ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I have come across this new term from Meta Physics. An extremely renowned author in a particular book goes as far as to state the following "that reincarnation actually exists because when we die our bodies die too (the red blood cells) but the white blood cells carry memories or our souls of our previous lives into our next lives". Is this really true? Or is the author nuts or some thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I prefer the reincarnation where, if I was born again, I wouldn't have my prior memories. It makes more sense. The author might be correct, who knows? No-one has died and come back to prove it, we'll never truly know until after we are dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I have come across this new term from Meta Physics. An extremely renowned author in a particular book goes as far as to state the following "that reincarnation actually exists because when we die our bodies die too (the red blood cells) but the white blood cells carry memories or our souls of our previous lives into our next lives". Is this really true? Or is the author nuts or some thing? Sounds like he is nuts to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 There is proof of life after death. It is written by no less than a neurosurgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Neurosurgeons can make mistakes and it's also true that his ability to use a scalpel carefully is no reason to believe in his philosophical viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 I agree but i am of the view that two renowned scientists saying pretty much the same thing cannot be totally wrong. I am inclined to believe them based on their authority and not that of my own personal bias. But they may yet be wrong. And there is simply no way of proving their claims. But what about past life regression therapy in that case? Is that also nonsense if there indeed is no life after death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I agree but i am of the view that two renowned scientists saying pretty much the same thing cannot be totally wrong. I am inclined to believe them based on their authority and not that of my own personal bias. But they may yet be wrong. And there is simply no way of proving their claims. But what about past life regression therapy in that case? Is that also nonsense if there indeed is no life after death? Opinions of two scientists does not make something true, care to name them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 Sure thing. Eric Pepin is one. Eben Alexander is another. Thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Sure thing. Eric Pepin is one. Eben Alexander is another. Thats it. This guy? http://www.ericpepin.com/ Pseudo science, meaningless woo words, not convincing... This guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author) Not widely accepted to say the least... Criticism[edit source]In a wide-ranging investigation of Alexander's story and medical background, Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that prior to the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error.[6][7] The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating."[6][7][8] Alexander issued a statement after the Esquire article's publication: "I wrote a truthful account of my experiences in PROOF OF HEAVEN and have acknowledged in the book both my professional and personal accomplishments and my setbacks. I stand by every word in this book and have made its message the purpose of my life. Esquire's cynical article distorts the facts of my 25-year career as a neurosurgeon and is a textbook example of how unsupported assertions and cherry-picked information can be assembled at the expense of the truth."[8] Alexander’s book and publicity campaign have been criticized by scientists, including neuroscientist Sam Harris, who described Alexander’s NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as “alarmingly unscientific,” and that “everything — absolutely everything — in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate — it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science.”[9] “Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline.”[10] Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific — it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one."[11] In November 2012, Alexander responded to critics in a second Newsweek article: "My synapses—the spaces between the neurons of the brain that support the electrochemical activity that makes the brain function — were not simply compromised during my experience. They were stopped. Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call 'consciousness.' The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that. My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing, there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact."[12] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing there was no way that any of the functions including vision hearing emotion memory language or logic could have been intact So doctors proved him totally wrong! Can doctors explain how i am feeling on a machine at a given point of time? Obviously they cant. But thats not to say that feelings simply dont exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 "Can doctors explain how i am feeling on a machine at a given point of time?" Not yet, but they are working on it with things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Functional magnetic resonance imaging. The successor of positron emission tomography. It can describe my feelings? Can you provide a link? www.amazon.com/Meditation-within-Eternity-Consciousness-Techniques/dp/0975908065/ref=la_B0050F1P4U_1_2/185-9207775-2343712?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380572183&sr=1-2 Eric Pepin is the world's leading trailblazer on the real, experiential process of unfolding the human consciousness and spiritual awakening by accessing Multi-Dimensional Consciousness. More than a mere philosopher, thinker or teacher, Eric Pepin offers ways to reach breakthrough states based on his own personal experience. From his past as a childhood prodigy "psychic", to his transformation into a spiritual thinker giving courses to friends on the Earth as a living organism and how to access the Gaia Mind at age 15, Eric has had an unexpected and colorful life, all leading to his one true passion: giving others the tools they need to connect to God. The author of The Handbook of the Navigator and over 80 courses on audio and DVD, this revolutionary "renaissance man" is known for his unique, untraditional, sometimes controversial approach to awakening. From activating and using the sixth Read more Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Functional magnetic resonance imaging. The successor of positron emission tomography. It can describe my feelings? Can you provide a link? www.amazon.com/Meditation-within-Eternity-Consciousness-Techniques/dp/0975908065/ref=la_B0050F1P4U_1_2/185-9207775-2343712?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380572183&sr=1-2 Eric Pepin is the world's leading trailblazer on the real, experiential process of unfolding the human consciousness and spiritual awakening by accessing Multi-Dimensional Consciousness. More than a mere philosopher, thinker or teacher, Eric Pepin offers ways to reach breakthrough states based on his own personal experience. From his past as a childhood prodigy "psychic", to his transformation into a spiritual thinker giving courses to friends on the Earth as a living organism and how to access the Gaia Mind at age 15, Eric has had an unexpected and colorful life, all leading to his one true passion: giving others the tools they need to connect to God. The author of The Handbook of the Navigator and over 80 courses on audio and DVD, this revolutionary "renaissance man" is known for his unique, untraditional, sometimes controversial approach to awakening. From activating and using the sixth Read more None of this is anything but pseudo science and meaningless woo words... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 Of course there is a lot of mumbo jumbo in there. The hardest task is in finding out what is really real. These books didnt do that. They were simply just some authors views. These are not the views of the majority of people. And they need not be if they arent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Of course there is a lot of mumbo jumbo in there. The hardest task is in finding out what is really real. These books didnt do that. They were simply just some authors views. These are not the views of the majority of people. And they need not be if they arent. Why pay attention to it if it's all mumbo jumbo and this stuff surely is just that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Consciousness is produced! If we were to simplify ourselves to only the consciousness, we find that we find that we are expanding. No consciousness is that specific, it is the mind which it inhabits that makes things unique. There is nothing stopping us from living again in a different life, or life-two; that does not mean that we will- but I think something else might make us live again, just a guess. Edited September 30, 2013 by s1eep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Because there may be a grain of truth in it. If we refuse even to use our rational self to look into the reality or the unreality of any thing,, then the doors to progress in science would be closed. s1eep you are right. everything is constantly expanding. Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Because there may be a grain of truth in it. If we refuse even to use our rational self to look into the reality or the unreality of any thing,, then the doors to progress in science would be closed. Why promote these concepts as anything but baseless speculations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 look to meta physics for proof. you will surely find it in audrey craft davis's book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 look to meta physics for proof. you will surely find it in audrey craft davis's book. Maybe because meta physics is not supported by empirical evidence? I am an empirical rationalist, I am not impressed by baseless claims and assertions, I want tangible proof not what someone claims as truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 it is not a claim. you can get the book and see for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 There is proof of life after death. Proof? I don't think there is even much supportive evidence, much less proof. I agree but i am of the view that two renowned scientists saying pretty much the same thing cannot be totally wrong. I am inclined to believe them based on their authority and not that of my own personal bias. But they may yet be wrong. Two renowned scientists out of a thousand renowned scientists is 0.2% The other 99.8% remain skeptical. it is not a claim. you can get the book and see for yourself. Is that what this is about, did you join to promote a book? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Please dont take my word for it. We can agree to disagree on this. I suppose everyone has their own views. No one is god and has all the answers. Edited September 30, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Please dont take my word for it. We can agree to disagree on this. I suppose everyone has their own views. No one is god and has all the answers. I take the default position, you have provided zero evidence for your position, in the lack of positive evidence the default position is that what ever you want to prove does not exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 I quoted the book as evidence! What more proof could you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts