Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

And I thought I was having a pleasant conversation with the people in this thread, how rude of me.
 
In which you stated:
Jodie said:
... but if we are an eternal one, what do you suppose earthly living is supposed to be about with all the push me/pull me going on?
Click to expand...
You're asking 'what if', but there is no evidence anywhere for this 'if'.

People are born and people die. There is no evidence for a 'before' nor for an 'after'.
Can you think of ways to provide the in between bit with meaning?
 
Jodie said:
I should say our corporeal body is inhabited by an infinite spark of something that carries on after we die, like shedding skin after you've outgrown it.
Click to expand...

You're making things up as you go, here. It might feel good to believe so, but that's it.

The way I see it , there isn't any reason it can't be a possibility.
Click to expand...

Who cares if it's a possibility or not? It's a possibility that atoms move around because they're being pushed by small fairies.

What I hope for is a life with meaning.
Click to expand...

It does. You're the one who determines what that is for you.

It's two different things, but if we are an eternal one, what do you suppose earthly living is supposed to be about with all the push me/pull me going on?
Click to expand...

Really, stop that. Stop hoping for magic and make do with the world as is.
 
Daylightstar said:
In which you stated:

You're asking 'what if', but there is no evidence anywhere for this 'if'.

People are born and people die. There is no evidence for a 'before' nor for an 'after'.
Can you think of ways to provide the in between bit with meaning?
Click to expand...

If we exist eternally then I would think this would be some kind of alternate kind of game to allow us to experience what it's like to live with others, and whether that experience was bad or good would be irrelevant judging by our standards here on earth. We would take what we learn here and apply it to another sim lab situation.
 
Belz... said:
You're making things up as you go, here. It might feel good to believe so, but that's it.



Who cares if it's a possibility or not? It's a possibility that atoms move around because they're being pushed by small fairies.



It does. You're the one who determines what that is for you.



Really, stop that. Stop hoping for magic and make do with the world as is.
Click to expand...

It won't be magic if it's real. A lot of people around the world care if it's a possibility, myself included, but no one can agree on what it might be like. I don't think that's a very realistic expectation to have anyway. I'm making do just fine, better than most people in the world, but there is nothing wrong with considering if there is more to life than here.
 
Jodie said:
If we exist eternally then I would think this would be some kind of alternate kind of game to allow us to experience what it's like to live with others, and whether that experience was bad or good would be irrelevant judging by our standards here on earth. We would take what we learn here and apply it to another sim lab situation.
Click to expand...

Your If ... then statement is invalid. There is not the slightest evidence for your 'if'.

The only thing coming after your life is the life of others. In your life you may choose to improve the quality of life of those sharing your life or of those coming after you in any way you like.
That could be your contribution to humanity.

Instead, you appear to judge such as irrelevant. You choose to escape in fantasies rather than to make a contribution to humanity.
How selfish.
 
Since you don't know what I do or anything about me I'm going to have to say that you're rather presumptuous in judgement. That shows a lack of critical thinking in and of itself. Nothing in the conversation thus far mentioned anything about descendents until you brought it up to demonstrate some kind of personal attribute I might have, that's a straw man argument.You've basically imagined what kind of person I am so how is that different from my considering what an afterlife might be like?
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Since you don't know what I do or anything about me I'm going to have to say that you're rather presumptuous in judgement. ...
Click to expand...
I look at how you present your argument. Is there anything missing from your arguments?

Jodie said:
... Nothing in the conversation thus far mentioned anything about descendents until you brought it up ...
Click to expand...
I brought up no such thing.
 
Sorry, I'm a nurse-midwife, I immediately went to reproduction.
 
When I asked whether you could think of ways to provide the in between bit (between being born and before dying) with meaning, you immediately went to other realms of existence.

Could the work you say you do perhaps have any meaning?
 
I'm sure it does, it and prostitution are the oldest professions in the world.
 
tsig said:
Bunny, bunny burning bright

In the forests of the night

What immortal hand or eye

Could frame thy fearful symmetry.
Click to expand...

Slowvehicle said:
When the clouds rained down their water

On the bunnies like they ought to

Did he smile, their damp to see?

Did he who washed the Lamb, wash thee?
Click to expand...

When we go into the woods
Would the could we should be goods,
Us clever little rabbits!

- Walt Kelly, some "Pogo" book or other
 
A God interested in remaining elusive could still intervene in the world on a massive scale.

Is there any evidence for such a god? No, not if it's powerful enough to intervene only in situations that won't be observed (or the occasional observed situation/phenomena (e.g., occasional veridical NDE account) to keep the faith alive).

Here's the tricky one: is there any evidence against such a god? What is the evidence, and what kind of future searches would be expected to turn up disconfirming evidence of such a being?
 
Elizabeth I said:
When we go into the woods
Would the could we should be goods,
Us clever little rabbits!

- Walt Kelly, some "Pogo" book or other
Click to expand...

Tsk, tsk.

Actual lyrics:

"When I go into the woods,
I see the little bunnies,
Eating porridge as they should,
Those clever little rabbits."

Mother Goosery Rinds, 1958
 
Someone linked a tape earlier about quantum physics that states the evidence doesn't support the concept of an afterlife.

However I think physics is far from complete but my understanding of it is limited. I can't agree or disagree at this point without delving more deeply into the subject. I doubt that will make much difference without completely starting over with basic math.

I did run across this new research, it may or may not be relevant:

https://earthchangesmedia.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/cern-finds-new-hints-of-lepton-particles/
 
Last edited:
If you presume that there is a purpose in life, you have to invent a purpose in death as well, since that's one thing we know occurs. But what evidence is there for any purpose in death, other than the logical one that a purpose in life requires it? We know we live and we know we die. All the rest is made up. It's made up even if it's a lucky guess and turns out to be true.
 
Jodie said:
Someone linked a tape earlier about quantum physics that states the evidence doesn't support the concept of an afterlife.
Click to expand...
Physics does not support the concept of anything that we currently regard as paranormal, for the simple reason that we have cleaned out any possibility of interactions that are not explained by physics in the energy range that we live in. An afterlife would only make sense if souls or spirits exist, because that is what is supposed to continue living, but souls have to interact with physics, or we could not move our bodies or experience anything physical, so souls are ruled out.

You can dream up a fantasy world where souls live, but they can never be connected to the real world where our bodies exist.

However I think physics is far from complete but my understanding of it is limited.
Click to expand...
Obviously our knowledge of physics is far from complete, or we would not need to make research any more. However, the areas of physics that are incomplete are those of energy range far away from our normal life. We still research what happens at extremely low temperatures that do not exist naturally on Earth, and we research what happens at extremely high temperatures, that would obviously destroy us if we encountered it in our normal life.

I did run across this new research, it may or may not be relevant:

https://earthchangesmedia.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/cern-finds-new-hints-of-lepton-particles/
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a good example of current research where physicists have found that our models need to be modified because of what happens at extreme energy ranges.

ETA: Alternatively, you can postulate that our physics models need to be completely scrapped. If you could construct a new model that explains everything that we currently know, spanning every bit of chemistry, atomic decay, tunnel effects, neutrino detection, you name it, and allows for spirits and an afterlife, then you have a case. You probably would not need to flesh out the new theory to the last bit, but just make it very likely that such a model exists. Solid evidence of an afterlife, or practically any other paranormal activity, would go a long way to make current physics tumble.
 
Last edited:
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory.
We are just taking the first steps in this new landscape.

A few propositions are important and neglected by many people here:

- We don't know everything there is to know.
- What we think we know, can be wrong, seen through the window of a much broader perspective.
- We can't expect that people can provide all evidence of NDE's and the afterlife. It's just the beginning of a scientific journey.

Maybe new evidence in the future, will provide us knowledge of a much broader perspective then what we know now. This broader perspective could give us totally different meaning to what science has discovered till now. So, don't be close minded here. Don't think you know everything there is to know and that your little scientific knowledge of the world is absolutely true.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory.
We are just taking the first steps in this new landscape.

A few propositions are important and neglected by many people here:

- We don't know everything there is to know.
- What we think we know, can be wrong, seen through the window of a much broader perspective.
- We can't expect that people can provide all evidence of NDE's and the afterlife. It's just the beginning of a scientific journey.

Maybe new evidence in the future, will provide us knowledge of a much broader perspective then what we know know. So, don't be close minded here.
Click to expand...

Woo!-of-the-Gaps argument.
 
Maartenn100 said:
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory.
Click to expand...

Any evidence at all in Maartenn's mind is too much. :D Ha. Brilliant.

We are just taking the first steps in this new landscape.
Click to expand...
That's one small step per woo, one giant gap for you.

- We don't know everything there is to know.
Click to expand...
Who said we did? Do you know anything about life after death?

- What we think we know, can be wrong, seen through the window of a much broader perspective.
Click to expand...
Take that advice.

- We can't expect that people can provide all evidence of NDE's and the afterlife. It's just the beginning of a scientific journey.
Click to expand...
Any would do. Really: any. Got some?

Maybe new evidence in the future, will provide us knowledge of a much broader perspective then what we know now. This broader perspective could give us totally different meaning to what science has discovered till now. So, don't be close minded here. Don't think you know everything there is to know and that your little scientific knowledge of the world is absolutely true.
Click to expand...
So, this "maybe" future means you must also wait before you speak about life after death. Take your own advice.
 
Maartenn100 said:
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory.
We are just taking the first steps in this new landscape.
...
Click to expand...

The NDExperience and afterlife claims/conclusions center around non corporeal consciousness, for which there is no valid evidence.
 
Maartenn100 said:
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory.
Click to expand...

It's really not.

NDEs have been extensively researched. The results just haven't been what you want them to be, so you just move the goalposts and try to act as though it hasn't been researched enough.

This is not a particularly compelling argument.
 
Maartenn100 said:
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory. We are just taking the first steps in this new landscape.
A few propositions are important and neglected by many people here:

- We don't know everything there is to know.
- What we think we know, can be wrong, seen through the window of a much broader perspective.
- We can't expect that people can provide all evidence of NDE's and the afterlife. It's just the beginning of a scientific journey.

Maybe new evidence in the future, will provide us knowledge of a much broader perspective then what we know now. This broader perspective could give us totally different meaning to what science has discovered till now. So, don't be close minded here. Don't think you know everything there is to know and that your little scientific knowledge of the world is absolutely true.
Click to expand...

Whose problem is that? It is really scraping the bottom of the argument barrel to say that a reason to believe a claim is that you don't have any evidence for it.
 
turingtest said:
Whose problem is that? It is really scraping the bottom of the argument barrel to say that a reason to believe a claim is that you don't have any evidence for it.
Click to expand...

This is not at all a difficulty for a particular group of our posters. That and a complete lack of functional knowledge of physics and much related to it!!!! Not to mention, which I am however, a corresponding lack of research skills - which mostly seem to consist of finding an article or two - often from less than competent sites - very often, indeed, that seems to vaguely support what they deeply want to be true.
 
Nonpareil said:
It's really not.

NDEs have been extensively researched. The results just haven't been what you want them to be, so you just move the goalposts and try to act as though it hasn't been researched enough.

This is not a particularly compelling really even an argument.
Click to expand...

FTFY!!!
 
How do we know we have consciousness? If we can figure that out it might indicate whether non corporeal consciousness is possible.
 
Maartenn100 said:
The problem here is that many people are asking for too much evidence in an area wich is still unknown territory.
We are just taking the first steps in this new landscape.

A few propositions are important and neglected by many people here:

- We don't know everything there is to know.
- What we think we know, can be wrong, seen through the window of a much broader perspective.
- We can't expect that people can provide all evidence of NDE's and the afterlife. It's just the beginning of a scientific journey.

Maybe new evidence in the future, will provide us knowledge of a much broader perspective then what we know now. This broader perspective could give us totally different meaning to what science has discovered till now. So, don't be close minded here. Don't think you know everything there is to know and that your little scientific knowledge of the world is absolutely true.
Click to expand...

But then how would we know that this broader perspective won't be superseded by still broader perspective which will again change the meaning?

Best to go back to the caves and rethink this whole thing.
 
Looks like they found a mechanism that ties consciousness to the brain through quantum vibrational computations in microtubules which are "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton. I'm not sure how that relates to something non corporeal. I haven't read much about this to comment one way or the other but it looks like there is more debate about it both pro and con. I'll have to read it later but here is the link if you have the time to read it before I will:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
 
Jodie said:
How do we know we have consciousness? If we can figure that out it might indicate whether non corporeal consciousness is possible.
Click to expand...

Multiple parallel process working in the brain. Chemico-physical processes.

Done.

Non corporeal consciousness is impossible based on our knowledge of physic.

Re-done.

Oh and just in case you want to involve Quantum mechanic : don't, QM also involve physical entities.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Looks like they found a mechanism that ties consciousness to the brain through quantum vibrational computations in microtubules which are "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton. I'm not sure how that relates to something non corporeal. I haven't read much about this to comment one way or the other but it looks like there is more debate about it both pro and con. I'll have to read it later but here is the link if you have the time to read it before I will:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
Click to expand...

That article was discussed to some extent in other forums. Firstly they isolated those tubule in a way it does not happen in the brain. Once you remove the isolation guess what happens. Secondly, again those are PHYSICAL properties. Eliminate the tubule and you have a lot of nothing. Furthermore there is no indication that such system would even influence neuron potential in a way that chemico processes do today.

Conclusion : you meed a physical media even if the case above was even remotely applicable to the brain. It does not help your NDE stuff in any way whatsoever.
 
Get near a dying person, put nozzle of running vacuum cleaner on or near dying person, as soon person is fully dead, put a stick in contents of vacuum cleaner bag and put in freezer.
Next day you have non corporeal consciousness popsicle.

Self referencing ability on a stick from the freezer :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
- We can't expect that people can provide all evidence of NDE's and the afterlife. It's just the beginning of a scientific journey.
Click to expand...
It is not the beginning of a scientific journey. Evidence for an afterlife sought for centuries, but nothing has been found. The question is when do people call it quits and stop looking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom