Life After Death

[Mars Man]

That was a very interesting, and enlightening story there Pachipro san and, in no lesser degree, Kama san. I greatly appreciate your candor, in relating your personal experiences, and would hope for the same in looking over all the knowledge out there, that one should, as empirically shown to be the better of values, study in critical methodology.

I'm glad to know that you have not had any more seizures, Pachipro, and hope that your brain has short-circuited that routing. I would like to encourage you to consider whether you would be willing to investigate the concepts of brain/mind/consciousness further. Or, as you seemed to have insinuated, have you dogmatically closed the book on any further learning on that matter through case histories, empirical knowledge, inquiry into the paranormal, and so on?

The brother of a friend of mine also had some form of epilepsy which, and I cannot remember the finer details, he eventually had been able to harness under full control. When some medics who were concerned and sceptical of his claim to be able to control the seizures, asked for a demonstration of such--for the purpose of getting some type of 'medical release' (if you will)--he turned on a seizure in their presence, and after a short period of time, turned it off--then, if my memory serves me well, repeated the procedure to amply prove his claim. He was given that 'release'. The point being, if it can be a matter of 'free will' in one person, then why not all? And, if this were not the brain itself doing the controling of itself, then why could not all those aflicted control it?


I would offer some fundamental questions, for starters, which would have to have answers of some sort, as follows: ( I myself am not totally closed to whatever degree of paranormal, yet would not say that paranormal-attributed effects, events, and such, are non-physical in nature, but, rather, are just not known yet; cannot be measured, as such, yet.)

Why would there have to be anything related to the physical brain at all, to have to have epileptic seizures?

Why would there be 'black outs' if consciousness were a non-physical, beyond the matter of the bodily build?

How can it be that people like "M.H." (The Human Brain Susan Greenfield ) who had had such severe epileptic seizures that it was impossible for him to live an anywhere near normal life, only be cured by having a faulty section of brain removed? (In H.M.'s case, part of the temporal lobe--although the surgery has been said to have never been repeated due to the very bad side effects, almost total loss of working memory, along the loss of up to some 2 years before surgery.)

How could account for cases such as Phineas Gage, who had severe prefrontal cortexal damage, and became a very different person from before or stoke victims who can no longer see moving objects, including even coffee pouring from the coffee pot?

I would hope that there would be room for studying further in this field too. But, more than anything else, am really glad to know that you have very much overcome the seizures, and maybe the whole problem--and that's the truth !! :relief:

 

[Sensuikan San]

Curious ....

I voted for "death after life" ... but also admitted that "I believe in ghosts" ....!

There has to be an incongruity there, doesn't there!

I would tend to explain it by stating that I do not believe that a "ghost" is necessarily a "living" entity - but perhaps a lingering impression collected and retained by a location or an individual - a theory that has been put forward many times.

Suffice to say - I have met many folks, including blood relatives, who have had rather alarming experiences with what could be considered "ghosts" ... including one experience that I actually shared with the individual concerned.

?W????

 

[Kama]

You have an interesting point here that I started to reply to concerning maturity, but I think I went off on a tangent and got really off subject and decided to put it off till tomorrow.

We all are much different than we were 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, but I feel it has more to do with maturing in todays society than a matter of brain function. I hope I can clarify myself tomorrow. If not I'll make a new thread.

Are we really so different that in past? I think that there is core that doesn't change. Of course, I like other kind of music that I have learned 10 years ago (that was dance, now I listen to rock/metal, so quite a change). We learn new things, but... I always knew that I like both boys & girls, later on I had a knowledge of what is heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual, and I said "I'm bi" but that haven't changed me at all... I was sill the same.

My question now is: do we really change that much? ?SOMETHING has to be the same, people don't change RADICALLY. Even if their behaviour changes radically (for example: he was such a calm child...) I don't believe it means that all his point of views, all rules, etc. changes too.In fact I think that the rules/views in some way were born with us. I think that partly our views are heritage from other lives (and it's a sign of soul's progress)

Thanks for sharing your experience Kama. At least I am not the only one here to have experienced this. The drugs I used to take were phenobarbitol and dilantin and they never seemed to help stop the seizures. I'm grateful that the seizures stopped on their own or maybe I had something to do with it as when I was turned down for a drivers licensesome 32 years ago I got so mad that I went back to my room, took my medicine and threw it in the trash can while yelling, "I DON'T HAVE EPILEPSY! From that day forward I have never had another seizure! Unbelievable, but true.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Without you, I wouldn't have courage to write this. *bravo for you* I had taken amizepin and t*** I forgot the name for other medicine. But it really scared me when I have read that after taking amizepin you can't drive for 24h. Giving a little child such medicines Nevermind.

 

[Kama]

Curious ....

I voted for "death after life" ... but also admitted that "I believe in ghosts" ....!

There has to be an incongruity there, doesn't there!

I would tend to explain it by stating that I do not believe that a "ghost" is necessarily a "living" entity - but perhaps a lingering impression collected and retained by a location or an individual - a theory that has been put forward many times.

Suffice to say - I have met many folks, including blood relatives, who have had rather alarming experiences with what could be considered "ghosts" ... including one experience that I actually shared with the individual concerned.

?W????

For me, ghosts are "living" entities, but I think that memories/feelings if strong enough will stay in the things/places. Also, I think that future events can mark the things/places. I believe some things are bound to happen. I mean for example "time of death". You probably have heard some things like "it's a miracle he survived. It looks like it wasn't time for him."

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I do not believe that a "ghost" is necessarily a "living" entity - but perhaps a lingering impression collected and retained by a location or an individual - a theory that has been put forward many times.

I too am open to that possibility. I have never seen anything like that myself, and I haven't heard any reliable testimony from anyone I know, but it doesn't seem scientifically impossible to me. I have heard a theory that crystalline particles in rock or mortar could act like a recording device. I haven't seen anything to prove that wrong - but then again I haven't seen any convincing evidence in favour either. Suffice it to say I am open-minded about it.

My question now is: do we really change that much? ?SOMETHING has to be the same, people don't change RADICALLY. Even if their behaviour changes radically (for example: he was such a calm child...) I don't believe it means that all his point of views, all rules, etc. changes too.In fact I think that the rules/views in some way were born with us. I think that partly our views are heritage from other lives (and it's a sign of soul's progress)

I agree that there is always a core (good word) that doesn't change. But I think that is because we are all to some extent constrained by our genes and by the anatomy of our brain at birth.

 

[Pachipro]

I would like to encourage you to consider whether you would be willing to investigate the concepts of brain/mind/consciousness further. Or, as you seemed to have insinuated, have you dogmatically closed the book on any further learning on that matter through case histories, empirical knowledge, inquiry into the paranormal, and so on?

Sorry if I gave that impression as I have not closed the book on the matter mentioned. Quite the opposite. It's just that it is too incomprehensible for me to believe that the brain/soul is one entity and that upon death "we" cease to exist. I believe that they are seperate based on my own experiences. If I had not had those experiences I may just believe as you and a few others do, that upon death it is "lights out", end of story, so to speak. To me, death is just a beginning where we exit the physical plane and re-enter the spiritual plane to review our previous life, what we have learned and what we still need to learn in order to spiritually progress further.

I am very open to invesigating the concepts of brain/mind/conciousness further and have done so for the past 25 years. I have read numerous books on the paranormal and it is one of my favorite subjects. Some of my favorite authors are MD's on this subject. Among them, Dr. Raymond Moody, PHD (Life After Life website). One new development in his research seems to counter the theory that Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are the result of a dying brain. He said there are increasing numbers of reports of relatives of dying persons having an "empathetic death experience," where they observe the newly deceased in spirit form, in interactions that are similar to classic NDE accounts.

For instance, he described a case where a doctor's mother went into cardiac arrest and as she was trying to resuscitate her, the doctor left her body and observed the two of them. She then witnessed her mother's spirit receding into an "aperture of light" that spiraled down like a closing camera lens.

Another author is Psychotherapist Brian L. Weiss, MD who uses "past-life" therapy/regression to treat his patients. Dr. Weiss is a firm believer, as I am, in reincarnation and past lives. Also, he bases his writings on the experiences of hundreds of patients.

Both have researched and written numerous books on this very same subject of the brain and soul being seperate. Their books were wrtten based on their own actual case histories with their own patients. Also, both were very skeptical when they first started hearing from patients about past lives, Out of Body Experiences, NDE's and such.

Therefore I am very open to the subject and these two MD's, among a few others, have further cemented my belief that the brain/soul are seperate and that "we" continue to exist after physical death. I mean how can you explain the fact that thousands of people, from all walks of life, from all races and countries, are having these experiences. It's not just me. Check out their brief websites and let me know what you think.

Can one really believe that we cease to live/exist after the death of the physical body when research by MD's with credentials prove otherwise? Or are all these people just imagining the same experiences?

 

[Pachipro]

Why would there have to be anything related to the physical brain at all, to have to have epileptic seizures?

Why would there be 'black outs' if consciousness were a non-physical, beyond the matter of the bodily build?

Because the brain has become damaged or is misfiring, so to speak. The damaged brain causes epileptic seizures. The brain is a complex physical object while the conciousness/soul is not. The soul just resides in the brain and cannot escape or leave until the death of the physical body. That is the deal we made before coming into the physical. Some knew they would be mentally handicapped and these souls, because of their handicap, progress faster it is said.

Let's see if I can make an analogy. You are given a car to drive. You agree beforehand that once inside that car you cannot ever leave that car until the car dies and ceases to operate. You are completely aware of yourself inside the car, but you have no control over it's mechanical operation as you are two seperate entities. You feed it (gas) and give it physical check ups (maintenance). If something is severely wrong with it maybe you can replace a part here and there (transplanting). Sure you can take it to a "doctor" (mechanic) when things seem to go wrong and maybe they can fix the problem and maybe they can't. For the most part it operates smoothly and your maturity and learning from others determines how you will operate the vehicle.

Maybe you become wild and drive it fast and recklessly, threatening other cars around you and your own car. You "feed" it cheap gas and maybe fail to maintain it properly. Then again you may decide to operate it maturely and take care of it. Everyone cares for their "vehicle" differently.

Then one day, through no fault of your own, the engine starts to act weird and the "doctors" (mechanics), try as they may, can't seem to fix the problem. You have no control over the vehicle and it begins to operate outside the norm for vehicles. Try as you may the vehicle seems to have taken on a life of its own. For some unknown reason it continues to misfire and drives erratically. You are told that maybe you should keep the car off the road as you may harm others with your slow speed and abnormal driving. They may cut a part out of it, but it is not the same and may be worse than before but, "Hey, it is still running," they tell you. But you know it is not the same vehicle it once was.

After a while maybe it blows a tire and goes out of control and crashes or it just ceases to operate from old age or a major failure and it is declared "dead". You are still alive. You just get out of the car, review what went wrong with the vehicle with "experts" (spiritual higher-ups), what you could've done better to maintain it or prevented the crash and you are then given a new vehicle to operate and live in. BUT, you have no memory of your previous vehicle and how you operated it. It may be in a different country and may very well be a "foreign" vehicle. You just have a "gut feeling" on how you should operate this vehicle. Hopefully, in this vehicle, maybe you learned from your past mistakes in your previous vehicle and will operate it in a defferent manner.

To me, it's the same with life. Our bodies are our vehicle and we both are seperate entities. The analogy may be simple minded and maybe off track, but I hope I conveyed my point of view. It sure gives a new meaning to the phrase, "He blew a gasket!"

 

[Pachipro]

From my own experience I feel that we don't stay the same from day to day, let alone over the course of many years. I am a very different person than I was 10 years ago, and I believe that is because of the way my experiences have changed my brain. In a very small way I am a different person than I was even just this morning, because of the things I have learnt over the course of today - experiences and knowledge that I believe exist as neural connections in my brain.

Are we really so different that in past? I think that there is core that doesn't change.

Here we have two different points of view. I think Kama is quite correct here and that is what I was trying to convey yesterday when I just gave up thinking I was going off on a tangent. And so is Tsuyoiko correct in her point of view in that we are different from what were 20 years ago or even 20 minutes ago.

IMO both are true and I do not feel it it is related to to neural connections in the brain. I think it is more related to how we are supposed to act in a modern society. We do not stay the same over the years - On the outside. We all 'change'. Is it because we "mature" (change) in order to properly function in a modern society? I think I read in the bible or somewhere, paraphrasing here, "When I was a child I spake like a child, thought like a child, and acted like a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things."

But look deep inside yourself to the real 'you'. (Not you Tsuyoiko or Kama, but anyone in general). Not the you you present to the world outside, but the real 'you' behind the mask you show the outside world. The 'you' you are when no one is around that you would never let the outside world see. The 'you' who picks their nose when alone. The middle aged you who dances in front of the mirror naked and makes funny faces that no one else can see. Or the 'you' who plays air guitar naked in the bedroom or something else that would be deemed stupid or lame by others. The 'you' who scratches their arse or "other" areas while reading a book or while watching TV alone. The 'you' who desires to be young and carefree again when there were no worries save for a little homework or what you were going to do tomorrow.

I believe that that 'you' is still there in all it's glory and never leaves. It's just that, as we age and progress through life, we are expected to act according to society's dictates and that's what we do on a daily basis from what we read and what we learn and what we are taught. We are kind of forced to put away all those "childish things" that are still with us and have never left us. I may be 50 years old, but I still feel inside like I did when I was a teenager or younger and honestly, I sometimes act that way in private and around my wife of 20 years, but NEVER in public. And NEVER around someone I don't trust. I'm sure we all do the same. I may have learned alot of things and experienced alot, and "matured" to the outside world, but I still am the same person I always was and will always be. It's just that my body has become older and because of that I am expected to act in a certain way. And I do, because if I don't I would be considered immature and childish and maybe even abnormal according to society.

Think about someone famous you know like President Bush or PM Tony Blair, or even Saddam Hussein or Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. Do you think they don't scratch their arse or pick their nose or act foolish and childlike when naked in front of mirror alone or in front of their significant other that they love and trust? Of course they do. I'll bet they even fart in front of their significant other and laugh about it. Everybody does. (At least I HOPE they do and it is not just me!) However, can you imagine them doing that outside of private life? It's just that that person, the real 'them' or 'you, is never shown to the outside world and is reserved only for yourself or those you trust and love.

 

[wonderpt]

As a catholic I believe in heaven :-D

 

[Mars Man]

Good morning folks !! I can't wait until next week !! The uni will have some special 'off campus' classes and so the regular ones, including my seminar classes, will be called off--I'll have time to do a lot of catch-up posting !! Oh boy, Oh girl,...I just can't wait !!

Thanks for the nice analogy Pachipro, I think it was very well done. I can especially appreciate the automobile usage because I had also once analogically used it in a paper on Body Soul and Spirit. Thank you also for your explaining your position on my encouragement; I think it will make a nice discussion of what's out there. I would hope to keep a degree of methodology about it, if agreeable, and to the degree possible.

It may be better to first look at some primary subjects and reason any conclusions on those, before building the argumentation. I will carefully go over the details of what you have posted which I am, to a fair degree familiar with, and that would come up later on, I think. Not to disregard what you have presented in any way, no, but simple to say that it may be slightly jumping the gun--and there are counter arguments to the proposed conclusions which could stand some further investigation, I have reasoned.

Here, and for now, It may be good to firstly lay out just what consciousness is, and look at that together: I would present, for now, that consciousness could be seen as the aggregate of being aware of the internal self and external non-self

The sub-conscious would not be included to the degree that it cannot be communicated through explanation by conscious operation (even hypnotic state cannot provide that to any nearly absolute nor valid degree--bibliographies later). Lost memory would not be included for the same above reasons--except hypnotic states evidently provide better results here. Retained information derived, from lack of any better understanding and term, the paranormal would be included here.

I'll leave it here, to let this air out well enough, before moving on. :wave:

 

[Void]

may i croak for a while? =)))

so, what we`ve got that far (sorry, quoting without originator)

1.
as I don't believe in the soul, that means that I believe in
the eternity of the matter and energy that compose us.

2.
I believe in some kind of existence of the soul after death (...)
I believe in the soul. I'm not sure how to explain, but I think
it is part of the energy that composes us.

3. I believe in reincarnation.

4. I firmly believe that we all have a soul that survives
to be reborn again or to go on to higher things. And I believe
that the soul is pure energy/matter. (...)
I believe that we continue to survive when we depart this physical plane.

Some of them, certianly coincide with each other. But let me point at
some spots i find sort of "incomplete"

1) if my knowledge and memory doesn`t fail me, matter is form of energy, ne?
2) the concept of "physical plane". This of cours correlates with 1st point.
What is meant by physical? Some solid substance? Objects which can be
percieved through human senses? Objects (entities) which can be percieved
through their interaction with various scientific devices?

The concept of soul very often leads to the confrontation of idealists and
materialists. One of russian philosophers Peter Uspensky in his "Tertium
Organum" around 1911 wrote that it doesn`t really matter what one would put into the base of the world (ideal or material), the most important to be
congruent and consequential in one`s further. He said that science
needs a monistic universe (as i recall, he tended to incline to idealism),
some would say that it is close to holistic approach.

Well, what am i trying so awkwardly to lead to? hell knows But, defining
"soul" we can come out from different assumptions (back to quotes above)

1.a.
set of some feeling, emotions and character traits is named soul, just
to ease (or simplify) the classification and manipulation of concepts

1.b.
energy which disappears after death (turns into another form or dissipated)

2.3.4
(i combined these, although i have some questions (see below))
energy which doesn`t disappear after death

questions
@ Kinsao
<< but I think it is part of the energy that composes us. >>
What is meant under "us". Could you, please, explicate?

@ Pachipro
<<... or to go on to higher things [...] when we depart this physical plane >>
what is meant under "physical plane" and "higher things"

:blush:
more to follow on other inputs by Pachipro and Mars Man

 

[Void]

sorry for messy message x_O

by Mars Man
Here, and for now, It may be good to firstly lay out just what consciousness is, and look at that together: I would present, for now, that consciousness could be seen as the aggregate of being aware of the internal self and external non-self

from dictionary
aware
- having or showing realization or perception; bearing in mind; attentive to;
having knowledge, cognizance or understanding; alert and fully informed;

i can agree with definition but not completely. That seems to me that this definition static, i.e. describes final result. Consciousness is dynamic, not just object but also a process. I`ll return to this a bit later

One of the problems of schizophrenics is that they don`t draw the line between inner world and outer world. For example, he might talk to you in their mind, come to some conclusions and such, and later when he meets you he might act referring to this "conversation" (but, more likely, you won`t be able to understand him) They see things other don`t see, or have "wild" assumptions about things other find normal and regular.
But normal and being normal are such touchy concepts :evil:

by Pachipro
To me, the brain is just a conduit, a "resting place" so to speak, the most complex organ of the physical body, in order that the soul/conciousness can experience the five senses in this physical world of ours.
(...)
The brain is a complex physical object while the conciousness/soul is not. The soul just resides in the brain and cannot escape or leave until the death of the physical body.

err, you mean conciousness/soul is not physical, or not complex, or both?
Personally, i don`t know whether soul/conciousness resides in a brain, or it is
entirely product of a brain (like "the same way liver produces bile brain
produces thought" - loose quotation). I prefer to think about "soul" in terms
of energy, but can`t say what happens after brain`s death or body`s death.

One of the purposes of CNS is to regulate some physiological activities of our
body (those which are not covered by two other regulating systems). In case of human beings we`ve got another function for a brain to regulate the interaction of individual with others (on social level), to regulate the ... ... self-interaction and some other emergent activities which i am unable to name now.

Before our mind (soul/consciousness) becomes aware of smth this smth must be "introduced" into it somehow. Isn`t it a process of reflection? Which at least includes three constituents: object, subject and knowledge. Where does object comes from in case of cognition of internal self? How much comes from outside and how much from inside?

Now, if to think about mammals. Can anyone here show what is the difference between human brain and theirs, since i am not aware? They, certainly aware of external world (in some way, to some extent), but what about internal self?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Can one really believe that we cease to live/exist after the death of the physical body when research by MD's with credentials prove otherwise? Or are all these people just imagining the same experiences?

For me the fact that they are MDs would not be enough. They would have to conduct their research using proper scientific method and publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. As far as I can ascertain, Moody published his findings in a best-selling book, not a journal. To quote Psychology Today, "Moody's evidence is largely anecdotal". His methods seem to me to suffer from confirmation bias - the people he tries to put in touch with their dead relatives are expecting (or at least hoping for) it to work. NT Skeptics (OK, I know they're biased in their own way) give a good description, as does Skeptic Dictionary.

Moody's descriptions of near-death experiences prompted psychiatric researcher Ronald Siegel to investigate NDEs, as they sounded very similar to his studies for “Hallucinations”, published in Scientific American, Oct. 1977. He remains convinced that they are just hallucinations - I think because his studies were truly scientific, and he was not suffering from confirmation bias. CSICOP detail the similarities:

Viewed scientifically, the out-of-body experiences are actually hallucinations that can occur under anesthesia when one is nowhere near death, as well as when one is falling asleep, or even just relaxing or meditating, or that can be experienced in migraine and epilepsy. The tunnel-travel experience is again an hallucination, one attributed to the particular structure of the visual cortex, the visual-information-processing portion of the brain (Blackmore 1991), or to pupil widening due to oxygen deprivation (Woerlee 2004). And the life review results from the dying oxygen-starved brain stimulating cells in the temporal lobe and thus arousing memories.

Basically the view I take is to look for an alternative explanation to every account - if an explanation can be found that is equally plausible, and it also happens to fit in with our current scientific knowledge, than that is the explanation I will opt for. The hallucination theory sounds very plausible to me, and it has the added advantage that it is understood by science.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

But look deep inside yourself to the real 'you'

I agree with you that there is a 'core' to our being that remains more-or-less unchanged throughout life. It's hard for me to imagine a 'me' that doesn't like books, or a 'conservative me', or a 'non-neurotic me'. But I don't think it proves the existence of any consciousness separate from the brain.

The 'core me' is that way because of my genes, the anatomy of my brain and my earliest experiences. I love books because everyone I have ever known in my family loves books - it's probably a mix of nature and nurture. I am a socialist because I was brought up that way. And I'm neurotic because my maternal grandmother and my paternal grandfather suffered with anxiety and I have inherited it from them.

If someone creates a 'miraculous' gene therapy that can cure my anxiety though, I will be a different person won't I? I would argue yes, because that part of me that is at my core is in my genes, not in a 'soul'. It's hard to imagine I would still be the same person - my counsellor told me I will never be cured, I just have to learn to live and cope with it, so a 'miraculous' cure has got to change me.

Equally, a severe blow to the head that destroyed the wrong cognitive abilities might kill my love of books. I might still remember that I used to love books, not because it is in a 'soul', but because the part of my brain where those memories are stored was unaffected by the injury.

I might become a conservative someday (god forbid), because my life experiences might leave me disillusioned. My parents have certainly become more right-wing as they've gotten older. If you'd seen me on a protest march during the Miners' Strike in '83/'84 and asked me if my parents would ever vote Tory I would never have believed it - but their experiences have changed even that which was at their core.

 

[Pachipro]

Basically the view I take is to look for an alternative explanation to every account - if an explanation can be found that is equally plausible, and it also happens to fit in with our current scientific knowledge, than that is the explanation I will opt for.

Some very valid arguments have been presented here and unless there is valid, solid proof for all to see I guess a consensus will never be reached. As with anything, there will always be those "for" and those "against". However, it is interesting to debate this subject as it goes to the very core of our existance of "Why are we here and what happens to us after the death of the physical body?" And debate is needed with all sides presenting their views lest we fall back into the Dark Ages being fed a line that those in control want us to believe and adhere to. I mean they have no valid proof to back up their beliefs either. Neither, I believe, does current scientific knowledge other than explaination based on "theory". Why must it "fit in with current scientific knowledge" to be plausible? Does not a laymans own actual experience or findings count for anything? Or must anyone who presents an argument countering current beliefs have 'credentials' or letters after their name in order to be taken seriously? The answer, sadly, seems to be 'yes'. As Tsuyoiko pointed out above, Scientific explaination is the option most people will opt for.

I mean I, myself can solidly affirm that we exist after the death of the physical body, but I have no proof to back up my claims, other than my own experiences. Nor am I a scientist or Phd who can properly word my views into a peer reviewed paper. In the Dark Ages I might well have been burned at the stake for stating my experiences and beliefs and 'going against the grain."

Back in the Dark Ages and the not too distant past it was solidly believed that one should never wash their hands before surgery. Before the advent of trains, 'scientists' of the day swore that people on a moving vehicle like that would die as all the oxygen would be pushed through and out of the train and that the passengers would suffocate! "Scientists' of the day swore that heavier than air craft could never fly! Impossible they said. And because these people had 'credentials' people took them at their word. Galileo himself was almost executed for his beliefs that the earth and planets revolve around the sun and not vice versa. And he had the proof! The scientists and religious people of the day just refused to look into his telescope.

The truth is no one knows all there is to know nor will it ever be so. And what gets me the most is that those with 'credentials' or letters after their name, swear that their beliefs are the final word and that anyone who believes otherwise is a fool and crazy.

I just wish that these 'credentialized' people would have open minds and be willing to look at other avenues of explaination, much like the people on this board, instead of saying such and such is impossible. I wonder how many more wonderful discoveries could be advanced in this world if so called 'experts' on a subject would just be willing to consider an alternate point of view. There's no telling where we would be today.

The hallucination theory sounds very plausible to me, and it has the added advantage that it is understood by science.

But is it REALLY understood by science? Unless they themselves have a hallucination or experience what others have how can the really understand it? Or are they just taking the easy way out because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs? Are they just using the escape of Achems Razor that, when all else fails, the simplist answer tends to be the correct answer? End of discussion. We are the experts and our answer is the final, correct one. Lop off his head!

I am talking about the scientific and spiritual communities here and not anyone on this board but, IMO that is the epitomy of arrogance and has probably done more to hinder scientific and spiritual progress than anything else.

 

[bossel]

Does not a laymans own actual experience or findings count for anything?

It depends, but which findings do you have? You hallucinated...

Or must anyone who presents an argument countering current beliefs have 'credentials' or letters after their name in order to be taken seriously? The answer, sadly, seems to be 'yes'. As Tsuyoiko pointed out above, Scientific explaination is the option most people will opt for.

You don't need "credentials or letters after your name" to subscribe to scientific thought & to come up with scientifically valid arguments. Saying you hallucinated something & you felt it to be real is hardly scientific.

I mean I, myself can solidly affirm that we exist after the death of the physical body, but I have no proof to back up my claims, other than my own experiences.

You've been dead? How many times?
Seriously, science actually means that you have more than your own experiences, it means that your findings can be validated independently.

Galileo himself was almost executed for his beliefs that the earth and planets revolve around the sun and not vice versa. And he had the proof! The scientists and religious people of the day just refused to look into his telescope.

Your idea of what a scientist is seems a bit strange.

And what gets me the most is that those with 'credentials' or letters after their name, swear that their beliefs are the final word and that anyone who believes otherwise is a fool and crazy.

Credentials or letters, hmm. What do you actually mean by that? What you describe here doesn't sound very scientific (although there definitely are a number of scientists who act like that, but from my own experience your description fits teachers better than scientists).

But is it REALLY understood by science? Unless they themselves have a hallucination or experience what others have how can the really understand it?

You need to have a flu yourself to understand the reasons for why & how it works?

that is the epitomy of arrogance and has probably done more to hinder scientific and spiritual progress than anything else.

Scientific & spiritual progress?

 

[Mars Man]

First of all, let me say that I can feel where you are coming from Pachipro, I can feel the rush of excitement, the appeal for common ground, if you will, and the desire to help people out by encouraging them to think about all the possibilities. I don't think you would be alone in that matter, even if you may be coming from a different perspective.

Void san, I understand what you have presented, and concur, but I didn't mean to have to take it to deep of a philosophical level. I would say that the word aggregate would be important. It doesn't have to necessarily be one frame of consciousness. (and that would be the overall picture for those of multiple personalities, so to speak) The matter of 'internal self awareness' would be simply the matter of knowing or not knowing how you feel--both physically and emotionally--, the reason for an act, including speaking and reasoning through on something. I don't think it would be within the general scope of this tread to dig much, if any deeper than this, since the primary matter is 'life after death' and since, as it has presented itself to me, usually boils down to 'the present conscious self' after death.

You know, I die, as all life forms die, but I'm still me. I still want to drink that beer (which is why they put out the often opened cans of beer by the side of the road where there had been a fatal traffic accident in which one who enjoyed drinking had died) I still speak English, I still can only remember what I remember, know what I know, etc. Carl G. Jung has some interesting ideas of the dead wanting to learn more because they could not--I reason that it was an pre-informed conclusion.

Pachipro san, my dear Japanese Summer loving friend, I still count on you for your adding to the topic your ideas and experiences, as best you can explain them; and likewise your return comments in your #26--first post on page two.

 

[Kinsao]

It is impossible for anyone to "know" or "prove" scientifically what happens to the consciousness, or the "self", or the "soul" (if you believe in such) after death, because the only way of knowing for sure is to experience it.

There can be scientific experiments to measure things like energy, and energy transferrance, but not any proof of what it actually feels like to die - and after - and how we would experience it (or indeed if we will consciously "experience" anything).

It's necessary to die in order to find out what happens next.

@ Kinsao
<< but I think it is part of the energy that composes us. >>
What is meant under "us". Could you, please, explicate?

Wow, that's a difficult one! To explain what I meant by "us", when I was referring to human beings, and I don't have the capability to explain "what is human" and the whole mystery of our identity, in both the scientific way and the more abstract, "spiritual" sense... But in that context, when I referred to "the energy which composes us", I was talking about our physical existance and the matter which makes up our bodies, plus energy... because energy and "matter" we don't always think of them as the same thing; energy can be measured scientifically but it can be also invisible to us. (Uhhh... I'm not sure what I'm driving at... :sorry: )

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Wow Pachipro, you are really giving my brain some exercise! This is great!

Neither, I believe, does current scientific knowledge other than explaination based on "theory"

That's very true. Unfortunately in layman's terms, the word 'theory' implies something that works on paper but may not apply as well in practice. In science' 'theory' has a more rigorous meaning - a claim that is supported by as much as 100% of current evidence.

Why must it "fit in with current scientific knowledge" to be plausible?

Because the whole point of science is to explain the universe as accurately as possible.

Does not a laymans own actual experience or findings count for anything?

Only if it is supported by a lot of data. Human beings can be mistaken, particularly if they are hallucinating. A true hallucination is indistinguishable from real experience - if you know you are hallucinating it is only a pseudo-hallucination. In other words, it is impossible to know that you are hallucinating.

Or must anyone who presents an argument countering current beliefs have 'credentials' or letters after their name in order to be taken seriously?

Actually there are a lot of people with credentials who I don't take seriously. Credentials are not enough. I admire people like Darwin, Einstein and Gould not because of their credentials, but because of their commitment to scientific method. They accepted only that which they could observe or prove mathematically.

I mean I, myself can solidly affirm that we exist after the death of the physical body, but I have no proof to back up my claims, other than my own experiences.

I think we are hardwired to believe in life after death. In a way I still sort of believe in reincarnation deep in my subconscious, but I have learnt not to trust my subconscious when my reason presents evidence to the contrary. It was hard work, but worth it.

Scientific explaination is the option most people will opt for.

If NDE type 'visions' were only experienced by people whose heart has stopped, if science didn't see any examples of people who have had similar experiences without being near to death, and if science had no idea of what was happening in the brains of those affected, the experiences might be considered evidence of life after death. But it seems to me that science has enough evidence to consider NDEs to be hallucinations.

Nor am I a scientist or Phd who can properly word my views into a peer reviewed paper.

I don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard. You are certainly one of the most eloquent members here, and well-respected by everyone for your varied experiences, and your ability to describe them in an interesting way.

Back in the Dark Ages and the not too distant past it was solidly believed that one should never wash their hands before surgery. Before the advent of trains, 'scientists' of the day swore that people on a moving vehicle like that would die as all the oxygen would be pushed through and out of the train and that the passengers would suffocate! "Scientists' of the day swore that heavier than air craft could never fly! Impossible they said. And because these people had 'credentials' people took them at their word.

Although these philosophers have since been found to be mistaken, the methods they have employed have evolved into methods which now allow scientists to make much more accurate conclusions. Back then the technology and communications available were not sufficient for the philosophers to reach very accurate conclusions, but we are in a much better position now.

The truth is no one knows all there is to know nor will it ever be so.

Good! What would be the point if we knew everything? Being human is about learning.

I just wish that these 'credentialized' people would have open minds and be willing to look at other avenues of explaination, much like the people on this board, instead of saying such and such is impossible. I wonder how many more wonderful discoveries could be advanced in this world if so called 'experts' on a subject would just be willing to consider an alternate point of view. There's no telling where we would be today.

I agree with you here, to an extent. Each paradigm shift (like the Copernican Revolution, Natural Selection or Einstein's Theory of Relativity) takes longer than it need to, because the (usually) older scientists, who are more respectable, are reluctant to accept the new findings of the (usually) younger, more open-minded scientists. So I think scientists do need to be open-minded, but only to a point. We all know that Darwin discovered Natural Selection. Some of you may also know that Alfred Wallace simultaneously reached the same conclusions, and both scientists were equally credited at the time. So why does history favour Darwin? IMO, because he was the better scientist. He accepted only that which was supported by evidence, whereas Wallace believed in things which contradicted science, such as phrenology and spiritualism.

But is it REALLY understood by science? Unless they themselves have a hallucination or experience what others have how can the really understand it?

Because they study it. They interview all kinds of people who have had similar experiences, they study their brainwaves and test what happens when they vary the conditions or substances involved to see what happens. Paraphrasing Bossel, do we refuse to trust an oncologist because he has not himself suffered from cancer? No, we trust him because he is an expert through study.

Are they just using the escape of Achems Razor that, when all else fails, the simplist answer tends to be the correct answer?

Scientists certainly do employ Occam's razor, quite rightly, and not just as a last resort. Any concepts that are unnecessary to explain a phenomenon should be ignored, IMO. How about this example: your car won't start because the engine is damp. Do you conclude that some morning dew got in there, or that a fairy poured some water in there? Obviously you go with the first explanation, as it adequately explains the situation, without resorting to any extraneous agency.

Why do I have so much faith in science? Look at scientific revolutions over the past centuries. The Copernican Revolution was huge. It altered almost everything we believed about the structure of the universe and the place of our planet and ourselves in the grand scheme. Natural Selection was big - but nowhere near the scale of Copernicus. It changed our view of the age of the universe, but not its structure. It overthrew our previous beliefs about how we got here. Then consider Relativity. How far reaching was that as a revolution? It didn't really change anything for the average Joe. I believe the reason that each revolution seems to require us to change less of what we believe is because each revolution takes us closer to the truth. I think now, in comparison to 500 years ago, we are just tweaking. In comparison to what we still have to learn, we are just scratching the surface.

 

[Pachipro]

Thanks for all the comments and replies. This subject has sure generated some great debate and I'd like to thank Tsuyoiko for starting it. Unfortunately it is late and I'll need a day or two to compose a rebuttal. In the meantime has anyone ever studied Edgar Cayce? I mean really studied him, his readings concerning the humand mind, soul and conciousness; reincarnation, karma, life after death, and such?

Edgar Cayce was just a conutry man from Kentucky who could put himself into a trance and connect with the "Universal Conciousness." While under this state he could heal anybody of any illness without ever laying eyes on them. The medical profession of his day were astounded and had no answer for how he could do it. But do it he could when the doctors of his day couldn't. His readings are all documented on paper and survive to this day. How does one go about explaining this? Was he just a freak who got lucky with his answers? I think not.

His website says he has had more near-death experiences than anyone ever documented. He could leave his body and journey into afterlife realms and has made over, a documented, 14,000 journeys into the realms of the conciousness and afterlife. He is considered the father of holistic medicine by JAMA, the prestigious medical Journal of the American Medical Association.

For starters click on this link and read what he has to say about conciousness. If you manage to read till the end, just click on 'next' at the bottom of the page and then 'next' on the bottom of the following page and so on for his views on all we are discussing here. I have read them all.

His experiences are documented by the medical profession while mine are not. Does anyone, after seriously reading these pages (and I doubt many will), think he was just hallucinating? Or will most people refuse to "look into Galileo's telescope" for fear of finding what may actually be the truth of why we are here and why we do not die?

I do hope some will read them, or a few, and present their opinions here as I really am interested in hearing opposing views. If you are like me and have a thirst for knowledge outside the box of "official science", you will not be able to stop reading.