cornel

Near death experiences ,proof of afterlife ?

NDEs ,proof of afterlife?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. NDEs ,proof of afterlife?



Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gees said:

I can tell you this: Stop thinking of consciousness as the brain -- consciousness is essentially communication. Back in the day, people assumed that consciousness meant the brain or language, because that was how we communicated. We now know that every cell in our bodies, every cell in every body, communicates as long as it is still alive. It communicates, not through language, but through chemistry.

I can agree that consciousness is a result of the communication between the trillions of cells that constitute our bodies. Can we then agree that without those cells, there can be no communication between them?

 

1 hour ago, Gees said:

What you will find is that it is inferred that Endocreeper01 stated something about the supernatural. In law, this is what we call "leading the witness". This is where you put something into the question that infers or implies an idea or fact that causes a misrepresentation of the answer. This is the reason why you get an attorney to come with you when you answer questions, so that no one uses this trick on you. I worked in law too long to be fooled by this kind of nonsense.

When talk of a supernatural explanation was raised Endo literally said there could be no other possible explanation. If you can't see how this implies he believed in a supernatural explanation there is nothing more that i can say. But i can ask if she didn't mean supernatural, what other explanation could she have possibly been referring to? All i can think of is that it's meaning was lost in language.

 

1 hour ago, Gees said:
And then he's quite disingenuous about how he describes the time of death of a patient: often the cessation of a heart beat. The reality is usually half an hour after the nurse has bleeped some lazy doctor for the 3rd time, but now i'm ranting."    and
"So yes, it appears this doctor is using the thin veneer of medical science to spout rubbish."
 
Not only are the above statements untrue, they are also a slur on the character of the doctor. Now if you stated that this doctor's license was revoked, that might be evidence. Or if you stated that multiple people have sued him for malpractice, that might be evidence. Or if you could show that he had been repeatedly dismissed from various positions, that might be evidence. You did not provide any evidence and only used insult, innuendo, and gossip to rebut his statements. Gossip is not evidence, and if you can't tell the difference, then you are not talking Science or Philosophy.

 

He quite explicitly says at (at 1.33) that doctors give the time of death as being when the heart stops. This is simply not true, for several reasons.

One is practical, in expected cases a patient's heart may well have stopped some time ago but until a doctor comes around to certify it, it will not be recorded. Some doctors will ask the nurse for the time. Some doctors will put it down when they saw the patient (sometimes long time after the fact). But i admitted this was a bit of a rant: half the job of a nurse is making sure doctors do the job they are supposed to be doing anyway, and it leads to frustration, especially towards the lazy doctors of which i have seen many  (nurses too, seems to be a human trait, go figure). Circulatory definitions of death are used as the definition of death, but the timing is far from precise. 

 

More importantly it's categorically not true in intensive medicine, which this doctor specialises in. Since 1968 in the USA (are you US based? this doctor is so i'll use their definitions) the medical definition of death has been brain death. This happened for various reason which you can read here:

In particular, this paragraph

Quote

By the turn of the 21st century, over 80 countries in the developed and developing world had accepted a brain-based determination of death, and most developed countries enacted this medical practice into public laws.

 

Further to this, he quite explicitly states that a patient has died, but that because the cells have yet to decompose it is possible to bring the patient back to life. Again not true. The patient did not die. For the patient to die the process has to be irreversible (see above link). Yes, that means all those people who say that they died but came back are wrong: they were never considered dead.

A doctor getting these details wrong is not sufficient grounds for being struck off alone. At best they would have to take a course in the subject. To be struck off it would need to be shown that he used his definition of death over the actual medical definition in his practice to the detriment of a patient. I might think the doctor a fool, but not someone who would deliberately harm patients.

This is just the first 3 minutes of the first video: there are worse problems, which i have alluded to. His statement that death is peaceful, except for those who commited suicide and that they all report seeing a bright light, neglecting of course those who reported experiencing nothing, or experienced something completely different: cherry picking in it's simplest form. I could go on, there is so much wrong about what he is saying, but these things are probably sufficient for us to get into the details.

In all this he brushes over the ambiguities of determining death, both medico-legal and biological (again see the above link, he uses the wrong definition whether circulatory or brain death), and uses his definition of death over the medical definition. He never makes that clear. He is deliberately avoiding these ambiguities to push his own agenda of what he believes. It is thus disingenuous and i stand by my statements. If anything i have said is untrue, or that i am manipulating data, please be specific. 

 

2 hours ago, Gees said:

I apologize.

As do i. Now we both know we are not trying to insult each other let us proceed in our usual tones and not look for offence in each other words.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gees said:

If you look at the second emoticon, it comes up as "unsure" when I hover my mouse over it. When someone says they are "unsure" of something, that often means that they would like more information. key

 

my keyboard is broken, so I have to be concise, so both...

Quote

It was not my intent to be condescending

yet you were and somewhat arrogant to boot.

Quote

it was my intent to be clear in my explanation.

of nonsense...

We may not know what consciousness is, but we know its source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prometheus;

 

8 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I can agree that consciousness is a result of the communication between the trillions of cells that constitute our bodies. Can we then agree that without those cells, there can be no communication between them?

This probably sounds very reasonable to you and it is, as far as it goes, but I don't think that you understood the scope of what I was saying. When I state that consciousness is a vast subject, I am not exaggerating, in fact it is really an understatement.

Consciousness is not the result of the communication, it is the communication.

This communication does not just go on between cells, it also goes on within cells and applies to single cell life.

I am not talking about just our bodies, I am talking about all multicell life on the planet -- animals, plants, fish, birds, insects, etc.

This communication does not just occur within bodies, it also goes on between bodies of the same specie, and probably more.

Is there evidence of this? Yes. The activity of a cell tells us that it is alive, that it senses, perceives, or whatever you want to call it, and that it will do whatever it can to survive by filling it's nutritional needs and reproducing. This sensing or perceiving is an awareness that it has needs and what it needs, so that is communication within the cell -- consciousness.

The communication between cells of all multicellular life forms is directed and regulated by hormones, which also regulate the systems of the body causing homeostasis. It is interesting to note that some hormones can click on and off different aspects of DNA. Hormones can get very busy.

The communication  between life forms of the same specie is directed and regulated by pheromones, which are the only things that I know of that contribute to the self balancing of ecosystems. There may be other things that contribute to this, but for now the only thing that I know is that pheromones contribute to the balancing of an ecosystem much like hormones do in a body -- a kind of homeostasis.

Many people think of pheromones as only related to sex, but this is not true. Pheromones can help to satisfy any survival instinct need that the species has that is also regulated by their hormones, such as ants tracking a trail to food.

So if you think about an acre of woods and all the life forms and species within that woods, including insects and blades of grass, then the communication going on in there would be comparable to the communication going on in a brain. All of it chemically related. Then if you consider that all survival instincts, regulated by hormones or pheromones, are activated by or work through feeling and/or emotion, then you have your connection between physical chemistry and emotion, survival instincts, and the unconscious reactive instinctive mind.

We don't know what the parameters of mind are. Are our minds individual? The rational aspect of mind certainly seems to be individual. Is the unconscious mind individual or connected as a specie, which would explain bonding and seem to correlate with Jung's collective consciousness. Is all of the unconscious mind connected, so that all life is part of this connection? It could certainly explain the self balancing of ecosystems. We don't know. I read an article where the author stated that it is more likely that we are in consciousness, than it is that consciousness is in us. I can't agree with him, but I can't dispute it either, because the evidence seems to support his thoughts.

You can not know how many times over the years that I have had to readjust my beliefs, not just religious beliefs, but beliefs in my perspective of reality and how it works. It has been a long soul-searching type of study, so I do not expect you to change your mind and take the above on my word alone. I will request that there be no more "scab picking philosophy". If you think I am wrong about something, then look it up. If you find that I am wrong, then show me your evidence.

The brain is a player in this game, as the brain digitalizes the communication or consciousness into thought, the rational aspect of mind, which is what most people consider their consciousness. The problem with NDE's is that they show signs of being a product of the unconscious aspect of mind, rather than the conscious aspect. This is why I am fairly sure they are not imagination as imagination is a product of the conscious mind. NDE's seem to be a product of emotion -- the unconscious mind.

 

Quote

When talk of a supernatural explanation was raised Endo literally said there could be no other possible explanation. If you can't see how this implies he believed in a supernatural explanation there is nothing more that i can say. But i can ask if she didn't mean supernatural, what other explanation could she have possibly been referring to? All i can think of is that it's meaning was lost in language.

This is what Endercreeper01 said, "It is certainly evidence to any reasonable person. There is no denying that many people have had these experiences and that they mean something."

This is what Beecee said, "Please explain to me how another person's delusions, illusions, dreams, imaginations, experiences are evidence for anything other then  delusions, illusions, dreams, imaginations and experiences? Please explain to me  how any personal  experience that maybe unexplained,  is evident of anything supernatural."

When Endercreeper01 responded, was it to the question of the underlined delusions, illusion, dreams, imaginations, and experiences or was the response an explanation to Beecee's second statement? Unless you asked or have special powers, you can't know. I looked throughout the thread and Endercreeper01 did not mention the supernatural at any other time.

Let's be honest here, if Endercreeper01 actually thinks that it is supernatural, so what? Everyone has a right to their opinion. That just means there is one more superstitious person in this thread. There is no reason to waste a whole page arguing it.
 

Quote

 

He quite explicitly says at (at 1.33) that doctors give the time of death as being when the heart stops. This is simply not true, for several reasons.

 

This is another example of "scab picking philosophy". He very clearly stated before and after that time that it was only one indicator, and the most commonly used one for practical purposes. CharonY confirmed this in her post that it is used for practical purposes.

 

Quote

One is practical, in expected cases a patient's heart may well have stopped some time ago but until a doctor comes around to certify it, it will not be recorded. Some doctors will ask the nurse for the time. Some doctors will put it down when they saw the patient (sometimes long time after the fact). But i admitted this was a bit of a rant: half the job of a nurse is making sure doctors do the job they are supposed to be doing anyway, and it leads to frustration, especially towards the lazy doctors of which i have seen many  (nurses too, seems to be a human trait, go figure). Circulatory definitions of death are used as the definition of death, but the timing is far from precise. 

Although I understand your frustration, there is very little you can tell me about this. My mother was a nurse, who worked until her mid 80's; my grandmother was a nurse, who worked until her 70's; many of my aunts and great aunts were nurses, and I have heard all of the stories.

Let me tell you a story. When I was about 14 years old, I was reading a magazine article about heart disease. My mother and grandmother were sitting at the table having tea when I approached them and told them that I had learned that a huge number of people died from heart attacks. They looked at me, looked at each other, then started to laugh, and laugh, and laugh. Every time they seemed to get under control, they would look at each other and start up again until they had tears in their eyes. Finally, one of them gasped out, "What happens when you die?", then the other one answered just like a punch line, "Your heart stops." then they laughed some more.

Once they got under control, they explained that often the Death Certificate reads that the cause of death was the heart, but it is not always true. The problem is that even if the doctor suspects another cause of death, he can't put it down without evidence, but he can always write that the heart stopped, so that is what is recorded. This would have been about the mid 60's, and taught me to wonder about statistical evidence. One has to wonder if we are conquering heart disease, or if we just have better diagnostic equipment.

 

Quote

More importantly it's categorically not true in intensive medicine, which this doctor specialises in. Since 1968 in the USA (are you US based? this doctor is so i'll use their definitions) the medical definition of death has been brain death. This happened for various reason which you can read here:

It would be nice if everyone could be evaluated as to "brain death", but there is not enough equipment nor enough necessity to have it trucked all over the country, at great expense, when it is not always needed. I'm just glad that we are not burying people alive anymore.

 

Quote

Further to this, he quite explicitly states that a patient has died, but that because the cells have yet to decompose it is possible to bring the patient back to life. Again not true. The patient did not die. For the patient to die the process has to be irreversible (see above link). Yes, that means all those people who say that they died but came back are wrong: they were never considered dead.

He differentiates between clinical death and actual death, so I do not see the problem. He is trying to describe a unique situation, which is near death, so he has to find measures of death and what causes that unique situation. Cut him some slack.

 

Quote

This is just the first 3 minutes of the first video: there are worse problems, which i have alluded to. His statement that death is peaceful, except for those who commited suicide and that they all report seeing a bright light, neglecting of course those who reported experiencing nothing, or experienced something completely different: cherry picking in it's simplest form. I could go on, there is so much wrong about what he is saying, but these things are probably sufficient for us to get into the details.

This is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is where you chose the information that you want and ignore the rest. He did not ignore the rest and even gave percentages of people who don't experience this or who experience it differently, and even gave explanations as to why he thought some people would not experience it.

I found the stories very interesting and thought they seemed valid if one considers that these experiences may come from the unconscious reactive instinctive aspect of mind,, rather from the rational conscious aspect of mind.

 

Quote

In all this he brushes over the ambiguities of determining death, both medico-legal and biological (again see the above link, he uses the wrong definition whether circulatory or brain death), and uses his definition of death over the medical definition. He never makes that clear. He is deliberately avoiding these ambiguities to push his own agenda of what he believes. It is thus disingenuous and i stand by my statements. If anything i have said is untrue, or that i am manipulating data, please be specific. 

What I think is that you are mired in the details to such a degree that you do not understand what he is talking about. You seem very angry also, so I think that your biases about an "afterlife" or the "supernatural" may be affecting your judgment.

As I stated in my first post, I don't see how an afterlife is possible, and I long ago dismissed the idea of the supernatural, so I don't have any biases that prevent me from looking at this idea. I have also experienced some things and know people who have experienced some things that make me think something is going on here.

 

Quote

As do i. Now we both know we are not trying to insult each other let us proceed in our usual tones and not look for offence in each other words.

You are a detail person, which is going to drive me crazy; I am a general idea person, which is going to drive you crazy, but it should make for some interesting conversation.

Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gees said:

This is what Endercreeper01 said, "It is certainly evidence to any reasonable person. There is no denying that many people have had these experiences and that they mean something."

This is what he meant....It is certainly evidence...evidence of an afterlife or in the supernatural and anyone that didn't think so, was not being reasonable. That's what he said, and that is what he meant.You would have to be naive to deny what he meant to my question. 

Quote

Let's be honest here,

 Yes, lets!

Quote

if Endercreeper01 actually thinks that it is supernatural, so what?

Agreed, so what exactly! No arguments from me. But it also reveals an agenda with regards to the subject matter.

Quote

Everyone has a right to their opinion. That just means there is one more superstitious person in this thread. There is no reason to waste a whole page arguing it.


Again, I agree. But again also, it points to some baggage with relation to the thread topic.

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gees said:

Consciousness is not the result of the communication, it is the communication.

This communication does not just go on between cells, it also goes on within cells and applies to single cell life

OK. So inside a cell a protein might move through the cytoplasm in a vesicle. And let's say we define consciousness as this communication. Without the protein or cytoplasm or vesicle can we agree there would be no communication and hence no consciousness?

 

5 hours ago, Gees said:

.The communication between cells of all multicellular life forms is directed and regulated by hormones,

And neurotransmitters and electricity. I'm sure there's other forms too.

5 hours ago, Gees said:

The communication  between life forms of the same specie is directed and regulated by pheromones,

And sight and sound and others. If i see a tiger in the trees i run very fast because tigers are detrimental to my homeostasis. My body responds by flooding my body with fight or flight precursors. We could say the tiger is inadvertently communicating via photons.

 

5 hours ago, Gees said:

The brain is a player in this game, as the brain digitalizes the communication or consciousness into thought, the rational aspect of mind, which is what most people consider their consciousness. The problem with NDE's is that they show signs of being a product of the unconscious aspect of mind, rather than the conscious aspect. This is why I am fairly sure they are not imagination as imagination is a product of the conscious mind. NDE's seem to be a product of emotion -- the unconscious mind.

My understanding is that the brain is not digital. I agree that NDEs are the product of an unconscious mind, although taking DMT can produce a qualitatively similar experience in the waking mind, hence its sinister name the death molecule. Why is imagination the product of only a conscious mind? What do you think is happening when we dream (not a lucid dream)?

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

This is another example of "scab picking philosophy". He very clearly stated before and after that time that it was only one indicator, and the most commonly used one for practical purposes. CharonY confirmed this in her post that it is used for practical purposes.

He most certainly does not state before that it is one indicator. His words:

Quote

When the heart stops all life processes go out because there's no more blood getting into the brain... and that's the time doctor use to give us a time of death.

When the heart stops - he mentions the consequence of no blood getting to the brain, but when the heart stops all life processes go out. By the medical definition, this is not the case. Please read the article i gave before. Can you give me a time stamp on the first video when he mentions other indicators.

It's so black and white. But then our side discussion with Endo was black and white yet you couldn't see that.

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Cut him some slack.

Not when he's been so wrong about other things.

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

It would be nice if everyone could be evaluated as to "brain death", but there is not enough equipment nor enough necessity to have it trucked all over the country, at great expense, when it is not always needed.

It's virtually free and mostly involves testing reflexes and squirting cold water into the ear. Medical imaging like an MRI might be used as corollary evidence, but it's not needed. Seriously, read that article.

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

This is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is where you chose the information that you want and ignore the rest. He did not ignore the rest and even gave percentages of people who don't experience this or who experience it differently, and even gave explanations as to why he thought some people would not experience it.

 

When talking about kids at 5:59 he says:

Quote

And they all describe the same thing...

What do you think all means? I think he means to convey the idea that all the children had the same experience, because that's what i think all means. Again it just seems so black and white. Can you give me a time stamp on that first video when he gives percentages because i cannot find it.

 

6 hours ago, Gees said:

so I don't have any biases that prevent me from looking at this idea.

I'm wary of the person who thinks they suffer from no biases. Especially when they can't see that Endo was obviously referring to the supernatural, for what other possibilities are there? And this is why this is an important point, i think it belies your ideological blinkers despite your protestations otherwise. If we can't even agree on the meaning of a few simple words, how much harder will it be to agree on much more complex ideas. This is why i prefer details in this context.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All animals have a near death experience just before they die.

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now