Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

Death is not Final

Recommended Posts

Check out the debate

 

"If consciousness is just the workings of neurons and synapses, how do we explain the phenomenon of near-death experience? By some accounts, about 3% of the U.S. population has had one: an out-of-body experience often characterized by remarkable visions and feelings of peace and joy, all while the physical body is close to death. To skeptics, there are more plausible, natural explanations, like oxygen deprivation. Is the prospect of an existence after death “real” and provable by science, or a construct of wishful thinking about our own mortality?

 

One of the comments from the debate:

 

I attended the debate last night and it was enjoyable. As a psychiatrist (in NYC to attend the American Psychiatric Association convention) but also having experienced an NDE 12 years ago and read widely on this topic and spoken to patients with NDE like experiences - it is a topic that fascinates me.

The awareness in my NDE was the same as right now - if not more clear - in stark contrast to the awareness in a brief hallucinatory phase and then confusional phase as I was recovering from the concussion and "loss of consciousness" (whilst to me there was no loss of my awareness/consciousness - I was just somewhere else - initially in a dark void and then in a tunnel moving at vast acceleration with what looked like stars whizzing by outside the translucent tunnel wall and I was accompanied by a loving protective guide - both of us had spirit like "bodies" that were far from the "blobs" that Dr Carroll jokingly referred to them as).

This was my subjective experience, it was of a completely different quality of conscious being-ness to having a dream.

I felt that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella were tactically far better debaters than Dr Alexander and Dr Moody. Dr Alexander and Dr Moody would have benefited in a much longer forum to fully expand their argument. Dr Moody's focus on philosophy was eloquent but I think went over the heads of many in the audience.

Yet Dr Moody is correct that the materialist "scientific" position that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella so skilfully defended - breaks down in the realm of philosophical reasoning. The question/comment I wanted to ask was - MATERIALISM WITH ITS INHERENT EPI-PHENOMENALISM IS ACTUALLY MORE "SUPERNATURAL" THAN BELIEF IN AN ONTOLOGICAL REALITY TO CONSCIOUSNESS THAT IMPLIES EXISTENCE OF A "SOUL". The "Soul" perspective does not need an inexplicable gap as to how consciousness arises from non-conscious matter such as subatomic particles, atoms, cells and neural tissue.

The trouble with the "naturalism" that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella were promoting as scientific is it requires this super-natural gap and leap of faith to say your sense of being you (awareness and intentionality/free-will) arises from total non-aware matter by some kind of magical means. This is obscured to many who don't know their philosophy of mind by calling the essential part of you and i an "epiphenomenon". Dr Moody and Dr Alexander don't need you to believe in this super-natural philosophical leap of faith.

Dr Alexander pointed out there is much research in science and philosophical discourse to support their position on this issue and I felt Dr Novella and Dr Carroll were overly quick (but clever from a tactical perspective) to shut this part of the debate down.

There is a book written on this by a group of scientists called "The Soul Hypothesis". Essentially they argue cogently that the materialism put forth by Drs Carroll and Novella is dead."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Life after death" is an ambiguous enigmatic paradox wrapped in a semantic riddle.  If there's life after death, then you haven't died. If you cease to be, then you never were.  :wacko:  Perhaps the answer is in the question. :blink: It's all veeeeery Zen.  The way to achieve Nirvana is to transcend words and spiral into a realm where life and death are all in the mind.Duh. :unsure:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whattup everyone, good to be back in the dialog............
This subject fascinates me as well.

One of the reasons is it basically confirms what I and most of the world has already known or suspected.....that there IS life after a physical death.

I don't even call them "near" death experiences anymore because the people weren't NEAR death.....they actually DIED.... by every definition of the term.

If your heart and breathing stops and brain activity stops....you're dead.

The doctors and coroners don't wait until the body starts decomposing before putting that toe-tag on, but now all of a sudden when more people announce that they've died and had these experiences people want to change the definition of death so as to try to discredit them.

No, these people actually died and they pierced the veil and saw what was on the other side.
It's nothing new, our ancestors were doing this for thousands of years.

 

 

 

 

Troy

Am I to understand that YOU had a near death experience?

If so, did you see any intelligent beings like Angels, Spirit Guides, or deceased relatives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term for what doctors observe when a patient flatlines is clinical death.  Doctors can't speak with authority on spiritual matters any more than anyone else.  Clinical death isn't that uncommon.  People fall into a state of suspended animation and are revived. But most of them  do not report an out-of-the-body experience that reflects popular beliefs about heaven and angels.  Nobody can prove anything one way or another about existence and transition.  It is inexplicable and thus has it ever been.    :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believing gives hope to some. Perhaps everyone is right and they go to a custom heaven or hell of their choosing.

Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I saw a elderly white man with a long beard, there were little cherubic white angles with halos and feathery wings floating around me me.  I was scared to death, or rather back to life...  Pioneer1, I never had an NDE.

 

I have had experiences were I felt I was aided by something or someone non-corporeal, I had an experience just last week, that if I were to described it to you would sounds like all the stories you've heard that start with, "...and God spoke to me..."

 

I do believe people make up stories to fit their reality.  Sometimes these stories involves spirits, God or extraterrestrials--it depends on the person.

 

While I find the stories interesting, I don't believe all of them simply because two smart, conscious people can witness the same event and come away with completely different descriptions.  Why would I believe anything someone with brain trauma and coming out of a coma has to say.

 

Here is the book referenced above.

 

41RFyBf5%2BJL.jpg
The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul

 

The "Sooner or later, the contributors to The Soul Hypothesis warn, scientists will pinpoint the exact three neurons whose firing accompanies the thought of our deciding to make a phone call or, if you prefer, deciding to get up and get a beer from the refrigerator. As ever more such micro-couplings are observed, we will—so scientists tell us with unseemly glee—gradually come to see that our cherished conscious life is nothing but a long series of electrical impulses, not an autonomous realm of free will and free thought. [...] The book's contributors set out this scientific challenge fully and engagingly, but they also expose its fallacies.The Soul Hypothesis performs yeoman service in rescuing the human capacities for consciousness and voluntary action from scientific challenge."
The Wall Street Journal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique
 

Nobody can prove anything one way or another about existence and transition. It is inexplicable and thus has it ever been

 

Lol.....???
I'm not sure what you mean by "nobody can prove".....hundreds if not THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of people have PROVEN that there is indeed life after a physical death.
Whether you wish to accept that proof or not is the question.

But then again, I'd have to ask you what is your definition of "proof"?

I can prove to you that it's raining outside by showing it to you or even taking you out in it, but if you just insist on being contrary or claimining it's not really rain but bird droppings......

 

 

Del

It works just the opposite as well.
Some people don't want to build up their hopes only to be let down so while secretly in their hearts they believe in and desire that there is a spirit world, they don't want to give themselves over to the feeling out of fear that they could be wrong.



Troy

We can argue about the INTERPRETATION of the spirit world all we want, but what can not be denied by any rational adult with a certain amount of life experience is it's EXISTANCE.

How can anyone continue to deny that which they've not only witnessed but experienced?
 

Too often people go with the proverbial....."Only when the White man says it exists...will I believe in it".....position.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer, do you know many people were falsely convicted based on eye witness accounts.  Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.  I'm not talking about people who are deliberately lying on the witness stand I'm talking about well-meaning people giving an account of what they saw that was ultimately discovered to differ from what actually happened.

 

To Cynique's point, one's personal experience is not proof. Even similar personal experiences of many people is not proof.  This is not to say those experiences are false, but it does not constitute "proof."  If 1,000 people see a weather balloon and are convinced it is an alien space craft, that does not mean it is true does it?  And needless to say, those observations are not proof of an alien sighting.

 

While it is fascinating to consider the possibility of visits from extraterrestrials, Big Foot wandering woods in America, or life after death.  No one has provided proof of any of it--despite the numerous personal accounts and anecdotes.  Again, this does not mean that Big Foot does not exist, but proof has not been presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen, Troy.  To you, Pioneer, my definition of proof is not blind faith.  If the millions of people who adhere to the Christian dogma in regard to the resurrection, are your idea of life after death being a proven fact, then - I reject your argument. 

 

To me, proof of this belief would be for Christ to emerge from the clouds and ascend to earth saying, "Hi y'all,  it's me, JC, and I'm baaaaack."  Biblical accounts written by hard core disciples years after the alleged event do not constitute proof to me. 

 

Yes, everybody hopes death is not final.  But, like faith, hope is not proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do.  I question and make adjustments to my beliefs all the time. Otherwise what is the purpose of seeking out new information and learning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you do have to acknowledge that you can't prove your beliefs if those who don't agree with them demand that you do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few... off the top of my head, Astrology, Christianity, The existence of a soul, the existence of extraterrestrials. 

 

How do I test these Ideas? I don't, at least I don;t test them in the sense I think you mean.  It is not like I'm in a lab running experiments.  I do however read the results of those do and have more knowledge on a subject.

 

In the case of extraterrestrials, I believe they exist.  No one can prove this, but based upon the best available data and given the countless other worlds that exist it seem perfectly plausible that the are other worlds with intelligent life.

 

I know a couple who have both seen an alien space craft while driving down the NJ turnpike.  They claim others were pulled over watching it too.  I don't believe what they saw was an alien space craft but that does not mean I do not believe they can exist.  I also read a book that cited many cases of alien abductions I don't believe any of those stories either.

 

Now I have now way of knowing, on my own, that there are countless other planets.  I know this because other folks have done the research and made the discoveries and I trust their results.   

 

I tend to disbelieve most things people say.  So while a I believe aliens are real I can't prove it.  Crop circles are not proof to me.  A bunch of eyewitnesses in Roswell NM is not proof to me.  An alien would pretty much have to show up to prove they exist.  For many others their standard of proof is much lower.  A silly story in the National Enquirer is sufficient proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The astrology is an interesting one because you took some classes. If you were terrible at it would you still believe it works or makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinions on Astrology are bit different. 

 

I took one class and the additional knowledge changed my opinion a great deal.  I was much less dismissive of it.  The instructor of the class happened to be the daughter of one of my grade school teachers.  Ya'll would call that synchronicity, I'd call it a small world ;) any who, because of the connection we became friendly and she cast a chart for my sister, a person she did not know.  I did not describe my sister either, other than to provide the detail of her birth.  When she interpreted that chart the instructor pretty much nailed my sister's personality and nature.  I was pretty impressed.

 

Some would call that proof.  In my opinion this it is not proof, but I do consider it is pretty strong evidence.  That experience and many other changed my opinion of Astrology.  I used to dismiss it as nonsense when my experience was based solely upon the newspaper daily readings.  Again, I questioned and ultimately adjusted my belief.

 

Keep in mind, I was raised to believe Astrology was the work of the Devil, practicing it would be a ticket to Hell.  I was told in no uncertain terms not to mess with it.  I never believed that.  Indeed all the practitioners I've meet (including Del) seem to interested in understanding and helping people much more than the people who condemn the practice.

 

Most scientists I've heard speak on the subject pretty much dismiss it straightaway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy that's interesting. So your teacher described your sister to a tee is not proof. But you will take as proof the opinion of someone more knowledgeable than yourself. If he had a diploma in astrology would that constitute "proof" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Del, the one incident is not proof, but again it got my attention and as I said I no longer dismiss this practice.

 

If a stranger asked you to pick a number from 1 to 20 and she was able to say what your number was would that proof she is psychic?  More likely our female stranger made a lucky guess. 

 

Now if that female stranger was in a room with 100 different people, and was able to get everyone's number, I would consider that proof of psychic ability.  The odds of guessing one person's number correctly is 5%   The odds of guessing all 100 correctly are so fantastically small it is indistinguishable from impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Del I've been answering all your questions but you not answered mine. 

 

Do you consider the single incidence of the teacher describing my sister as I have described it proof?  If so why, if not why not? 

 

Consider the possibility that I may have interpreted the Astrologers reading as accurate, but my sister would probably disagree with it.  Who is right?  How do you prove who is right?

 

Since Astrology is open to interpretation by both the one who reads the chart and the one being read.  It is more difficult to prove--there simply is no objective measure that I'm aware of.

 

Perhaps if a scientist published proof in a peer reviewed journal and it withstood review by the rest of the scientific community I would then believe in Astrology.  But that is no more likely to happen than the publication of a scientific proof of Christianity.

 

But most people who believe in Astrology, don't need proof.  Like religious people it is a question of faith "proof" is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will attempt to answer.

Your instructor is displaying extra sensory perception.

Birh you and your sister are correct in your opinions. You can't prove opinions.

Perhaps there are subjective ways to measure its validity, accuracy would present more if challenge. This could be done statistically.

Astrology may be proven within 16 months. Although that's my intuition.

I am a bit uncertain about your position. You believe there's something to astrology. Yet you haven't seen any proof.

How would you explain his accuracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would explain the accuracy of the reading as a coincidence augmented by my desire to see it work.

 

Again I was impressed by the reading I just don't consider one reading proof that astrology is real.  I don't think the woman is psychic, nor did she profess to be.  She simply pointed to concrete things in my sisters natal chart that "explained" her personality/nature. 

 

Del, and I appreciate this may be a stretch to do, but what characteristics would you ascribe to someone, in general, who does not have any fire in their chart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to look at the entire chart. She may not have fire but she could have planets in a house that is ruled by fire. Or she could have a fire sign in an angular house which could give her a fiery temperament. So I don't look at any aspect of the chart on isolation. When reading a chart you try to breathe life into the chart and find the person.

One of the things I learned from your chart is a person with Mercury and Venus in Taurus. Tend to rely on expert opinion. Although this could be true of other sign types if Mercury and Taurus are in the same sign. I'll have to check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man you actually still have my chart laying around :-)  If not I can scan it for you to review for the public to see.  Let me know if you are into doing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy what would you like. I am doing some predictive work as well. That could be interesting. Yes I have your chart. Send three numbers and I'll do some forward and backward prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5, 7, 9 (I was flirting with the last number being 8)

 

I can't find my chart right now.  My sun sign is Aries, I'm rising in Cancer and I think my moon was in Cancer as well, right?  I seem to remember most of my planets being on the top half of the natal chart.  Other than that I don't remember much else about it.   Feel free to share any significant points.  Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I still have your chart. I just discovered some new techniques. You are the first querent. Well actually I'm the first querent.

There will be two halves two your reading. The first is the obvious elements the second the subtle ones. Each section will have the following. The tone of where you are, when it started. The people that you will meet when you'll meet them and their role in your life.

If you have any particular areas I can look at them specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I'm mostly interested in my true nature and what motivates me.  I think I know, but it will be interesting to see if reflected in my chart.

 

I'm not extremely interested in predictions of my future and unless you can tell me something I can do to avoid a horribly painful death.

 

Whatever you feel the most confident describing.  I appreciate your time doing this--thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was impressed too, I just don't consider it proof.  Do you?

Yes, to get something correct without having conscious knowledge of it. That' s enough proof for me. If however the person got the information through normal channels. Then I would revise my opinion. If they were using nonverbal clues. I would place it in another category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I told you I was psychic and to prove it I asked you to flip a coin and I successfully guessed which side it landed.  Would you consider that proof of my psychic ability? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy That question is such a weak comparison. First their scale us not comparable. The chance of getting the coin toss right is 50%. The chance of nailing the personality is a much lower probability. First a personality would consist of more than one piece of information. Second it would be difficult to assign a probability to it. Although you could statistically check your accuracy. By using a qualitative test on 50 people, and then checking the accuracy with the person as on set, and three people that k ow the person. If I were to design it I would make one person a parent, one sibling, and close friend.

I enjoy when you use statistics to prove a point. Since it makes me either think about statistics. Or pull one of my books on statistics off the shelf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del it is difficult for me to make a point because you usually don't answer my questions.  I'm trying help you understand my perspective, by bringing you there in small steps, but if you shoot down or fail to directly answer my questions, then run with conclusions based upon your knowledge and assumptions then you will never see my point--at least not from my perspective--no matter how psychic you are.

 

But I'll follow your train of thought.  We don't really know what the chances of nailing a personality are.  How do you measure the probability of something so subjective as personality?

 

We all know people who behave differently with different people; in the streets a guy could be the life of the party and at home he is withdrawn and morose.  What is his true nature?  A close friend and a family member would likely disagree and the he himself may  have a 3rd opinion.

 

So was the interpretation of my sister's chart accurate?  I would say yes, and my sister actually disagreed.  Who is right?   

 

How can you prove something when can even agree upon an observation?  We are trying to prove weather a coin toss was predicted when we can even agree if it is heads or tails.

 

Plus, and this was my main point with the coin toss, I would never say something was proof based upon a single observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...