[Alan McDougall]

I will use the book authored by one who would know.

 consciousness:
eccl. 9:5
the living are conscious they will die,  the dead are conscious of nothing
ps. 146:4
his spirit goes out, he returns to the ground, his thoughts perish
eccl. 3:19
There is the same eventuality for man and beast. They come from the dust and return to the dust.

soul (synonym for living creature):
gen. 2:7
the man formed from the dust and with the breath of life became a living soul
gen. 1:21
animals referred to as souls
ezek. 18:4
the soul that is sinning will die
____________________________________________________________________

Personal knowledge

 near death experience:
These events are rare exceptions to typical deaths, and if actual recovery from death would be equivalent to a resurrection. The explanation is more likely an incomplete and inaccurate clinical definition of death. Medical science is relatively new to humanity.
The experiences of the subjects involved are real, but confined to the mind. The fact that they have any awareness of bright lights, departed family members, etc. is proof they are not dead. Their visions are conditioned by past testimonials and ignorance concerning death. There is a parallel regarding mass suggestion with victims of alien abductions. The immortality of the soul was one (false) idea to circumvent death.

"That is selective cherry picking out of scripture: in contrast there are other references to a consciousness after death in the bible, as in the case of the Apostle Paul when he was taken into the third heaven after being stoned.

Jesus reference to the rich man in hell and the poor man in heaven that spoke to each other, you simply cant speak unless you are conscious?

Lastly this thread was not started as some sort of a religious argument of which will go on forever and never reach a conclusion. it was based on the present very real experiences of people , myself included that have been clinically dead and experience a conscious reality outside of this physical reality.

So put a stop to irrelevant Bible references and actually answer the question yourself.

[IAMREALITY]

"That is selective cherry picking out of scripture: in contrast there are other references to a consciousness after death in the bible, as in the case of the Apostle Paul when he was taken into the third heaven after being stoned.

Jesus reference to the rich man in hell and the poor man in heaven that spoke to each other, you simply cant speak unless you are conscious?

Lastly this thread was not started as some sort of a religious argument of which will go on forever and never reach a conclusion. it was based on the present very real experiences of people , myself included that have been clinically dead and experience a conscious reality outside of this physical reality.

So put a stop to irrelevant Bible references and actually answer the question yourself.

The book is a work of fiction, so no matter what passages are chosen it doesn't much matter at all, does it.  Not to mention all that's ever done is cherry picking when it comes to quoting that work of fiction, be honest with yourself here.

And it's a bit hypocritical to call the poster out for using a religious basis, when they did so SPECIFICALLY to address your injecting of religion into the debate no?  Were you not the one who repeatedly in this thread has injecting religion?  Did you really just try to admonish that poster for it?  Merely because this time the use of religion didn't suit your purpose?  I mean, just, wow...

And furthermore, you didn't experience any 'reality' outside of this physical reality.  You experienced a powerful mental perception that you perceive as having been reality.  But reality has a very distinct meaning.  The thing has to actually be real.  Unless you can show even the slightest shred of evidence or otherwise that this magical fairy other dimension exists, then what about it could possibly be constituted as real?  If something is real, shouldn't there be even the slightest shred of evidence of its existence?  I mean, anywhere at all?  I mean, i can understand an argument of "you can't prove it's not" so to speak, since ya can't prove a negative.  But a claim that it is needs to be backed up with even the slightest shred of evidence at all.  And as of yet, in our entire history of existence, there is zero credibility or evidence pertaining to this magical dimension you speak of.  Literally zero.

And lastly, the poster did answer the question themselves.  Quite directly actually.  In fact, it's right there in what you quoted.  I'm not sure how you missed it.

[Alan McDougall]

"That is selective cherry picking out of scripture: in contrast there are other references to a consciousness after death in the bible, as in the case of the Apostle Paul when he was taken into the third heaven after being stoned.

Jesus reference to the rich man in hell and the poor man in heaven that spoke to each other, you simply cant speak unless you are conscious?

Lastly this thread was not started as some sort of a religious argument of which will go on forever and never reach a conclusion. it was based on the present very real experiences of people , myself included that have been clinically dead and experience a conscious reality outside of this physical reality.

So put a stop to irrelevant Bible references and actually answer the question yourself.

The book is a work of fiction, so no matter what passages are chosen it doesn't much matter at all, does it.  Not to mention all that's ever done is cherry picking when it comes to quoting that work of fiction, be honest with yourself here.

And it's a bit hypocritical to call the poster out for using a religious basis, when they did so SPECIFICALLY to address your injecting of religion into the debate no?  Were you not the one who repeatedly in this thread has injecting religion?  Did you really just try to admonish that poster for it?  Merely because this time the use of religion didn't suit your purpose?  I mean, just, wow...

And furthermore, you didn't experience any 'reality' outside of this physical reality.  You experienced a powerful mental perception that you perceive as having been reality.  But reality has a very distinct meaning.  The thing has to actually be real.  Unless you can show even the slightest shred of evidence or otherwise that this magical fairy other dimension exists, then what about it could possibly be constituted as real?  If something is real, shouldn't there be even the slightest shred of evidence of its existence?  I mean, anywhere at all?  I mean, i can understand an argument of "you can't prove it's not" so to speak, since ya can't prove a negative.  But a claim that it is needs to be backed up with even the slightest shred of evidence at all.  And as of yet, in our entire history of existence, there is zero credibility or evidence pertaining to this magical dimension you speak of.  Literally zero.

And lastly, the poster did answer the question themselves.  Quite directly actually.  In fact, it's right there in what you quoted.  I'm not sure how you missed it.

I experienced what I  experienced and I have absolutely no interest in anything you have to say because it is always argumentative.

[hamdani yusuf]

I experienced what I  experienced and I have absolutely no interest in anything you have to say because it is always argumentative.

Do you have any interest in finding out what was actually happened to you? Was it real or just something happened in your brain? Have you ever experienced vivid dream or lucid dream?

[guest4091]

"That is selective cherry picking out of scripture: in contrast there are other references to a consciousness after death in the bible, as in the case of the Apostle Paul when he was taken into the third heaven after being stoned.

Jesus reference to the rich man in hell and the poor man in heaven that spoke to each other, you simply cant speak unless you are conscious?

Lastly this thread was not started as some sort of a religious argument of which will go on forever and never reach a conclusion. it was based on the present very real experiences of people , myself included that have been clinically dead and experience a conscious reality outside of this physical reality.

So put a stop to irrelevant Bible references and actually answer the question yourself.

He wrote a letter to the Corinthian congregation, in which he describes a vision he had while still living. The vision seems to involve an introspection of his own faith, with an effort to convey his dedication to working on their behalf.
"Heaven" has varied meanings, and as usual depends on the context.

Jesus used illustrations to convey ideas to his disciples. The rich man lived a life of luxury, while Lazarus the beggar lived a life of hardship. Both are in Hades (Greek for the grave), but Lazarus with a favorable judgment and the rich man with an unfavorable judgment (his faith was his wealth). In a real "hell", a finger dipped in water is not going to provide relief! Their conversation is just part of the story.

 Consider the mind as a small volume of space where the behavior of matter is regulated by the same laws of physics as in the whole universe.

 When a person hallucinates or dreams or is under hypnosis, the images are real in the mind of the person, corresponding to real brain activity, but not corresponding to anything outside the mind.
Then there is the greatest misnomer of all, "movies"/"motion pictures", where a person watches a series of still pictures and sees objects in motion. The motion can only be a product of the mind, i.e. mental interpretation.
Add to that any type of pixel screen that displays moving images. The pixels only switch on or off or vary in color or intensity. Another case of motion by the mind.
Our experiences are real but relative to something else and not absolute. The mind is in part an image processing organism, and our knowledge is based on models/abstract images which only approximate the real world.
We observe the world indirectly (via light) and have no idea what it "really" is.

 Has anyone asked why the medical profession refers to it as "near death experience"?

[dlorde]

It may be widely believed, but there's no evidence for it. There's some evidence that brain development is affected by experiences in the womb; so, for example, exposure to music or rhythm may enhance development of those areas of the brain. Calling potentiated development of that kind memories is a bit of a stretch. But areas used in memory, such as the hippocampus, are underdeveloped at that point, and it takes some while after birth for perceptions to become organised enough to allow coherent memory storage & retrieval. This doesn't stop people reporting having such memories, but as we now know, autobiographical memories can readily be constructed from second hand information, or imagined events.

This is a "belief", as you say, shared by most, if not all, neuroscientists. That doesn't mean that the brain is functionless until that time. I'm not telling about coherent memories, but about memories in an absolute sense.

What do you mean by "memories in an absolute sense" that are not "coherent"?

Perhaps you should read Antonio Damasio

As it happens (checks bookshelf), I have read Damasio, and Stanislas Dehaene, Stephen Rose, Barry Gordon, and Daniel Schacter, on memory. Perhaps it is the somewhat opaque and fragmentary nature of your posts that is causing some misunderstanding, but that one looked nonsensical to me...

[dlorde]

Consciousness cannot be equated to the CPU it is equated to the software which is non-material.

The computer analogy is not useful here. The empirical evidence points to consciousness being a brain process, a particular subset of the patterns of neural activity in an active brain.

[dlorde]

Thus our options are?

1) Consciousness caused the universe to exist?
2) The universe created consciousnesses?
3) None of the above?
4) There is a primordial consciousness that existed before the big bang that contemplated existence and created our universe?
5) Add your own?

The evidence suggests #2.

[Alan McDougall]

Thus our options are?

1) Consciousness caused the universe to exist?
2) The universe created consciousnesses?
3) None of the above?
4) There is a primordial consciousness that existed before the big bang that contemplated existence and created our universe?
5) Add your own?

The evidence suggests #2.

What evidence, please?

[dlorde]

Has anyone asked why the medical profession refers to it as "near death experience"?

Why should they ask (isn't it self-explanatory)? and why the medical profession, particularly? IIRC it was French philosopher & psychologist Victor Egger who coined the term at the end of the 19th century, and it was taken up by American psychiatrist Ray Moody in 1975.

[dlorde]

What evidence, please?

The evidence that all the conscious beings we know of are products of evolution and are constructed out of materials common in the universe. So, to the extent that conscious beings are the result of processes governed by the laws of the universe, we are creations of the universe. This is not to imply any purpose or intent, simply the effects of the 'unwinding' of a very low entropy starting state to (eventually) a high-entropy end state.

[Alan McDougall]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

[dlorde]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

Yet Another NDE Revelation

Fixed your URL - you forgot to put it in url tags.

OK, if you'll watch this video (I recommend the whole thing, it's fascinating stuff, but for the relevant bit skip to 33 mins):

The Fundamental Nature of Reality

[IAMREALITY]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

Sorry,  but a video about one single person who really really swears he saw heaven and hell, is not enough for me to suspend belief in all fact, all logic, all science, all evidence that points to there being zero reason to believe in such things, and also zero evidence other than personal perception stories to give credibility to the notion.  This person would also swear that the world he sees is not actually entering his eyes upside down.

The mind is a very powerful thing indeed, and perception is what rules us, for we are slaves to it.  And the mind can create even far more powerful perceptions than what this gentleman experienced.  It is probably limitless what our brains could convince us was real, that in fact hadn't been.

To believe in this consciousness after death is merely to have 'faith' in something with zero actual evidence to lend credibility to its existence, and instead has mountains upon mountains of evidence against it.  To believe is to literally have to suspend belief in all that we know, all that we've learned, all the facts available, all of physics, all of science, all of logic and reasoning.  And all that is far too much for me to abandon merely because I want to have 'faith'.

The fact is that in reality, all that we know gives zero credibility to the concept.  And in fact, science has shown in so many ways that there is no god nor spirituality necessary for anything in the universe, including consciousness, to be created.  The faith is merely unnecessary.  There have been so many things that once were attributed to god, that people would've sworn could only have been explained by god, that have since been proven by science to not require him whatsoever.  God is merely the go to crutch for things we have not yet understood nor explained.  But if there was no need for god, if god was taken out of the equation, and 'faith' in him was taken out of the equation, would people still be so adamant in their beliefs in life after death?  In consciousness surviving?  I'd wager in a world in which people grew up never hearing nor thinking about god, in which religious stories written by man weren't shoved down their throats, in a world in which all they knew was science, logic and fact and the concept of god never existed, that you would have very few believing in consciousness after death.  Because all they would've known was reasoning, and logic, and facts, and science, and they'd have no reason to believe otherwise. Cause there is zero evidence of otherwise.

And if consciousness is independent in nature and concept, then why can we 'feel' where it resides?  Why when we think, do we sense it in the middle of our brains, right where the physical construct for thoughts would be?  Why would could I not think down by my feet, or my stomach?  Why wouldn't I just have an ever present sense of my consciousness without a need for me to 'feel' where it resides at all?  Furthermore, why would medications affect exactly what I think?  Why would mood, different chemical reactions and quantities within my body affect what I think?  Why are my thoughts directly related to how much sleep I have; what mood I'm in; what my state of health is; what medicines are in my body; or a multitude of other very real and physical influences?  Why is my consciousness 100% generated by those influences, chemical processes and brain activity?  Why would it not be unchanged regardless of physiology? 

Why is everything I think based on memory, which is a very physical and biological process?  Why suddenly, only when I die, would this magical fairytale concept occur?  How when I die, would suddenly all my memories, which are amino acids and other very real biological and physiological realities, become poofed into this 'energy' or whatever that would live on?  And if this didn't happen, and my memories remained with my body, how would I even know who I was?  How would this consciousness even matter without memory there for sake of identity?  What have you ever learned in science or reality whatsoever would allow these physical memories to poof into this 'energy' state?  And if consciousness were independent, this force that can transcend time and space and have this beyond the universe power, why would it need such a complex structure as the brain to physically store and process memory?  Why wouldn't that memory concept be built into this 'consciousness'?  Why isn't anything built into it?  Why is the body and brain necessary for all that it is and all it will be while on this earth?  From mood, to timing (no consciousness while we sleep), to medicinal influence, to all of it? 

Why when in this spacetime would everything it is be dependent on all that is physical and real?  Fact is, there are no logical nor reasonable answers to these questions other than "well, cause that's just the way it is!  But really, when you die, suddenly the 'soul' is capable of all of that on its own cause that's just how it works!".  Well, sorry, but I think it should take a bit more than that.  And there is literally zero evidence that gives credibility to what I consider to be such an absurd notion.  But I would really be interested in seeing how you'd answer these questions nonetheless...

[dlorde]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

OK, I watched some of your video (that's time I'll never get back). It's just another NDE revelation. Meh. People have reported similar kinds of revelatory experiences from NDEs, temporal lobe epilepsy seizures, and psychotropic drugs. It's interesting that they almost always relate directly to the cultural experience of the experiencer, rather than some consistent external reality.

[IAMREALITY]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

OK, I watched some of your video (that's time I'll never get back). It's just another NDE revelation. Meh. People have reported similar kinds of revelatory experiences from NDEs, temporal lobe epilepsy seizures, and psychotropic drugs. It's interesting that they almost always relate directly to the cultural experience of the experiencer, rather than some consistent external reality.

Exactly.

[guest4091]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

OK, I watched some of your video (that's time I'll never get back). It's just another NDE revelation. Meh. People have reported similar kinds of revelatory experiences from NDEs, temporal lobe epilepsy seizures, and psychotropic drugs. It's interesting that they almost always relate directly to the cultural experience of the experiencer, rather than some consistent external reality.

Exactly.

DNA is the program to form a human. Where did it come from?

[hamdani yusuf]

DNA is the program to form a human. Where did it come from?

AFAIK it evolved from simpler chemical structures, such as RNA.
BTW, does it have anything to do with the topic here?

[IAMREALITY]

DNA is the program to form a human. Where did it come from?

AFAIK it evolved from simpler chemical structures, such as RNA.
BTW, does it have anything to do with the topic here?

Yes, you're correct.

It is all traced to chemical reactions/evolution combined with billions of years of time.  It has been shown that all the ingredients necessary for life are readily available in the universe and that complex organic compounds can be formed quite readily from simple ingredients; without much effort or tinkling required at all in fact.  And that's what we've been able to do in just a smidgen of time.  Imagine what could arise from billions of years worth of it.

As far as the relevancy, I understand your point, but I guess I see the relevance in that once again the hand of god is trying to be implied, in a thread that cannot escape that fictional character's need to be included in any explanation as to how consciousness could possibly exist after death.  So I guess it's relevant in the sense of one side trying to show evidence that the fictional character actually exists, thereby giving credibility to the argument that 'life' is possible after death, since other than that fictional character as evidence, and the 'faith' that goes along with believing in such stuff, there is no other evidence that would lend credibility to the concept whatsoever.

[IAMREALITY]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

OK, I watched some of your video (that's time I'll never get back). It's just another NDE revelation. Meh. People have reported similar kinds of revelatory experiences from NDEs, temporal lobe epilepsy seizures, and psychotropic drugs. It's interesting that they almost always relate directly to the cultural experience of the experiencer, rather than some consistent external reality.

Exactly.

DNA is the program to form a human. Where did it come from?

Are you trying to imply the answer to that is 'god'?  If so, I ask you this... If this fictional 'god' were real, and was all mighty all knowing and all powerful as is claimed, and has the power to create anything and everything and all that there is and ever will be... I ask you then why did he choose such complexity, to choose something that took billions of years to evolve ON ITS OWN to form us.  Why make the structure so overly complex and so full of flaw, when he could've just created us?  Why would the universe itself be so full of complexity, so full of the laws of physics, so vast, so much about it that has zero to do with us at all.  Why would there be need for such complexity and mind blowing scale?  Why would it all exist in such a way that has no care about us whatsoever?  As far as we're concerned, we took billions of years to become what we are.  Why wouldn't we have simply just 'existed'?  If you had the power of creation to create whatever you wanted, would you take your theoretical magic wand and simply create us, or would you sit there and say "nah, I'm gonna make it happen via complex particles bound by complex quantum physics and bound by greater physics and have those particles create simple structures that over billions of years can create more complex structures which over billions of more years can create complex but fatally flawed and evolved from apes human beings?  How does that possibly make any sense?

But I guess that's a religious discussion on its face, and a whole other huge discussion that would be had.  But since 'god' would be so closely related to the concept of consciousness after death, I do find a discussion about its concept to begin with to have merit.  Because I can't escape the conclusion that if religion overall ceased to exist, if it never existed, if it were taken out of the equation, that those who believed in consciousness after death would suddenly be few and far between, and regarded probably as lunatics.  And those who saw the 'visions' would simply chalk them up as products of perception without a second thought.  Would they still believe they were seeing 'heaven'? Of course not, for they wouldn't have been taught by man from man made stories that heaven was even a concept.  So they would then have to believe that their visions were warping them to some dimension science has never perceived, that there's no evidence for, that no ones ever been to, that no science nor physics hints at, and that there's no reason whatsoever in reality to believe in, and I can't for the life of me be convinced they'd draw that conclusion from their vision.  It would make far more sense that they'd suddenly believe without doubt that what they experienced was a powerful mental hallucination and nothing more. 

Take the 'crammed down their throats from birth, pushed by society, brainwashed repeatedly into their psyche, created by man' concept of 'god' out of the equation, and I'd be hard pressed to see how that man in the video would still believe so fervently in his conclusion.