
OBE RESEARCH
One of the first researchers to perform laboratorial experiments on the OBE was psychologist Dr. Charles Theodore Tart (1937 - ). In 1966, he invited a young projector to participate in a series of experiments in the sleep laboratory of the University of California - Davis. The historical projectiological experiments took four nights in which the projector - "Miss Z" - was to lay down and try to exit the physical body, while connected to a series of devices that measured her physiological conditions. The objective of the experiments was the identification of a quasi-randomly generated five-digit number, approximately 1.5 meters above her head (impossible to be physically observed).
From Monday to Wednesday, the projector reported having seen the clock while floating out of body. At the times informed by her, the devices demonstrated unusual brain-wave patterns. An absence of rapid-eye movements (REM) was also observed. On Wednesday night, Miss Z identified the target number: 25132. The brain-wave pattern during conscious projection was different from the patterns during waking state, sleep and other altered states of consciousness (an expression proposed by Tart himself).
Between 1965 and 1966, the same pioneer researcher studied Robert Allan Monroe in 8 occasions in the Electroencephalographical Laboratory of the School of Medicine at the University of Virginia. Equipment like EEG, ECG, and EOG was employed, much to the discomfort of the projector. Monroe was asked to read a 5-digit, quasi-random number on a shelf placed 2 meters above the floor.
During the first seven nights, he was not successful. On the eight night, he had two brief lateral projections. On the first one he witnessed some strangers talking at an unknown place at a distance, fact which could not be confirmed. However, on the second occasion, Monroe correctly described, outside the room, the woman technician and a man, later identified as her husband.
The ocular movements were slower than in regular sleep. The Stage I brain wave pattern, typical of natural sleep with dreams, was observed almost immediately after Monroe laid down – an extremely rare event, as this stage normally occurs after 80 to 90 minutes of sleep without dreams. The heart rate was between 65 and 75 beats per minute.
A study by Janet Lee Mitchell (American Society for Psychical Research, ASPR) and Karlis Osis on the traveling clairvoyance of surrealist painter and writer Ingo Swann resulted in 8 of 8 correct target observations with 1 in 40,000 probability for a chance occurrence. When Swann reported his vision was outside of his body, there was loss of electrical activity and faster brain wave impulses in the visual areas in the occipital lobes. During this state, there was great drop in alpha activity in the right hemisphere than the left, which other organic functions remained normal.
Osis also carried out a “fly-in” experiment with around 100 projectors who had as a target a small office in the fourth floor of ASPR, where they were to inspect four target objects (unknown to them, to be observed in a certain time frame and angle of observation). Only 15% of them reached this office. Osis did not think the results of this experiment were significant, because event the best projectors often described objects in terms of their form and colors and not as material things with their exact names. This experiment demonstrates the hypothesis that the process of information acquisition or cognition during projection of the consciousness is different from what would be expected from physical experience and even from common extrasensory perception.
There were, however, interesting observations. Some, like a projector from Toronto who observed a fire in a nearby block, got sidetracked by other things along the way. Others saw the objects with distortions, or reported circular or global vision (seeing in all directions simultaneously). A barrier placed on the table to separate the different targets was seen as transparent by many of them.
Alexander Tanous related that his awareness traveled several times from Portland (Maine) to the target locale during the experiment. Not only did he correctly observe the objects and shape of the table, but also noted a tea cup, which indeed was unintentionally left there by another researcher. Elwood Babbitt also described the target correctly in his third fly-in from Massachusetts. He also correctly drew the shape and location of a broad, small plant, a painting, and small sculpture of a smiling girl. Teddy Marmoreo of Toronto projected to the site at night before the experiment and saw Osis sleeping at ASPR – an account which was confirmed.
In 1977, Robert Lyle Morris and Stuart Harary of Duke University carried out an inventive experiment. From the University of California – Santa Barbara, Harary (his body connected to various physiological devices) was to visit Spirit, his two-month old cat, whose movements in a cage were detected by sensors at Duke. Sharp behavioral difference was observed when the projector was out of body and near the cat, which became passive, calm, without meowing as if it was seeing or feeling Harary’s presence. When he wasn’t projected, Spirit was continuously trying to exit the cage it was in and meowed 37 times. The results were considered p=.01. Simple telepathy was excluded through a false projection, where Harary simply imagined the occurrence. In posterior studies where the animal did not have affinity with Harary the results were insignificant.
In 1979, Karlis Osis and Donna McCormick verified that a projector correctly identified a random optical target, in a locked room replete of sensors, 114 of 197 (57.87%) trials in 20 sessions. During these 114 “hits,” kinetic effects were observed demonstrating the presence of something subtle but nonetheless physical.
Related to the OBE, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory Precognitive Remote Perception (PRP) studies in 1987 already contained 334 formal trials obtained by some 40 “percipients”, who generated written descriptions of an unknown geographical target where the “agent” was located before, during, or after the description. Then, they were to fill out a check sheet of questions for later analytical judging. Results have varied from “photographic precision,” to partial correspondence of environment and/or components, to completely inaccurate. Major geometrical distortions, differences in emphasis of parts of the scene, progression from accurate to inaccurate description or vice-versa are not uncommon. Brenda Dunne and Dr. Robert Jahn therefore created a more systematic quantitative assessment procedures. The one that combined effectiveness with simplicity the best was through a list of thirty statistically weighted, binary descriptor questions.
Together with Rodrigo Medeiros, Patricia Sousa runs the Image Target Project, an experiment that invites people from all over the world to drop by a locked room at IAC - Miami with a computer monitor displaying a picture. The picture is randomly selected by a computer. A similar experiment series by Wagner Alegretti and Nanci Trivellato, Projective Field, brings dozens of projectors together to a ballroom for a weekend of eight OBE attempts. After several editions, these experiments have captured relatively rare but uncanny OBE and remote viewing observations of photographic precision.
A similar pilot study with physical objects and physiological monitoring at the University of São Paulo’s sleep laboratory with lucid projectors of the Center for Higher Studies of the Consciousness was recently televised on Globo Reporter (“Projeção Astral”).
Near-Death Experience
Some of most persuasive experimental evidence on out-of-body experience to date is on the near-death experience.
The December 2001 issue of the internationally acclaimed medical journal The Lancet published research by Dr. Pim van Lommel et al conducted in 10 Dutch hospitals for over 10 years. Patients (n = 334) were resuscitated from heart or breathing failures after a fixed amount of time. This ensured the amount of oxygen depletion would be approximately the same. This prospective study showed anoxia was not a leading cause of NDE’s because the incidence was 12 to 18% rather than almost all or almost none as was expected by skeptics. The majority of NDEr’s felt this was one of the most positively marking experiences of their life, helping them re-prioritize their activities toward more purposeful living, and even improving their personality and interactions with other humans.
Cardiologist Michael Sabom is among physicians who can no longer deny that consciousness can exist in the absence of a functioning brain. With neurosurgeon Michael Spetzler (Barrow Institute, Phoenix, Arizona), he studied the pivotal Pam Reynold’s case. The 35-year-old was placed on “standstill” – that is, her heart was stopped, brain function ceased, and her eyes and ears were shut – for an intracranial procedure. Reynolds reports she “popped out” of her body through a tunnel experience and was surprised to see her body undergo what looked like a groin operation. Unbeknownst to her, the procedure required the insertion of catheters for a heart-lung machine. “That can’t be right,” she thought before she saw her long-dead grandmother, friends, and other relatives. Eventually, she says, her uncle instructed her to return. It felt like “plunging into a pool of ice water.” This case begs the question: “how can one hallucinate without brain function?” Of course, it cannot. Skeptics believe, however, that NDE’s start and end with a dying brain.
Many skeptics ascribe NDE perceptions to supposed perceptions of a dying brain. However, lucid projectors have out-of-body experiences by will without a dying brain condition and can still see “beings of life,” and even perceive the characteristic “tunnel” often associated with NDE’s. More importantly, they are able to make accurate observations of distant physical environments and interact among themselves while projected. For instance, in the van Lommel’s study, one patient recognized the nurse who removed his dentures while he (or rather, his body) was in a coma. Under Michael Sabom, MD, another prospective study is underway at Dallas Hartford Hospital in Texas employing image targets placed high above the bed.
Another interesting avenue of research are the NDE’s and pre-birth memories of children, because their accounts are much less likely to be attributed to acculturation or hidden memories (cryptomnesia) from information they may have in their memory from, say, a documentary on NDE. Compared to near-birth experiences and pre-natal out-of-body experiences with posterior confirmations, the Journal of Resuscitation’s report by Southampton General Hospital (UK) does not seem so controversial. It reported that 11% of NDE patients in the study had memories of events during the unconscious period, and that 6% of the resuscitated after cardiac arrest had NDE’s.
Central to the debate is the kind of worldview scientists adopt. Consciousness-centered paradigms point out that even though extraordinary experiences can be triggered by electromagnetic pulses, stress (e.g. drowning victim), physical trauma (e.g. head injury), and chemicals, they are also produced spontaneously or by will. Detected neural activity that is characteristic of such altered states is not necessarily the cause: it is just as logically plausible that it is a concomitant effect.
It seems that no matter how the credible and persuasive the experimental evidence, there is no replacement for personal experience. This is the motivation behind the development of projectiology, a first- and second-person science of projections of the consciousness, and the consciential paradigm which requires scientists to have their own OBE’s and arrive at an evolving consensus of their experiences, including – potentially – joint or group OBE’s.
http://cref.tripod.com
-
I have read before of experimentations which prove (as above) of some sort of "out of body" experience. The above poster's intention in posting the above is unclear. Is s/he attempting to disprove an "afterlife"? If so, the above described experimentation and their ilk do nothing of the sort.
I am not disputing the fact that we, the human species, have some sort of natural ability (religions define it as a soul and from scientific experimentations this "location" has been established to be just above the right ear) to, perhaps during sleep...or during some trauma, have an "out of body" experience.But.....and this is the unknown condition...what if this experience is some sort of natural prelude to some sort of transition...into the "afterlife" and this
"natural ability" can be triggered (and experienced)in the laboratory?
-
Since we cannot prove things, exactly, but rather judge whether or not there is enough evidence to discard a null hypothesis, the intent of the lit review was to show that there is plenty of evidence to encourage open-minded and curious scientists with regards to the mind-body, brain-consciousness, survival after death questions. Materialism/reductionism may be scientifically falsified!
And roarer pointed out to the next step: "what if this experience [...] this
"natural ability" can be triggered (and experienced) in the laboratory?
This is why a focus of my colleagues has been, for years, on training individuals to produce more OBE's, with more lucidity, and more control -- to allow for more replicability -- at least in the statistical/probabilistic sense.
Also, recently, in November, the world's first facility specifically designed to facilitate and investigate the out-of-body experience was inaugurated. It is called the Projectarium. It's located near Evora, southern Portugal. You can read more about the 9-meter diameter sphere, if you'd like: http://cref.tripod.com/#projectarium
Over 60 people tried it out in the first month. I spoke with some of them. Most of them had very vivid and intense sensations and experiences to report. Even the more experienced ones -- one for example, had his quickest "partial projection" ever. In a matter of seconds after laying down. During a partial projection, it feels as if only parts of the subtle body (or conservatively, what is thought/felt to be the subtle body) disconnect. Say, just the arms or legs; only waste up; etc. This often happens without any break in lucidity. Just one part of the rich phenomenology of this experience.
Nelson
Nelson.Abreu@iacworld.org
http://www.iacworld.org/
http://cref.tripod.com/