Also, phenomena like ghosts, past life memories exhibited in young children, etc. ties into the subject of consciousness existing independent of the body. Most paranormal phenomena has to do with this subject. I realize that none of this is proven but it is interesting.
Hi, I have read about the subject matter on your video in a book written by Chris Carter. Are you familiar with his books? He also brings up some ESP studies that were done a long time ago which showed that the study participants were able to successfully guess unseen flash cards at a rate greater than chance. I think that ESP (if proven) is also evidence that consciousness exists independent of the brain (and is able to perceive without using physical senses).
@johnnymanhands Wrong, you don't need citations when you present common scientific knowledge (and btw the doctors featured are your citations). That the brain becomes inactive after about 20 sec from cardiac arrest is common scientific knowledge that has been established through multiple experiments on both human and animals. Of course, if you are unaware of this, maybe you should do some research on what is established scientific knowledge -- that seems to be the issue here.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom A doctors testimony isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal either. The video speaks of a study of near death experience. If said peer reviewed journal article presents data and conclusions that life after death is a real fact you'd have no trouble referencing the paper.
@johnnymanhands The first doctor featured, Dr. Sam Parnia, has published numerous articles in peer reviewed scientific journals in the field of pulmonary medicine, like the medical journal Resuscitation, as well as in the field of near-death experiences, and is a current reviewer for The New England Journal of Medicine. In the video he referrers to his published peer reviewed research and general scientific knowledge of the issue.
Also, the work and statements of both Dr. Sabom and Dr. Spetzler has been published in scientific journals. So your opening statements: "TV shows aren't peer reviewed scientific journals" is factually wrong. You want to force me and others to overlook this fact and then look at your papers instead as THE science to win the argument. This is not only being subjective but borders on scientific fundamentalism -- just like in religion.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom and because its a public holiday in Oz today, I've done your homework for you - "Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness", Resuscitation, 2002 Jan;52(1):5-11. Unfortunately it doesn't say anything like what you assert it does.
@johnnymanhands Smart ass, now? So, you find papers saying the opposite or rather what you would like to say: "visions of a dying brain" etc. That's not objective science: that's you hand picking papers subjectively -- scientific belief -- my friend. The key argument of the video, and mine as well, is that 10-20 sec. after cardiac arrest the mind shuts down and becomes inactive. This is generally accepted scientific knowledge and this is the argument that you need to take on.
@johnnymanhands "Near death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands." Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich, The Lancet 2001; 358: 2039–45
"When the brain is so dysfunctional that the patient is deeply comatose, the cerebral structures which underpin subjective experience and memory must be severely impaired. Complex experiences such as are reported in the NDE should not arise."
- Sam Parnia, D.G. Waller, R. Yeates and P. Fenwick, A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors, Resuscitation, 48 (2001) pp. 149–156.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom What you might find more interesting is "Visualizing out-of-body experience in the brain." De Ridder D, Van Laere K, Dupont P, Menovsky T, Van de Heyning P, N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1829-33. Where they have presented a method for measuring exactly what you state cannot be measured in this video.
@johnnymanhands So, they have a theory. There is also the Coma Tennis experiment and "Spike at the end of the tunnel" - but it doesn't change the fact that its still only theory. Present scientific knowledge, based on experiments of both humans and animals, has come to the general conclusion that the brain shuts down after a mean of 15sec. We may prove otherwise in the future with new equipment but this is where we are right now and this is the key scientific argument.
...Parnia does bring up the key argument in his paper, and your paper does not seem to explain how conscious experience is possible after the brain has shut down, so let's focus here. The argument is:
1) Present scientific knowledge is that the brain shuts down after a mean of 15 sec.
2) Based on experiential evidence and veridical perception after the 15 sec., I say that this suggests consciousness beyond the brain, and thus, life after death.
"When the brain is so dysfunctional that the patient is deeply comatose, the cerebral structures which underpin subjective experience and memory must be severely impaired. Complex experiences such as are reported in the NDE should not arise."
- Sam Parnia, D.G. Waller, R. Yeates and P. Fenwick, A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors, Resuscitation, 48 (2001) pp. 149–156.
In the above paper in Resuscitation (peer reviewed scientific journal!) Dr. Sam Parnia concludes that the data suggests that the “NDE arises during unconsciousness.”
And this is my second point 2) that if data points to the NDE arising "during unconsciousness" - when the brain is inactive - then this is evidence suggesting life after death (conscious experience during unconsciousness).
Now, we can debate this conclusion but your initial criticism is factually wrong.
...and just because you have wasted my time pointing out your ignorance on this topic, as an objective 'scientist' (or whatever you think you are) could you begin by acknowledging this? As a 'scientist' are you honest enough to admit mistake? Then maybe we can continue to have an honest debate about this issue. If not, then I am truly talking to a scientific fundamentalist and you are the one living in Oz, whereby further debate and investigation is pointless.
if only they could answer a few more simple questions. is the soul permanent and will we remain conscious and how will we look after death. i am sure i have encountered ghosts but never confirmed to see them up close. if i were able to see a ghost i'd be a firm believer and feel much better but until then i am in self doubt and depressed at the possibility of no afterlife even if science states energy is never destroyed and a conscious doesn't need material. i am a doubting thomas i know.....
@AProudMuslim786 Hi, the accounts of NDE's don't compliment mainstream interpretations of Islam. Pantheist humanism, or religious naturalism seems more inline with 'experiences' and 'messages' of NDEs than mainstream religion.
@StarRider1250 so hundreds of thousands of people that have a NDE are wrong? 3seconds after you die youll get your answer.... but by then it will be far too late.
@StarRider1250 Be real...how much more evidence do you want? Surely I'd like to trust you, but this is no Char or whatever telling this, these are scientists. Until now, there have been hundreds of thousands - not to say millions of people that tell about a NDE. Also people from distant civilisations tell exactly the same, while they cannot have seen it on tv, internet, or could have read about it.
Such a pity that arrogant hardcore scepticisms just cannot live with the fact they were wrong
@StarRider1250 "Trust" you - so, you are actually dead right now commenting on youtube from the other side? Well, being dead is the only way you could know and being able to still communicate would mean that NDE research is right about life continuing.
@StarRider1250 You may disagree, but many people think that conscious experience during clinical death counts as evidence of life after death, not proof but certainly suggestive of such as present science does not allow conscious experience when the brain is off.
I love how people tend to forget that time is completely relative and that the brain functions very slowly in different stages of consciousness, completely disregarding the fact that the 8 seconds in which the heart stops but the brain is left active is more than enough for it to conjure up an entire experience that can remain in one's memory as a very long stretch of time, usually hours. As far as skepticism goes, I'm pretty sure that's a solid argument. I'll stick to enjoying my life. kthxbai
@Gothguy47 Its not a case of forgetting but listening. In the case of Pam Reynolds, she was clinically dead for 55 min. with flat EEG and an inactive brain. OK - 8 sec but then you still have to explain her NDE lasting till the end of the 55 min. Then your logic is also flawed: the right question is how much activity is need for conscious experience. Scientific studies on both humans and animals have firmly established that after 10-20 sec the brain cannot produce clear conscious experience.
@Gothguy47 As if you used any. But no problem I am a researcher on this topic. The youtube video uses footage from the BBC doc The Day I Died, and Dr. Sabom featured provides evidence that Reynold's NDE lasts till the end in his book Light and Death, p.45. In Consciousness Beyond Life p. 162, Dr. van Lommel refers to multiple scientific studies with sources that the brain cannot produce conscious experience after a mean time of 15 sec. And then you have scientific studies of ..
.Veridical Perception during NDEs where observations after the 15 sec have been objectively verified. Dr. Greyson and Janice Holden have produced these studies published in the Journal of Near Death Studies and both Dr. Sabom and Dr. Satori have compared control groups to NDErs seeing their own resucitation, where only the NDErs observations where correct. Once you study the evidence in depth the hard science and solid argument does not support skepticism but consciousness beyond the brain.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom lol, first of all I never said "consciousness", the brain is always active and it's always producing waves and translating them into sensation whether it happens consciously or subconsciously. For a researcher on this topic, you should probably already have known that. All the evidence presented here is completely anecdotal, which is precisely the reason why this debate never actually made it into the academic arena. But good luck making it there.
@Gothguy47 As I said the question is not whether the the brain may have some level of activity but how much activity is needed for conscious experience. After the mean of 15 sec. this should no longer be possible. Pam' case is scientifically solid and studies of veridical perception follows the scientific method - you obviously have not looked at the evidence in depth. People suggesting the earth is not the center were burned even with evidence and biology cannot explain consciousness.
Also your dying brain theory has no evidence to support it and thus is anecdotal itself. Opposite there is plenty of scientific evidence which suggests that when loosing consciousness the brain becomes disoriented and confused, not clear, coherent and lucid like in near-death experiences. Science is about being objective towards the evidence not having preconceived conclusions. If you had looked at the evidence, you would know that to date NO theory is able to explain the near-death experience.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You mean there's no -scientific- theory that explains the AFTERLIFE. I'm not even going to touch your flawed analogy about people living during a theocracy. Postulating that there is an afterlife based on the claim that there's no scientific theory that explains NDEs is an appeal to ignorance. The truth is that there -have- been many scientific explanations for why people experience what they do during NDEs but no afterlife hypothesis can be derived from it so you reject it.
@Gothguy47 I am saying that the NDE cannot be rejected scientifically: the score is even. However, there is scientific evidence that suggests NDEs are real and evidence of consciousness beyond the brain. Obviously you didn't understand my analogy: your dying brain theory, which has not been proven, is not objective but based on scientific reductionism that rests on materialism. And in a universe where only 5% is matter and CERN looking for the Higgs particle, the earth is no longer flat.
..and let's not forget who began the discussion with "I'm pretty sure that's a solid argument." You hinted that the brain can produce conscious experience - "left active" - when it is dying during the 8 sec. And as I said, this argument rests solely on reductionist theory - where there is hard science evidence to support that the brain becomes not clear and lucid when dying but disoriented and confused (Dr. Peter Fenwick, etc.)
@ReneJorgensenDotCom I never claimed that NDE has been scientifically rejected, in fact I actually explicitly stated that there ARE scientific theories that explain NDEs when you claimed there weren't. What I reject is the idea of consciousness beyond the brain. Evidence for THAT is anecdotal and it's not supported by either neurological, biological, or biochemical scientific processes. Your implication is that THAT constitutes enough evidence for some form of afterlife. They score is not "even"
@Gothguy47 You said "I'm pretty sure that's a solid argument" even though I have disproved your argument scientifically. By even I mean that there is evidence to support both arguments but a final proof has not been made: its a draw. The theory that consciousness evolved out of biology is just that - a theory - as it has not been proven. The hard problem still remains: how did the water of matter turn into the wine of consciousness? So, yes unless your religion is Scientism its even.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom My religion is reality. Everything that doesn't fall within it's realm is fictional. The ironic thing about your analogy (pointing back to it) is that back when they used to burn people for claiming based on scientific hypothesis that the earth isn't flat or the center of the universe, they still believed based on theology that there was an afterlife. Such fear of death is a characteristic solely derived from these primitive unscientific societies.
@Gothguy47 In scientific studies of NDEs people observe things during clinical death that is then objectively verified as real. This is evidence of reality and not a hallucination, which is fictional, yes. This evidence is objective, while you clearly have a preconceived idea upon which you base your theories: "primitive unscientific societies." Your view is both reductionist and scientific fundamentalism - but classical science is not the only religion in town.
...and just in case you do not know what scientism means: "Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." - Sounds like a religion to me: just replace "science" with "my God" and then you have your standard religious fundamentalism.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom I lol'd hard at "scientific fundamentalism". Are you high? Science by definition is unbiased. WTF Classical Science?! What are you talking about? "Classical Science" If you're using the historical term refers to a period in research that gave birth to everything we know in modern science. Your implication that science is a religion is baffling if you can't see how they differ. Science adjusts its views based on reality. Religion distorts reality to fit into its views.
@Gothguy47 Do I need to explain the word Scientism again? If you claim that natural science has all the answers and is the only authority, as you have clearly demonstrated, then you religion is "Sceintism." Your Darwinian view on consciousness as evolving out of biology is of the classical paradigm - opposite quantum teleportation in quantum mechanics is new science. The point is that new science has broken even Einsteins theory of relativity beyond the event horizon - so its a new dawn.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom There's no such thing as scientific fundamentalism. There's no such thing as Darwinism in the same sense as there's no such thing as Einsteinism or Newtonism. Your posts keep getting more ridiculous. Quantum Mechanics is COMPLETELY BASED ON EINSTEIN'S WORK. Science is convergent, the knowledge gained in the past never expires, it's accumulated and refined. I have NEVER made the claim that science is the only authority and has the answers to everything you dishonest snake.
@Gothguy47 Scientific fundamentalism is my copyright to help you understand Scientism: It talks like a duck, it .. :) The point is that when you claim that science is fundamental and the only truth - then its fundamentalism (google the word). No, but natural science mostly bases its theory of consciousness on Darwin's theory of evolution: something came out of nothing. According to Einstein nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - Quantum entanglement disproves that theory.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You clearly have no idea what evolution talks about. If you think evolution states anywhere that something came out of nothing, we have nothing more to discuss. Again, I never claimed science holds the only truth. Here's what I do know though: The only reason to believe anything is by observing and analyzing evidence. Period. This isn't scientism, it's realism. When you finish studying evolution and you grasp the scientific method, you can come back and talk to me about NDEs
@Gothguy47 "The only reason to believe anything is by observing and analyzing evidence. Period. This isn't scientism, it's realism." No, this is the scientific method - not God - and your belief in it is scientism. Sorry.
Besides when talking about realism based on materialism and there being 95% more of our universe that is immaterial, you are going to run out of physical evidence. Also with the observer effect, you should at least be open to discuss what objectivity really means.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Yes. And do you know why the scientific is so critically acclaimed and praised by scientists as an effective way to come up with conclusions for observations we see in reality? Because all scientists are secretly religious cultists who are out to disprove God and hate everything that's not science. Just kidding... because IT WORKS. And like I said, it's irrelevant what I believe because even if I was a Satanist, reality will not change based on my belief.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom But the fact that you're trying so hard to pin me under a label speaks volumes about how reality to you is relative based on what people believe. This is the CORE of religious fundamentalism which I've described: changing reality to fit with your theories. This is exactly what religion is and exactly what science is not: Changing your theories to fit with reality. Call me a scientific fundamentalist again. Like i said, nothing bothers me more than pseudo-scientists like you.
@Gothguy47 What really bothers you is to look yourself in the mirror and see that you are what you reject: a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism, from fundamental in Greek, relates to force through having power or authority over somebody else. It that not how you think? Look in the mirror now. Like the meaning of Scientism, you have clearly demonstrated that "science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life."
You use name calling and see belief in the afterlife as primitive fear of death - and without the final scientific proof, you use science as a tool to gain power and authority over what you reject. You see like scientism and religion, its not what you believe in: science or God - that makes you a fundamentalist - its the belief that only your belief is true. And when you arrogantly act on this belief, rejecting all other possibilities, this act of suppressing other views is fundamentalism.
The problem is that you have no clue what fundamentalism is. What you call the "CORE" of fundamentalism is simply the opposite of the scientific method: belief in something without proof. This is belief and has noting to do with fundamentalism. Look up fundamentalism and you will find it defined as a Christian movement or if you are really clever, you will find its root in Greek like I have shown you. Fundamentalism is the act of enforcing your belief through the view that its the only truth.
..and while it is you who call me a "pseudo-scientist" - the mere fact that I have to point this out and teach you what scientism is vs. what it means to be objective - should make you a little ashamed of what you see in the mirror. It is in fact you who are trying to change reality by forcing science on to everything in the world and saying that only science has the answer. Science cannot explain everything. This is an objective fact - but for you science is a religion and the only true one.
To drive the point home and help you here: According to your logic: "A tree falls whether we hear it or not" - If there is life after death, then as the falling tree it is so whether we can prove it or not. Get your own logic? Just because we cannot prove life after death it does not mean that there is no life after death. You have rejected that the "score is even" - even though you do not have final proof to reject it - and this is where you loose your objectivity and convert to Scientism.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Your unfounded attempt at equalizing reality and fiction stems from your own insecurity concerning the degree to which your suspension of disbelief really has to go in order for your mind to rationalize the theories you invariably fantasize about. This is despite the fact that what I am is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand yet you persist on trying to paint me out as something I'm not. You're acting less like a scientist and more like a politician.
@Gothguy47 The problem is that you are unable to separate who you are from what you believe and from the scientific method. In religion this is called blind faith - for you it must be blind scientism. Your discontent for religion; "primitive unscientific societies" makes you conclude that there is no afterlife - only illusion based on "fear of death." This position is based on scientism, not objectivity, and as pointed out you fail your own logic because your conclusion is based on mere theory.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Also I'm fed up listening with repeatedly listening to such weak arguments trying to equate a method of answer-finding that has to do with refining theories so that the correspond with what we see in reality with a method that completely disregards what we see in reality so that a fundamental belief or theory can be preserved. If you can't tell the difference, you haven't thought about it. Allow me to assist you /watch?v=EYigmGyN2RQ
@Gothguy47 There is no problem with the scientific method: only science cannot answer everything. This is not about weak arguments - this is about YOU not understanding the scientific method that you promote. For the scientific method to be scientific - you have to start from an OBJECTIVE starting point. Your starting point is NOT objective as you have already concluded that there is no afterlife only fear of death. True scientific objectivity means that without proof the possibility is there.
You are using science as a political tool in the old war against religion. Lets try another topic: extra dimensions. QM theory suggests extra dimensions but we do not have the proof yet, even thought CERN is looking for the Higgs-particle. Without proof, please tell me if extra dimensions exist or not? You may say they do not but if "A tree falls whether we hear it or not" - then also; if extra dimensions exist, then they do so whether we have proof or not. The question is unsolved - its even!
Even hardcore atheists say there is "probably" no God because they are enlightened enough to understand that without full knowledge of the universe they cannot rule it 100% out. You on the other hand rule everything out that has not been proven scientifically or fit your preconceived belief. This is not objective and this is not science - this is scientism.
So, you are an atheist posing as a scientist - now things make sense. In response to your video of your Guru: it was actually Richard Dawkins himself who explained the London bus ads: "There is probably no God - so enjoy your life" that he could not use "There is no God" but had to insert "probably" because without final proof he himself would make Science Work Like Religion - which is exactly my point! Even your Guru understands that you cannot disprove something without proof - so, its even!
So, you are an atheist posing as a scientist - now things make sense. In response to your video of your Guru: it was actually Richard Dawkins himself who explained the London bus ads: "There is probably no God - so enjoy your life" that he could not use "There is no God" but had to insert "probably" because without final proof he himself would make Science Work Like Religion - which is exactly my point! Even your Guru understands that you cannot disprove something without proof - so, its even!
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Unfortunately, you're still trying to make an argument out of what it is I am which as I've pointed out countlessly, is irrelevant. Sometimes I wonder why I even both with you. I'm tired of repeated myself. I've already stated, countless times, I don't believe that science has the truth to everything. I've already stated that it simply brings as "the closest" to what is probably the truth because it's based on evidence and logic. I'm done repeating myself to you.
@Gothguy47 Wrong: I am the one having to repeat myself. You say "the closest" and like your Guru "probably," which would be 90% vs. 10% or something like that. What I am saying and what you have opposed is that without final proof the "score is even," which would be 50/50. Thus, 50 vs. 90% is quite significant scientifically and beyond your fatigue and insults this is the debate we are having. Your belief that you are 90% in the right is what makes you arrogant and a convert to scientism.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Furthermore, an objective point of view doesn't mean a position where you accept that everything is true. It's a position where you consider whether someone's claim is scientifically valid based on evidence. A position that doesn't have a claim (like there is no God or there is no afterlife or there are no invisible unicorns) doesn't have a burden of proof. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, not the one who needs to reject it. Look up Russell's teapot.
@Gothguy47 "Doesn't have a burden of proof" is exactly what scientism is. The reason I have to repeat myself is that you simply do not get it: "Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." Let me translate so you understand: You are saying that without proof natural science is the authority on life after death - that is what you are saying and that is scientism.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You have demonstrated an extreme misreading of what it means to hold a belief, whether it be scientific or otherwise. First you insist on attaching it to the believer himself pretending that it has any bearing whatsoever that it affects reality, second you use dishonest argumentation techniques like ad hominum and false analogies, like comparing science to a religion, and third you assume that because I cannot reject your claim, that it's a tie for whether or not it's true.
@Gothguy47 You have demonstrated an extreme ignorance about science and its objectivity. I have not compared science to religion - what I have compared is your interpretation of science to scientism. And yes, I do equate the mind that supports scientism to the religious mind that supports fundamentalism. The belief that only your belief is true is fundamentalism whether held in religion or science. And no, your belief is not science - without objectivity through 50/50 even score its a belief.
Your statement: "This is bogus because YOU'RE the one who needs to back up your claim and not I reject it" is exactly what fundamentalism is: my God is bogus and I have to convert to your God - that's what you are saying and that's the scientism I am exposing. As I said without proof the score is 50/50 - not 90/10 as you think. Also that I should have a lack of "interest in reality" just proves my point that you want me to convert to your Atheist religion. The objective reality is 50/50.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom What doesn't have a burden of proof is having to REJECT A CLAIM OMG YOU"RE RETARDED. Like I said a billion times, I have no burden of proof disproving a claim, the burden of proof lies with the PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM. And btw, you're also an atheist. You're an atheist when it comes to Thor and Krishna and Vishnu. Just because I don't accept your particular brand of God doesn't make me wrong and you right. I'm done debating with ignoramuses. Enjoy your only miserable life.
@Gothguy47 Don't give up just when there is light at the end of the tunnel for you. Your problem is that you are an atheist using science to promote your religion and your faith makes you blind. Without proof objectivity has to conclude 50/50 - not your 90/10. You are adding 40% because of your faith in atheism and then when you try to use science to enforce this belief - this is when you turn to scientism. As an atheist using science to defend your religion you are a fundamentalist.
@Gothguy47 And just to really enlighten you: that you find me "RETARDED" is evidence of your religious fundamentalism. This extreme name calling and your lack of ability to stay on topic is a clear sign of your frustration that you cannot convert and force me to believe in your God: atheism.
@Gothguy47 Here is your light: The exact place you make your error in logic is in your belief that the burden of proof is on anything that has not been proven scientifically. Your religion is that only what has been proven scientifically is real. This would be so only in a parallel universe where science was the only religion. But in the real world, science is only one worldview among many, thus 50/50. The parallel universe you live in is a universe of scientism and this is your brand of God.
This is bogus because YOU'RE the one who needs to back up your claim and not I reject it. Fourth, you've failed to provide good, repeatable, testable scientific evidence to verify your inconsistent claims. And fifth you've demonstrated a complete lack of genuine interest in reality, it is not I who fails to look at things objectively, for I have heavily considered your claim and your evidence. It is you who needs to stand back and further examine the validity of your position.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Scientism *correctly spelled* is not science. In fact it's counterintuitive to science. Science is about seeking answers and finding reality based on evidence that can be repeated and tested. When the evidence from NDEs is completely aligned together and consistent like the evidence for evolution /watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY then the academic arena will look at it in a different light than just the unsupported cluster of anecdotal records that it really is.
@Gothguy47 I get your point about being objective in our search for truth - but that is not where you stand. You clearly have preconceived ideas: "they still believed based on theology that there was an afterlife. Such fear of death is a characteristic solely derived from these primitive unscientific societies." + "Science adjusts its views based on reality. Religion distorts reality to fit into its views." You may be blind to it, but there is a certain arrogance here that smells of Scientism.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom My personal stance is completely irrelevant to the topic of evidence concerning NDEs. But if you're interested, it's anti-ignorance. For generations our society has been put back by the unscientific pursuit of knowledge. And while some of it has been fruitful (such as the development of philosophy), a lot of it restrains science (like making stem cell research illegal in the US). I'm frankly fed up with people who don't know anything about science trying to criticize it.
@Gothguy47 Again you prove my point: "it's anti-ignorance." Your arrogant and aggresssive defense of science and the classical paradigm is neither objective nor open: How can you see when you are blinded by this passion of being anti-? As I said, your pattern of thinking clearly demonstrates scientism as you believe (believe!) that science holds all the answers. Your one sided defense of this paradigm is scientism and I call it fundamentalism when you start fighting (anti-) with this belief.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You're retarded, I'm sorry. For the zillionth time, I don't believe that science holds any answers whatsoever. I believe that it brings as the closest to understanding what we observe. And it's based on sound logic and evidence. What you propose is a fairy tail that stems from your fear of death and your fetish for changing reality so that it corresponds better with what you wish it was.
@Gothguy47 Then you have to admit its even: the NDE has neither been proven nor disproven. If you cannot, as you have shown, because only what has been proven already is real - then I am sorry that you do not like it - but then it scientism. But I do not think are able to admit to this because even though I have provided you with scientific evidence for the NDE that you have not been able to disprove, still you say "what I believe stems from my fear of death." This is arrogant scientism!
"Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." - Sounds like a religion to me: just replace "science" with "my God" and then you have your standard religious fundamentalism.
@ReneJorgensenDotCom And throwing you a bone and assuming that it did and we discover some mystical supernatural ability to experience consciousness without the body or mind, it would STILL be intellectually dishonest and a castration of the scientific method to arrive to the conclusion that there's an afterlife because of it. Everything that occurs naturally has a natural scientific explanation behind it, even if we don't know what the explanation is. A tree falls whether we hear it or not.
@Gothguy47 Scientifically, all we are talking about is that there is evidence to suggest that people can have conscious experience when the brain is inactive. "Everything that occurs naturally has a natural scientific explanation behind it" I agree that science may be able to explain it some day but here again you express Scientism - your religious belief is based on materialism: without evidence and based on mere belief, you have decided that consciousness can only occur inside the brain.
...as long as you and natural science cannot account for consciousness -- its an open question: you cannot reject something without proof. Without proof you cannot say that consciousness is produced by the brain - all you have is theory and claiming that you have proof, as you do is scientism. Then as a fundamentalist, you get angry at people and scientific evidence, like NDE evidence, that points in a direction that you do not like. The point is that without proof the issue is unsettled.
And you say: "a lot of it restrains science." This is exactly how many religions feel as they would like to be the only religion in town. If you do not accept other fields or traditions, including religion, you are a scientific fundamentalist. Yes, science is good at many things - but it just doesn't do it all. And in a universe where only 5% is matter, scientifically proven, you have to be open and not reductionist in your view or support scientism.
And as said, your dying brain evidence is what is anecdotal here. The theory is reductionism (you are also a reductionist) and has more evidence against it: most scientific evidence suggests that the brain becomes disoriented and confused when dying - not clear and lucid. Based on scientism - that biology must explain everything - the theory jumps to the brain must be dying without any evidence in support. Besides this reductionist anecdotal theory I have seen nothing else from you.
So, you are an atheist posing as a scientist - now things make sense. In response to your video of your Guru: it was actually Richard Dawkins himself who explained the London bus ads: "There is probably no God - so enjoy your life" that he could not use "There is no God" but had to insert "probably" because without final proof he himself would make Science Work Like Religion - which is exactly my point! Even your Guru understands that you cannot disprove something without proof - so, its even!
@ReneJorgensenDotCom It's like saying that a scenario either can or cannot be and therefore there's a 50-50 chance that it's possible which is just hokum. The truth is that this kind of argument empowers unsupported theological arguments as opposed to valid reality-based ones. Furthermore, you can argue whether the case of Pam Reynolds actually happened under controlled experimental conditions or not. When gathering information on similar cases, evidence is always inconsistent. Not a good sign.
@Gothguy47 No, its just saying that we do not have the final proof. In a universe made of only 5% matter (5% reality for you) and where new science has proven quantum entanglement and teleportation, while getting close to extra dimensions, maybe both Scientism and reductionism are narrow perspectives. Pam's case and studies of veridical perception are not unsupported - they point in a certain direction - one that classical science at war with religion does not like. That's the real issue here.
@Gothguy47 if you were Albert Einstein, you could never have had thought that time could actually be bent and is relative, is sewn into the fabric of space. If you were one of the guys who have perfected the 'M' Theory, you could have never imagined that gravity is actually made up of particles (strings of energy) that flows in and out of our Universe, with your mind set... You sir do not desrve to be talking as if you are for the Science Team and this other guy (ReneJorgensen) against it.
@vegeteriancannibal You're mad lol. Probably because you know deep inside that the wishful thought of an afterlife is nothing more than a product of our own self-centered egos, wishing we'd get to live longer without any evidence that any of us or any other species on this planet ever has. Unlike you, I have a life and I'm living it to the fullest, because I know it's the only one I'm getting. I'd suggest you do the same instead of relying on the hope that maybe you'll get to live longer.
@Gothguy47 What are you retarded? Why would I wish for an eternal life, it's too much to handle wouldn't you think? However, just because we DO NOT wish for an eternal life doesn't mean that we deny the evidence when we face it BUT i am not saying that there are enough evidence to say anything, all I am saying is that why are you soo opposed to this particular theory. Its like, if Albert Einstein was opposing Maxwells theory that the spped of light is constant, CONTINUED
@vegeteriancannibal I'm not opposed to scientific advancement at all, and you need to chill out. Maybe someday we will find something that relates to a supernatural (magic) plane of existence where we all go after we die but so far we've found exactly nothing to hint at it. The beauty of science is that it's divergent and independently verifiable, as well as testable and repeatable. No fields of science support the claim that there is an afterlife, and you're gonna need more than one for atheory
@Gothguy47 Really??? What is Afterlife? What is life at all?? You talked about time slowing down in the quantam level of the brain, now let me tell you something about the quantam level... weird SUPERNATURAL like things happen there so when you talk as if YOU KNOW that science doesn't support afterlife, you are just being stubborn..
@vegeteriancannibal That argument (what is life?) isn't based in science, it's based in philosophy. Supernatural in this case strictly means "magic". It's a joke with the premise that magic cannot be tested or proven by any scientific means. If you'd like we can discuss this further on IM but for now I'd suggest you stop humiliating yourself on a public forum, mainly because I'm too lazy to call you out on every dodge, strawman, ad hominum, and ignorance you display in your argument.
@Gothguy47 Really? what a moron!! ''What is life'' is philosophy, he says and I am humiliating MYSELF.. HAHA!! lol, I am the biggest fan of Richard Dawkins and when posed with the question, how did a chromosome get the information (genes) it has to be able to build life, the answer is, WE DON'T KNOW YET!!! We don't know how the genes are encoded yet!! You keep saying ''magic'' and ''afterlife'' as if I am talking theologically, you are ridiculously moronic!! Goodbye!!
@vegeteriancannibal It's funny, I didn't know you were a liar too. If you were actually a RD fan you'd have come across this: youtube . com / watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4 and this is an article where he answers that very question: skeptics . com . au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/ don't forget to erase the spaces. I know you won't read it all because you clearly struggle with English. But this is just to show you that you're wrong, we know EVERYTHING about it. Educate yourself.
@Gothguy47 ARGHHHH, IDIOT, MORON, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE DNA'S KEEP RETAINING INFORMATION YOU DUMB DUMB ASSHOLE, STOP COMMENTING.... i am going to stop replying to you from right now, I saw your channel and you keep dreaming ya!! dumbass!!
@vegeteriancannibal I also love how you called me a moron because you can't think of any more arguments. And i love how you ragequit and ran away like the coward you so clearly are. It shows that you have no interest in pursuing the answers and knowing more *as your page states*. If you were you'd have agreed to discuss this with me personally on IM. You just completely humiliated yourself with the Dawkins bit because you're absolutely dead wrong. He knew the answer to that question, as we alldo
@Gothguy47 Hey dumbass, google it and find out how it is that chromosomes retain information, how it is that dna's are encoded okay, you are telling me right now that 1+1=3 and it's driving me crazy to tell you that it's not 3, it's 2.
@Gothguy47 Oh god, I was drunk when I wrote a comment to you, BIG MISTAKE!!!!
/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w ... Now i hate that Ben Stein guy and I think Expelled was ridiculous however, I have to show a clip from that movie never-the-less.... listen carefully and after that, please go away!!
@vegeteriancannibal Theory of relativity wouldn't be! Logically, the speed of light to be constant is ridiculous, to think time can be bent is ridiculous, to think there could be 11 dimensions and the 5th dimension is made up of all the varying choices we have is idiotic, to think that a particle can exist at two places at the same time, to think that a particle is entangled with another particle in such a way that even at the opposite edges of the universe, it remains entangled is ridiculous.
@vegeteriancannibal Taking evolution as an example, it's a theory based around evidence and verified independently by the fields of evolutionary biology, paleontology, anthropology, physiology, medicine, genetics, botany and a shitload of others. If there's any magical afterlife out there, at least one of the thousands disciplines of science would have found something related to it. Instead, all we have is very weak neurological studies that focus on anecdotal untestable personal accounts. Fail.
@Gothguy47 The whole basis of life is that it started from self replicating MOLECULES!! You are too stubborn to see objectively the possibilities that could be!!
Everyone who claims they had a near-death experience explains similar activities during their experience. They always explain a tunnel with light at the end, also looking at their physical body from obove. This it good scientific proof of the existence of god!
@xspettacolare.You really must do your research my friend,and look at the many thousands of cases that there has been;Dr Melvin Morse is a good place to start. He has dedicated his life towards the study of the Near Death Experiences of children.the facts are astounding.If you indeed have an open mind, as you say and have,you will see for yourself.Don't take my word for it, or some atheist's...have your own mind, look at the evidence yourself and draw your own conclusions and follow your heart
@xspettacolare. I don't understand your argument here. Money is indeed a great mover, but it is clear by the many testimonies that these people have been moved by something much greater than money. I believe more is to be gained from the atheist who places his moral values on laws that are unto himself as apposed to the theist, who believes that we will be held accountable for our actions by a transcendent creator.
this isnt about being held to any accountablity.. my issue with all this NDE jazz is simple there are many people who make things up! sure they have been moved by something , we are all moved by many exp we have in life the birth of a child ,death of a loved one, etc, etc. just cause they had a NDE doesnt mean it's real, of course it's gonna move them change them, because what they saw is life changing but it doesnt mean it's real.
I won't say for sure there is an after life but people who have had NDEs are convinced death isn't the end and many scientist who study NDEs also come to the same conclusion.
well, yes & no there are faith based scientists who think NDE is real & then there are others who dont think so. I dont think it's all that cut & dry. just cause they are convinced their NDE is real doesnt make it true .what if it's just the brain's way of protecting itself during the death state so it creates the NDE much in the same way folks get past life regressed though hypnoses it doesnt make it true either.I think the mind is able to create alternate realities for itself
@xspettacolare. Exactly my point. It is not cut and dry, however you have to be open to the possibility that the answers to your questions lie outside of our capabilities of explanation and therefore points to something greater than ourselves.There will always be questions, therefore one of the two certainties of life are; there is always things that we wont know.Funny how Atheists can't make peace with this, as they seem to with life's other apparant certainty, that we will all pass away 1day
I dont buy into this. sure we have to keep an open mind but that doesnt mean we should believe everything we hear let's look at the facts money is a great mover..
that's true. but it still doesnt prove that it's real, but I do admit something here is going on.. I just dont trust all them who are out to make a buck off it.
@xspettacolare And in fact there have been cases where someone wrote a book about an NDE they had and it turns out they fabricated certain things. So you can't trust every NDE story but remember millions of people have reported having it. Very few people make money off of their NDE.
I wouldnt believe anyone that said they died & went to heaven. I find it staggering that when folks say they died, & went to heaven they never seem to come back with anything interesting to tell us such as the secretes to the unverse,space travel, telaportation,free energy,U name it. even heaven sounds like a boring place from the description of what NDE folks tell us. U would think heaven is a fun place. big deal bright light,angels,clouds hell sounds more fun
A wise man, is he who understands that he knows nothing. For those who have ears to hear let them hear and for those who have eyes, let them see. It is very simple. The evidence is there to support the claim that the mind lives on after the brain. Therefore the body is the ONLY part of us which seems to die. Thus, It seems fairly logical to conclude that, at the very least; there is much more to us and our existence as infinite entities than we care to aknowledge.
oh yes , it does asking U things such as do U believe in heaven & hell does have alot to do with the topic..
there's this man who claims he had a near death exp NDE years after he first aired his exp went on a tv show on the history channel just recently which I watched he went on to talk about how during his NDE many many years ago during his NDE he saw heaven & hell; then went on to say if one doesnt accept jesus they wont get saved. come on if this isnt BS I dont know what is.
@xspettacolare Heaven and hell has nothing to do with the brain and consciouness other than you not being able to disconnect religion from a debate about consciouness existing outside the brain. What you're talking about is a debate of if life exists after death and I mentioned many times I don't know for certain if it does so I didn't make any claims on that.
You haven't been reading what I've been saying carefully.
um false again NDE ,& life after death ,& all that jazz has everything to do with heaven hell etc etc.Hello if U believe Pam came out of her body then that means U believe in essence that Pam's consciouness is pure spirit, soul, or consciousnes does not die upon pysical death..
ok fine let's set all that jazz aside where do U think pam went after her body died or was in the process of death? U believe she came out if her body correct? where did she go? let's start there.
if you listen to the whole 2 hours she talks about it in more details ;bright light, heaven, god ,love ,& feeling love,& how she didnt want to go back, but she had to come back, because she had unfinished business so what happened U missed all that part?
I also had talked about how that other idiot said when he died he had the same exp he saw hell & heaven & all that jazz. I bring this up because every stupid NDE has some religious aspect to it . which makes me suspect .
I think all them stupid NDE folks are either confused,stupid,delusional,or they made it all up,or embellished a little, or they where convinced by someone who believes in this stuff convinced them that they had some NDE sorta like someone who puts someone under past life regression hypnoses. which then the person who is under is convinced he/ she has lived a past life. in all cases the person who has the exp must be first open to the idea. people will believe what ever under stress
@xspettacolare So now people who have NDEs are stupid and confused. If you're just going explain away NDEs rather than actually have an intelligent debate then I don't see the point in talking with you.
lmao , listen u havent said much ;all u have done is say the same thing over & over again; u havent added to anything I have said or questioned. U arent even sure what happens after one dies or where one goes. the only thing U talked about is she came out of her body , ok great what else? U dont seem interested in anything else.
U said it yourself U arent even sure about the after life death state U cant even comment on heaven hell or any of my other mentions
@xspettacolare What's not try? Are you trying to say advanced technology hasn't increases the changes of suriving a NDE? Be more clear with you're arguements.
i just told u just because advanced technology has advanced & brought back folks from the dead still doesnt prove NDE or life after death or that consciousness exists outside the body or the dead brain.
U are assuming too much here. im sure folks even during the era of modern tech still are declared clinically dead ,& yet still come back to still will tell they saw & felt nothing, it was lights out.
@xspettacolare Oh I see another straw man. I never said improved technology proves NDE or life after death. I was pointing how NDE have increased because of improve tech.
Ok and there are people that have NDEs. That's what we are talking about. Try to stay on topic.
listen U didnt have to say it ,but by not saying it U said it,so it doesnt matter,cause U believe that NDE has a super natural aspect to it ie life after death heaven hell etc. inorder to believe in NDE U have to believe in everything else which faith talks about ,athough U say U dont believe in everything religion teaches.
improved technology proves NDE as true for U, because U already believe in it, so it only confirms what U already believed sorta like saying see told ya so.
@xspettacolare Stop creating straw men. I never said I believe NDE have a supernatural aspect. You seem to have a hard them dissociating NDE from religion or faith. By doing this you're not no different than someone who is religous thus you aren't open minded about the matter and will believe what you want to believe.
false U do believe in NDE ,because your whole argument is that consciousness exists outside the living brain hence when we have a NDE it' proves we exist even after our bodies dies & rots away. so U do believe in soul after life etc etc etc.
this is your whole argument. U believe NDE is more then a dream how else would Pam have seen heard & felt so U believe Pam must of left her body.
@xspettacolare You're reaching way to much. First of all NDE and souls have nothing to do with each other. Like I said you can't help but connect NDEs to religion for some reason. Try to have an open mind with this.
Because NDEs are more than a dream. We can monitor dreams but NDEs happen when there is no brain activity, yet you continue to say it's a dream.
there U go again U just said NDE is more then just a dream so that means it's more then a dream? admit now that U believe consciousness still exists outside the brain because Pam said she still existed when she was clinically dead this is just semantics what U call consciousness exiting out side the brain is sorta like believeing in the soul it seems to be the same thing from your understanding.
OK FINE NDE is more then a DREAM tell me what it is then?
@xspettacolare It is more than a dream. Like i said we can monitor dreams and why would you ask me to admit something I must've said at least 20 times now?
"OK FINE NDE is more then a DREAM tell me what it is then?"
@xspettacolare Well I don't see how one can think Pam didn't exist during her NDE. I mean she lived many years after the sugery.
I see you're asking loaded questions. I never said I believe or know for a fact life contines after death. My stance is that consciouness exists apart from the brain.
omg!! so let me try & understand this, so U dont know for a fact life contines after death,but your stance is that consciouness exists apart from the brain.
U are contradicting yourself ;either U believe that U are the consciouness itself
Pam Reynolds' NDE was my life's turning point
mark32811 6 days ago
Also, phenomena like ghosts, past life memories exhibited in young children, etc. ties into the subject of consciousness existing independent of the body. Most paranormal phenomena has to do with this subject. I realize that none of this is proven but it is interesting.
mlgarton 6 days ago
Hi, I have read about the subject matter on your video in a book written by Chris Carter. Are you familiar with his books? He also brings up some ESP studies that were done a long time ago which showed that the study participants were able to successfully guess unseen flash cards at a rate greater than chance. I think that ESP (if proven) is also evidence that consciousness exists independent of the brain (and is able to perceive without using physical senses).
mlgarton 6 days ago
Comment removed
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
Last time I checked, TV shows aren't peer reviewed scientific journals.
johnnymanhands 1 week ago
@johnnymanhands But that doesn't mean that the information presented in a TV show hasn't been peer reviewed or that the science isn't solid.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Without citations your science isn't solid and all you've got is 2nd hand anecdotes.
johnnymanhands 1 week ago
@johnnymanhands Wrong, you don't need citations when you present common scientific knowledge (and btw the doctors featured are your citations). That the brain becomes inactive after about 20 sec from cardiac arrest is common scientific knowledge that has been established through multiple experiments on both human and animals. Of course, if you are unaware of this, maybe you should do some research on what is established scientific knowledge -- that seems to be the issue here.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago 5
@ReneJorgensenDotCom A doctors testimony isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal either. The video speaks of a study of near death experience. If said peer reviewed journal article presents data and conclusions that life after death is a real fact you'd have no trouble referencing the paper.
johnnymanhands 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnymanhands The first doctor featured, Dr. Sam Parnia, has published numerous articles in peer reviewed scientific journals in the field of pulmonary medicine, like the medical journal Resuscitation, as well as in the field of near-death experiences, and is a current reviewer for The New England Journal of Medicine. In the video he referrers to his published peer reviewed research and general scientific knowledge of the issue.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also, the work and statements of both Dr. Sabom and Dr. Spetzler has been published in scientific journals. So your opening statements: "TV shows aren't peer reviewed scientific journals" is factually wrong. You want to force me and others to overlook this fact and then look at your papers instead as THE science to win the argument. This is not only being subjective but borders on scientific fundamentalism -- just like in religion.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom and because its a public holiday in Oz today, I've done your homework for you - "Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness", Resuscitation, 2002 Jan;52(1):5-11. Unfortunately it doesn't say anything like what you assert it does.
johnnymanhands 1 week ago
@johnnymanhands Smart ass, now? So, you find papers saying the opposite or rather what you would like to say: "visions of a dying brain" etc. That's not objective science: that's you hand picking papers subjectively -- scientific belief -- my friend. The key argument of the video, and mine as well, is that 10-20 sec. after cardiac arrest the mind shuts down and becomes inactive. This is generally accepted scientific knowledge and this is the argument that you need to take on.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
@johnnymanhands "Near death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands." Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich, The Lancet 2001; 358: 2039–45
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
"When the brain is so dysfunctional that the patient is deeply comatose, the cerebral structures which underpin subjective experience and memory must be severely impaired. Complex experiences such as are reported in the NDE should not arise."
- Sam Parnia, D.G. Waller, R. Yeates and P. Fenwick, A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors, Resuscitation, 48 (2001) pp. 149–156.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom What you might find more interesting is "Visualizing out-of-body experience in the brain." De Ridder D, Van Laere K, Dupont P, Menovsky T, Van de Heyning P, N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1829-33. Where they have presented a method for measuring exactly what you state cannot be measured in this video.
johnnymanhands 1 week ago
@johnnymanhands So, they have a theory. There is also the Coma Tennis experiment and "Spike at the end of the tunnel" - but it doesn't change the fact that its still only theory. Present scientific knowledge, based on experiments of both humans and animals, has come to the general conclusion that the brain shuts down after a mean of 15sec. We may prove otherwise in the future with new equipment but this is where we are right now and this is the key scientific argument.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
...Parnia does bring up the key argument in his paper, and your paper does not seem to explain how conscious experience is possible after the brain has shut down, so let's focus here. The argument is:
1) Present scientific knowledge is that the brain shuts down after a mean of 15 sec.
2) Based on experiential evidence and veridical perception after the 15 sec., I say that this suggests consciousness beyond the brain, and thus, life after death.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"When the brain is so dysfunctional that the patient is deeply comatose, the cerebral structures which underpin subjective experience and memory must be severely impaired. Complex experiences such as are reported in the NDE should not arise."
- Sam Parnia, D.G. Waller, R. Yeates and P. Fenwick, A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors, Resuscitation, 48 (2001) pp. 149–156.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
In the above paper in Resuscitation (peer reviewed scientific journal!) Dr. Sam Parnia concludes that the data suggests that the “NDE arises during unconsciousness.”
And this is my second point 2) that if data points to the NDE arising "during unconsciousness" - when the brain is inactive - then this is evidence suggesting life after death (conscious experience during unconsciousness).
Now, we can debate this conclusion but your initial criticism is factually wrong.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 1 week ago
Comment removed
ReneJorgensenDotCom 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...and just because you have wasted my time pointing out your ignorance on this topic, as an objective 'scientist' (or whatever you think you are) could you begin by acknowledging this? As a 'scientist' are you honest enough to admit mistake? Then maybe we can continue to have an honest debate about this issue. If not, then I am truly talking to a scientific fundamentalist and you are the one living in Oz, whereby further debate and investigation is pointless.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 6 days ago
if only they could answer a few more simple questions. is the soul permanent and will we remain conscious and how will we look after death. i am sure i have encountered ghosts but never confirmed to see them up close. if i were able to see a ghost i'd be a firm believer and feel much better but until then i am in self doubt and depressed at the possibility of no afterlife even if science states energy is never destroyed and a conscious doesn't need material. i am a doubting thomas i know.....
ultradumbass 1 month ago
It's Real...
datagirl122 2 months ago
Allah hu akbar!
AProudMuslim786 2 months ago
Comment removed
strangestdude 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AProudMuslim786 Hi, the accounts of NDE's don't compliment mainstream interpretations of Islam. Pantheist humanism, or religious naturalism seems more inline with 'experiences' and 'messages' of NDEs than mainstream religion.
strangestdude 1 week ago
@StarRider1250 so hundreds of thousands of people that have a NDE are wrong? 3seconds after you die youll get your answer.... but by then it will be far too late.
zestydude87 4 months ago
@StarRider1250 Be real...how much more evidence do you want? Surely I'd like to trust you, but this is no Char or whatever telling this, these are scientists. Until now, there have been hundreds of thousands - not to say millions of people that tell about a NDE. Also people from distant civilisations tell exactly the same, while they cannot have seen it on tv, internet, or could have read about it.
Such a pity that arrogant hardcore scepticisms just cannot live with the fact they were wrong
Pascalsmit1971 5 months ago 2
@StarRider1250 "Trust" you - so, you are actually dead right now commenting on youtube from the other side? Well, being dead is the only way you could know and being able to still communicate would mean that NDE research is right about life continuing.
LightBehindGod 5 months ago
@StarRider1250 You may disagree, but many people think that conscious experience during clinical death counts as evidence of life after death, not proof but certainly suggestive of such as present science does not allow conscious experience when the brain is off.
LightBehindGod 5 months ago
Quantum theory of consciousness Orch-OR Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff is true.
Every man has an immortal soul, which is the mind, self, consciousness.
I recommend my article:
orch-or.com/english.html
robertcbwawa 9 months ago
@robertcbwawa Great, some one dares to look beyond our flat earth 5% material universe.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
I love how people tend to forget that time is completely relative and that the brain functions very slowly in different stages of consciousness, completely disregarding the fact that the 8 seconds in which the heart stops but the brain is left active is more than enough for it to conjure up an entire experience that can remain in one's memory as a very long stretch of time, usually hours. As far as skepticism goes, I'm pretty sure that's a solid argument. I'll stick to enjoying my life. kthxbai
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Its not a case of forgetting but listening. In the case of Pam Reynolds, she was clinically dead for 55 min. with flat EEG and an inactive brain. OK - 8 sec but then you still have to explain her NDE lasting till the end of the 55 min. Then your logic is also flawed: the right question is how much activity is need for conscious experience. Scientific studies on both humans and animals have firmly established that after 10-20 sec the brain cannot produce clear conscious experience.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Citations needed.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 As if you used any. But no problem I am a researcher on this topic. The youtube video uses footage from the BBC doc The Day I Died, and Dr. Sabom featured provides evidence that Reynold's NDE lasts till the end in his book Light and Death, p.45. In Consciousness Beyond Life p. 162, Dr. van Lommel refers to multiple scientific studies with sources that the brain cannot produce conscious experience after a mean time of 15 sec. And then you have scientific studies of ..
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
Comment removed
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.Veridical Perception during NDEs where observations after the 15 sec have been objectively verified. Dr. Greyson and Janice Holden have produced these studies published in the Journal of Near Death Studies and both Dr. Sabom and Dr. Satori have compared control groups to NDErs seeing their own resucitation, where only the NDErs observations where correct. Once you study the evidence in depth the hard science and solid argument does not support skepticism but consciousness beyond the brain.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom lol, first of all I never said "consciousness", the brain is always active and it's always producing waves and translating them into sensation whether it happens consciously or subconsciously. For a researcher on this topic, you should probably already have known that. All the evidence presented here is completely anecdotal, which is precisely the reason why this debate never actually made it into the academic arena. But good luck making it there.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 As I said the question is not whether the the brain may have some level of activity but how much activity is needed for conscious experience. After the mean of 15 sec. this should no longer be possible. Pam' case is scientifically solid and studies of veridical perception follows the scientific method - you obviously have not looked at the evidence in depth. People suggesting the earth is not the center were burned even with evidence and biology cannot explain consciousness.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
Also your dying brain theory has no evidence to support it and thus is anecdotal itself. Opposite there is plenty of scientific evidence which suggests that when loosing consciousness the brain becomes disoriented and confused, not clear, coherent and lucid like in near-death experiences. Science is about being objective towards the evidence not having preconceived conclusions. If you had looked at the evidence, you would know that to date NO theory is able to explain the near-death experience.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You mean there's no -scientific- theory that explains the AFTERLIFE. I'm not even going to touch your flawed analogy about people living during a theocracy. Postulating that there is an afterlife based on the claim that there's no scientific theory that explains NDEs is an appeal to ignorance. The truth is that there -have- been many scientific explanations for why people experience what they do during NDEs but no afterlife hypothesis can be derived from it so you reject it.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 I am saying that the NDE cannot be rejected scientifically: the score is even. However, there is scientific evidence that suggests NDEs are real and evidence of consciousness beyond the brain. Obviously you didn't understand my analogy: your dying brain theory, which has not been proven, is not objective but based on scientific reductionism that rests on materialism. And in a universe where only 5% is matter and CERN looking for the Higgs particle, the earth is no longer flat.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
..and let's not forget who began the discussion with "I'm pretty sure that's a solid argument." You hinted that the brain can produce conscious experience - "left active" - when it is dying during the 8 sec. And as I said, this argument rests solely on reductionist theory - where there is hard science evidence to support that the brain becomes not clear and lucid when dying but disoriented and confused (Dr. Peter Fenwick, etc.)
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom I never claimed that NDE has been scientifically rejected, in fact I actually explicitly stated that there ARE scientific theories that explain NDEs when you claimed there weren't. What I reject is the idea of consciousness beyond the brain. Evidence for THAT is anecdotal and it's not supported by either neurological, biological, or biochemical scientific processes. Your implication is that THAT constitutes enough evidence for some form of afterlife. They score is not "even"
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 You said "I'm pretty sure that's a solid argument" even though I have disproved your argument scientifically. By even I mean that there is evidence to support both arguments but a final proof has not been made: its a draw. The theory that consciousness evolved out of biology is just that - a theory - as it has not been proven. The hard problem still remains: how did the water of matter turn into the wine of consciousness? So, yes unless your religion is Scientism its even.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom My religion is reality. Everything that doesn't fall within it's realm is fictional. The ironic thing about your analogy (pointing back to it) is that back when they used to burn people for claiming based on scientific hypothesis that the earth isn't flat or the center of the universe, they still believed based on theology that there was an afterlife. Such fear of death is a characteristic solely derived from these primitive unscientific societies.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 In scientific studies of NDEs people observe things during clinical death that is then objectively verified as real. This is evidence of reality and not a hallucination, which is fictional, yes. This evidence is objective, while you clearly have a preconceived idea upon which you base your theories: "primitive unscientific societies." Your view is both reductionist and scientific fundamentalism - but classical science is not the only religion in town.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
Comment removed
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...and just in case you do not know what scientism means: "Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." - Sounds like a religion to me: just replace "science" with "my God" and then you have your standard religious fundamentalism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom I lol'd hard at "scientific fundamentalism". Are you high? Science by definition is unbiased. WTF Classical Science?! What are you talking about? "Classical Science" If you're using the historical term refers to a period in research that gave birth to everything we know in modern science. Your implication that science is a religion is baffling if you can't see how they differ. Science adjusts its views based on reality. Religion distorts reality to fit into its views.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
Comment removed
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Do I need to explain the word Scientism again? If you claim that natural science has all the answers and is the only authority, as you have clearly demonstrated, then you religion is "Sceintism." Your Darwinian view on consciousness as evolving out of biology is of the classical paradigm - opposite quantum teleportation in quantum mechanics is new science. The point is that new science has broken even Einsteins theory of relativity beyond the event horizon - so its a new dawn.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom There's no such thing as scientific fundamentalism. There's no such thing as Darwinism in the same sense as there's no such thing as Einsteinism or Newtonism. Your posts keep getting more ridiculous. Quantum Mechanics is COMPLETELY BASED ON EINSTEIN'S WORK. Science is convergent, the knowledge gained in the past never expires, it's accumulated and refined. I have NEVER made the claim that science is the only authority and has the answers to everything you dishonest snake.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Scientific fundamentalism is my copyright to help you understand Scientism: It talks like a duck, it .. :) The point is that when you claim that science is fundamental and the only truth - then its fundamentalism (google the word). No, but natural science mostly bases its theory of consciousness on Darwin's theory of evolution: something came out of nothing. According to Einstein nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - Quantum entanglement disproves that theory.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You clearly have no idea what evolution talks about. If you think evolution states anywhere that something came out of nothing, we have nothing more to discuss. Again, I never claimed science holds the only truth. Here's what I do know though: The only reason to believe anything is by observing and analyzing evidence. Period. This isn't scientism, it's realism. When you finish studying evolution and you grasp the scientific method, you can come back and talk to me about NDEs
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 "The only reason to believe anything is by observing and analyzing evidence. Period. This isn't scientism, it's realism." No, this is the scientific method - not God - and your belief in it is scientism. Sorry.
Besides when talking about realism based on materialism and there being 95% more of our universe that is immaterial, you are going to run out of physical evidence. Also with the observer effect, you should at least be open to discuss what objectivity really means.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Yes. And do you know why the scientific is so critically acclaimed and praised by scientists as an effective way to come up with conclusions for observations we see in reality? Because all scientists are secretly religious cultists who are out to disprove God and hate everything that's not science. Just kidding... because IT WORKS. And like I said, it's irrelevant what I believe because even if I was a Satanist, reality will not change based on my belief.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom But the fact that you're trying so hard to pin me under a label speaks volumes about how reality to you is relative based on what people believe. This is the CORE of religious fundamentalism which I've described: changing reality to fit with your theories. This is exactly what religion is and exactly what science is not: Changing your theories to fit with reality. Call me a scientific fundamentalist again. Like i said, nothing bothers me more than pseudo-scientists like you.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 What really bothers you is to look yourself in the mirror and see that you are what you reject: a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism, from fundamental in Greek, relates to force through having power or authority over somebody else. It that not how you think? Look in the mirror now. Like the meaning of Scientism, you have clearly demonstrated that "science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life."
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
You use name calling and see belief in the afterlife as primitive fear of death - and without the final scientific proof, you use science as a tool to gain power and authority over what you reject. You see like scientism and religion, its not what you believe in: science or God - that makes you a fundamentalist - its the belief that only your belief is true. And when you arrogantly act on this belief, rejecting all other possibilities, this act of suppressing other views is fundamentalism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
The problem is that you have no clue what fundamentalism is. What you call the "CORE" of fundamentalism is simply the opposite of the scientific method: belief in something without proof. This is belief and has noting to do with fundamentalism. Look up fundamentalism and you will find it defined as a Christian movement or if you are really clever, you will find its root in Greek like I have shown you. Fundamentalism is the act of enforcing your belief through the view that its the only truth.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
..and while it is you who call me a "pseudo-scientist" - the mere fact that I have to point this out and teach you what scientism is vs. what it means to be objective - should make you a little ashamed of what you see in the mirror. It is in fact you who are trying to change reality by forcing science on to everything in the world and saying that only science has the answer. Science cannot explain everything. This is an objective fact - but for you science is a religion and the only true one.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
To drive the point home and help you here: According to your logic: "A tree falls whether we hear it or not" - If there is life after death, then as the falling tree it is so whether we can prove it or not. Get your own logic? Just because we cannot prove life after death it does not mean that there is no life after death. You have rejected that the "score is even" - even though you do not have final proof to reject it - and this is where you loose your objectivity and convert to Scientism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
Your God is different but your fundamentalist belief is the same as in religion.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Your unfounded attempt at equalizing reality and fiction stems from your own insecurity concerning the degree to which your suspension of disbelief really has to go in order for your mind to rationalize the theories you invariably fantasize about. This is despite the fact that what I am is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand yet you persist on trying to paint me out as something I'm not. You're acting less like a scientist and more like a politician.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 The problem is that you are unable to separate who you are from what you believe and from the scientific method. In religion this is called blind faith - for you it must be blind scientism. Your discontent for religion; "primitive unscientific societies" makes you conclude that there is no afterlife - only illusion based on "fear of death." This position is based on scientism, not objectivity, and as pointed out you fail your own logic because your conclusion is based on mere theory.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Also I'm fed up listening with repeatedly listening to such weak arguments trying to equate a method of answer-finding that has to do with refining theories so that the correspond with what we see in reality with a method that completely disregards what we see in reality so that a fundamental belief or theory can be preserved. If you can't tell the difference, you haven't thought about it. Allow me to assist you /watch?v=EYigmGyN2RQ
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 There is no problem with the scientific method: only science cannot answer everything. This is not about weak arguments - this is about YOU not understanding the scientific method that you promote. For the scientific method to be scientific - you have to start from an OBJECTIVE starting point. Your starting point is NOT objective as you have already concluded that there is no afterlife only fear of death. True scientific objectivity means that without proof the possibility is there.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
You are using science as a political tool in the old war against religion. Lets try another topic: extra dimensions. QM theory suggests extra dimensions but we do not have the proof yet, even thought CERN is looking for the Higgs-particle. Without proof, please tell me if extra dimensions exist or not? You may say they do not but if "A tree falls whether we hear it or not" - then also; if extra dimensions exist, then they do so whether we have proof or not. The question is unsolved - its even!
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
Even hardcore atheists say there is "probably" no God because they are enlightened enough to understand that without full knowledge of the universe they cannot rule it 100% out. You on the other hand rule everything out that has not been proven scientifically or fit your preconceived belief. This is not objective and this is not science - this is scientism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
So, you are an atheist posing as a scientist - now things make sense. In response to your video of your Guru: it was actually Richard Dawkins himself who explained the London bus ads: "There is probably no God - so enjoy your life" that he could not use "There is no God" but had to insert "probably" because without final proof he himself would make Science Work Like Religion - which is exactly my point! Even your Guru understands that you cannot disprove something without proof - so, its even!
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
So, you are an atheist posing as a scientist - now things make sense. In response to your video of your Guru: it was actually Richard Dawkins himself who explained the London bus ads: "There is probably no God - so enjoy your life" that he could not use "There is no God" but had to insert "probably" because without final proof he himself would make Science Work Like Religion - which is exactly my point! Even your Guru understands that you cannot disprove something without proof - so, its even!
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Unfortunately, you're still trying to make an argument out of what it is I am which as I've pointed out countlessly, is irrelevant. Sometimes I wonder why I even both with you. I'm tired of repeated myself. I've already stated, countless times, I don't believe that science has the truth to everything. I've already stated that it simply brings as "the closest" to what is probably the truth because it's based on evidence and logic. I'm done repeating myself to you.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Wrong: I am the one having to repeat myself. You say "the closest" and like your Guru "probably," which would be 90% vs. 10% or something like that. What I am saying and what you have opposed is that without final proof the "score is even," which would be 50/50. Thus, 50 vs. 90% is quite significant scientifically and beyond your fatigue and insults this is the debate we are having. Your belief that you are 90% in the right is what makes you arrogant and a convert to scientism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Furthermore, an objective point of view doesn't mean a position where you accept that everything is true. It's a position where you consider whether someone's claim is scientifically valid based on evidence. A position that doesn't have a claim (like there is no God or there is no afterlife or there are no invisible unicorns) doesn't have a burden of proof. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, not the one who needs to reject it. Look up Russell's teapot.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
Comment removed
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 "Doesn't have a burden of proof" is exactly what scientism is. The reason I have to repeat myself is that you simply do not get it: "Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." Let me translate so you understand: You are saying that without proof natural science is the authority on life after death - that is what you are saying and that is scientism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You have demonstrated an extreme misreading of what it means to hold a belief, whether it be scientific or otherwise. First you insist on attaching it to the believer himself pretending that it has any bearing whatsoever that it affects reality, second you use dishonest argumentation techniques like ad hominum and false analogies, like comparing science to a religion, and third you assume that because I cannot reject your claim, that it's a tie for whether or not it's true.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 You have demonstrated an extreme ignorance about science and its objectivity. I have not compared science to religion - what I have compared is your interpretation of science to scientism. And yes, I do equate the mind that supports scientism to the religious mind that supports fundamentalism. The belief that only your belief is true is fundamentalism whether held in religion or science. And no, your belief is not science - without objectivity through 50/50 even score its a belief.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
Your statement: "This is bogus because YOU'RE the one who needs to back up your claim and not I reject it" is exactly what fundamentalism is: my God is bogus and I have to convert to your God - that's what you are saying and that's the scientism I am exposing. As I said without proof the score is 50/50 - not 90/10 as you think. Also that I should have a lack of "interest in reality" just proves my point that you want me to convert to your Atheist religion. The objective reality is 50/50.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom What doesn't have a burden of proof is having to REJECT A CLAIM OMG YOU"RE RETARDED. Like I said a billion times, I have no burden of proof disproving a claim, the burden of proof lies with the PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM. And btw, you're also an atheist. You're an atheist when it comes to Thor and Krishna and Vishnu. Just because I don't accept your particular brand of God doesn't make me wrong and you right. I'm done debating with ignoramuses. Enjoy your only miserable life.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Don't give up just when there is light at the end of the tunnel for you. Your problem is that you are an atheist using science to promote your religion and your faith makes you blind. Without proof objectivity has to conclude 50/50 - not your 90/10. You are adding 40% because of your faith in atheism and then when you try to use science to enforce this belief - this is when you turn to scientism. As an atheist using science to defend your religion you are a fundamentalist.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 And just to really enlighten you: that you find me "RETARDED" is evidence of your religious fundamentalism. This extreme name calling and your lack of ability to stay on topic is a clear sign of your frustration that you cannot convert and force me to believe in your God: atheism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Here is your light: The exact place you make your error in logic is in your belief that the burden of proof is on anything that has not been proven scientifically. Your religion is that only what has been proven scientifically is real. This would be so only in a parallel universe where science was the only religion. But in the real world, science is only one worldview among many, thus 50/50. The parallel universe you live in is a universe of scientism and this is your brand of God.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is bogus because YOU'RE the one who needs to back up your claim and not I reject it. Fourth, you've failed to provide good, repeatable, testable scientific evidence to verify your inconsistent claims. And fifth you've demonstrated a complete lack of genuine interest in reality, it is not I who fails to look at things objectively, for I have heavily considered your claim and your evidence. It is you who needs to stand back and further examine the validity of your position.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom Scientism *correctly spelled* is not science. In fact it's counterintuitive to science. Science is about seeking answers and finding reality based on evidence that can be repeated and tested. When the evidence from NDEs is completely aligned together and consistent like the evidence for evolution /watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY then the academic arena will look at it in a different light than just the unsupported cluster of anecdotal records that it really is.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 I get your point about being objective in our search for truth - but that is not where you stand. You clearly have preconceived ideas: "they still believed based on theology that there was an afterlife. Such fear of death is a characteristic solely derived from these primitive unscientific societies." + "Science adjusts its views based on reality. Religion distorts reality to fit into its views." You may be blind to it, but there is a certain arrogance here that smells of Scientism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom My personal stance is completely irrelevant to the topic of evidence concerning NDEs. But if you're interested, it's anti-ignorance. For generations our society has been put back by the unscientific pursuit of knowledge. And while some of it has been fruitful (such as the development of philosophy), a lot of it restrains science (like making stem cell research illegal in the US). I'm frankly fed up with people who don't know anything about science trying to criticize it.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Again you prove my point: "it's anti-ignorance." Your arrogant and aggresssive defense of science and the classical paradigm is neither objective nor open: How can you see when you are blinded by this passion of being anti-? As I said, your pattern of thinking clearly demonstrates scientism as you believe (believe!) that science holds all the answers. Your one sided defense of this paradigm is scientism and I call it fundamentalism when you start fighting (anti-) with this belief.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom You're retarded, I'm sorry. For the zillionth time, I don't believe that science holds any answers whatsoever. I believe that it brings as the closest to understanding what we observe. And it's based on sound logic and evidence. What you propose is a fairy tail that stems from your fear of death and your fetish for changing reality so that it corresponds better with what you wish it was.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Then you have to admit its even: the NDE has neither been proven nor disproven. If you cannot, as you have shown, because only what has been proven already is real - then I am sorry that you do not like it - but then it scientism. But I do not think are able to admit to this because even though I have provided you with scientific evidence for the NDE that you have not been able to disprove, still you say "what I believe stems from my fear of death." This is arrogant scientism!
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." - Sounds like a religion to me: just replace "science" with "my God" and then you have your standard religious fundamentalism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom And throwing you a bone and assuming that it did and we discover some mystical supernatural ability to experience consciousness without the body or mind, it would STILL be intellectually dishonest and a castration of the scientific method to arrive to the conclusion that there's an afterlife because of it. Everything that occurs naturally has a natural scientific explanation behind it, even if we don't know what the explanation is. A tree falls whether we hear it or not.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 Scientifically, all we are talking about is that there is evidence to suggest that people can have conscious experience when the brain is inactive. "Everything that occurs naturally has a natural scientific explanation behind it" I agree that science may be able to explain it some day but here again you express Scientism - your religious belief is based on materialism: without evidence and based on mere belief, you have decided that consciousness can only occur inside the brain.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
...as long as you and natural science cannot account for consciousness -- its an open question: you cannot reject something without proof. Without proof you cannot say that consciousness is produced by the brain - all you have is theory and claiming that you have proof, as you do is scientism. Then as a fundamentalist, you get angry at people and scientific evidence, like NDE evidence, that points in a direction that you do not like. The point is that without proof the issue is unsettled.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
And you say: "a lot of it restrains science." This is exactly how many religions feel as they would like to be the only religion in town. If you do not accept other fields or traditions, including religion, you are a scientific fundamentalist. Yes, science is good at many things - but it just doesn't do it all. And in a universe where only 5% is matter, scientifically proven, you have to be open and not reductionist in your view or support scientism.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
And as said, your dying brain evidence is what is anecdotal here. The theory is reductionism (you are also a reductionist) and has more evidence against it: most scientific evidence suggests that the brain becomes disoriented and confused when dying - not clear and lucid. Based on scientism - that biology must explain everything - the theory jumps to the brain must be dying without any evidence in support. Besides this reductionist anecdotal theory I have seen nothing else from you.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, you are an atheist posing as a scientist - now things make sense. In response to your video of your Guru: it was actually Richard Dawkins himself who explained the London bus ads: "There is probably no God - so enjoy your life" that he could not use "There is no God" but had to insert "probably" because without final proof he himself would make Science Work Like Religion - which is exactly my point! Even your Guru understands that you cannot disprove something without proof - so, its even!
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@ReneJorgensenDotCom It's like saying that a scenario either can or cannot be and therefore there's a 50-50 chance that it's possible which is just hokum. The truth is that this kind of argument empowers unsupported theological arguments as opposed to valid reality-based ones. Furthermore, you can argue whether the case of Pam Reynolds actually happened under controlled experimental conditions or not. When gathering information on similar cases, evidence is always inconsistent. Not a good sign.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 No, its just saying that we do not have the final proof. In a universe made of only 5% matter (5% reality for you) and where new science has proven quantum entanglement and teleportation, while getting close to extra dimensions, maybe both Scientism and reductionism are narrow perspectives. Pam's case and studies of veridical perception are not unsupported - they point in a certain direction - one that classical science at war with religion does not like. That's the real issue here.
ReneJorgensenDotCom 9 months ago
@Gothguy47 if you were Albert Einstein, you could never have had thought that time could actually be bent and is relative, is sewn into the fabric of space. If you were one of the guys who have perfected the 'M' Theory, you could have never imagined that gravity is actually made up of particles (strings of energy) that flows in and out of our Universe, with your mind set... You sir do not desrve to be talking as if you are for the Science Team and this other guy (ReneJorgensen) against it.
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vegeteriancannibal oh and lol all you want, but the REALITY is that you do NOT have the making of a true scientist. Goodbye!
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal lol @ "the science team"
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 lol @ you, get a fucking life man!!
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal You're mad lol. Probably because you know deep inside that the wishful thought of an afterlife is nothing more than a product of our own self-centered egos, wishing we'd get to live longer without any evidence that any of us or any other species on this planet ever has. Unlike you, I have a life and I'm living it to the fullest, because I know it's the only one I'm getting. I'd suggest you do the same instead of relying on the hope that maybe you'll get to live longer.
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 What are you retarded? Why would I wish for an eternal life, it's too much to handle wouldn't you think? However, just because we DO NOT wish for an eternal life doesn't mean that we deny the evidence when we face it BUT i am not saying that there are enough evidence to say anything, all I am saying is that why are you soo opposed to this particular theory. Its like, if Albert Einstein was opposing Maxwells theory that the spped of light is constant, CONTINUED
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal I'm not opposed to scientific advancement at all, and you need to chill out. Maybe someday we will find something that relates to a supernatural (magic) plane of existence where we all go after we die but so far we've found exactly nothing to hint at it. The beauty of science is that it's divergent and independently verifiable, as well as testable and repeatable. No fields of science support the claim that there is an afterlife, and you're gonna need more than one for atheory
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 Really??? What is Afterlife? What is life at all?? You talked about time slowing down in the quantam level of the brain, now let me tell you something about the quantam level... weird SUPERNATURAL like things happen there so when you talk as if YOU KNOW that science doesn't support afterlife, you are just being stubborn..
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal That argument (what is life?) isn't based in science, it's based in philosophy. Supernatural in this case strictly means "magic". It's a joke with the premise that magic cannot be tested or proven by any scientific means. If you'd like we can discuss this further on IM but for now I'd suggest you stop humiliating yourself on a public forum, mainly because I'm too lazy to call you out on every dodge, strawman, ad hominum, and ignorance you display in your argument.
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 Really? what a moron!! ''What is life'' is philosophy, he says and I am humiliating MYSELF.. HAHA!! lol, I am the biggest fan of Richard Dawkins and when posed with the question, how did a chromosome get the information (genes) it has to be able to build life, the answer is, WE DON'T KNOW YET!!! We don't know how the genes are encoded yet!! You keep saying ''magic'' and ''afterlife'' as if I am talking theologically, you are ridiculously moronic!! Goodbye!!
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal It's funny, I didn't know you were a liar too. If you were actually a RD fan you'd have come across this: youtube . com / watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4 and this is an article where he answers that very question: skeptics . com . au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/ don't forget to erase the spaces. I know you won't read it all because you clearly struggle with English. But this is just to show you that you're wrong, we know EVERYTHING about it. Educate yourself.
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 ARGHHHH, IDIOT, MORON, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE DNA'S KEEP RETAINING INFORMATION YOU DUMB DUMB ASSHOLE, STOP COMMENTING.... i am going to stop replying to you from right now, I saw your channel and you keep dreaming ya!! dumbass!!
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal I also love how you called me a moron because you can't think of any more arguments. And i love how you ragequit and ran away like the coward you so clearly are. It shows that you have no interest in pursuing the answers and knowing more *as your page states*. If you were you'd have agreed to discuss this with me personally on IM. You just completely humiliated yourself with the Dawkins bit because you're absolutely dead wrong. He knew the answer to that question, as we alldo
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 Hey dumbass, google it and find out how it is that chromosomes retain information, how it is that dna's are encoded okay, you are telling me right now that 1+1=3 and it's driving me crazy to tell you that it's not 3, it's 2.
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal youtube . com/watch?v=uLqamDoLD6o
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 Oh god, I was drunk when I wrote a comment to you, BIG MISTAKE!!!!
/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w ... Now i hate that Ben Stein guy and I think Expelled was ridiculous however, I have to show a clip from that movie never-the-less.... listen carefully and after that, please go away!!
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 Oh and don't tell me what the beauties of science are, I think I know them better than you do! Allright mate?!
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal Theory of relativity wouldn't be! Logically, the speed of light to be constant is ridiculous, to think time can be bent is ridiculous, to think there could be 11 dimensions and the 5th dimension is made up of all the varying choices we have is idiotic, to think that a particle can exist at two places at the same time, to think that a particle is entangled with another particle in such a way that even at the opposite edges of the universe, it remains entangled is ridiculous.
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal Taking evolution as an example, it's a theory based around evidence and verified independently by the fields of evolutionary biology, paleontology, anthropology, physiology, medicine, genetics, botany and a shitload of others. If there's any magical afterlife out there, at least one of the thousands disciplines of science would have found something related to it. Instead, all we have is very weak neurological studies that focus on anecdotal untestable personal accounts. Fail.
Gothguy47 7 months ago
@Gothguy47 The whole basis of life is that it started from self replicating MOLECULES!! You are too stubborn to see objectively the possibilities that could be!!
vegeteriancannibal 7 months ago
Comment removed
Gothguy47 9 months ago
Our spirit is eternal.
fawnie1208 9 months ago
Comment removed
Gothguy47 9 months ago
if so..then why didn't everyone who has been clinically dead has had an nde?
oleh2007 9 months ago
Everyone who claims they had a near-death experience explains similar activities during their experience. They always explain a tunnel with light at the end, also looking at their physical body from obove. This it good scientific proof of the existence of god!
koolsk8ter111 10 months ago
@xspettacolare.You really must do your research my friend,and look at the many thousands of cases that there has been;Dr Melvin Morse is a good place to start. He has dedicated his life towards the study of the Near Death Experiences of children.the facts are astounding.If you indeed have an open mind, as you say and have,you will see for yourself.Don't take my word for it, or some atheist's...have your own mind, look at the evidence yourself and draw your own conclusions and follow your heart
SuperBeatbully 1 year ago
@xspettacolare. I don't understand your argument here. Money is indeed a great mover, but it is clear by the many testimonies that these people have been moved by something much greater than money. I believe more is to be gained from the atheist who places his moral values on laws that are unto himself as apposed to the theist, who believes that we will be held accountable for our actions by a transcendent creator.
SuperBeatbully 1 year ago
@SuperBeatbully
this isnt about being held to any accountablity.. my issue with all this NDE jazz is simple there are many people who make things up! sure they have been moved by something , we are all moved by many exp we have in life the birth of a child ,death of a loved one, etc, etc. just cause they had a NDE doesnt mean it's real, of course it's gonna move them change them, because what they saw is life changing but it doesnt mean it's real.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
I won't say for sure there is an after life but people who have had NDEs are convinced death isn't the end and many scientist who study NDEs also come to the same conclusion.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
well, yes & no there are faith based scientists who think NDE is real & then there are others who dont think so. I dont think it's all that cut & dry. just cause they are convinced their NDE is real doesnt make it true .what if it's just the brain's way of protecting itself during the death state so it creates the NDE much in the same way folks get past life regressed though hypnoses it doesnt make it true either.I think the mind is able to create alternate realities for itself
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare. Exactly my point. It is not cut and dry, however you have to be open to the possibility that the answers to your questions lie outside of our capabilities of explanation and therefore points to something greater than ourselves.There will always be questions, therefore one of the two certainties of life are; there is always things that we wont know.Funny how Atheists can't make peace with this, as they seem to with life's other apparant certainty, that we will all pass away 1day
SuperBeatbully 1 year ago
@SuperBeatbully
I dont buy into this. sure we have to keep an open mind but that doesnt mean we should believe everything we hear let's look at the facts money is a great mover..
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare Like I said the majority of people who have NDEs make no money from it.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
that's true. but it still doesnt prove that it's real, but I do admit something here is going on.. I just dont trust all them who are out to make a buck off it.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare And in fact there have been cases where someone wrote a book about an NDE they had and it turns out they fabricated certain things. So you can't trust every NDE story but remember millions of people have reported having it. Very few people make money off of their NDE.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
that's true.
I wouldnt believe anyone that said they died & went to heaven. I find it staggering that when folks say they died, & went to heaven they never seem to come back with anything interesting to tell us such as the secretes to the unverse,space travel, telaportation,free energy,U name it. even heaven sounds like a boring place from the description of what NDE folks tell us. U would think heaven is a fun place. big deal bright light,angels,clouds hell sounds more fun
xspettacolare 1 year ago
A wise man, is he who understands that he knows nothing. For those who have ears to hear let them hear and for those who have eyes, let them see. It is very simple. The evidence is there to support the claim that the mind lives on after the brain. Therefore the body is the ONLY part of us which seems to die. Thus, It seems fairly logical to conclude that, at the very least; there is much more to us and our existence as infinite entities than we care to aknowledge.
SuperBeatbully 1 year ago
@SuperBeatbully
I dont think it's that cut and dry there are many theories from many books faiths etc.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
Plus asking me things like if I believe in heaven and hell doesn't even have anything to do with the topic.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
oh yes , it does asking U things such as do U believe in heaven & hell does have alot to do with the topic..
there's this man who claims he had a near death exp NDE years after he first aired his exp went on a tv show on the history channel just recently which I watched he went on to talk about how during his NDE many many years ago during his NDE he saw heaven & hell; then went on to say if one doesnt accept jesus they wont get saved. come on if this isnt BS I dont know what is.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare Heaven and hell has nothing to do with the brain and consciouness other than you not being able to disconnect religion from a debate about consciouness existing outside the brain. What you're talking about is a debate of if life exists after death and I mentioned many times I don't know for certain if it does so I didn't make any claims on that.
You haven't been reading what I've been saying carefully.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
um false again NDE ,& life after death ,& all that jazz has everything to do with heaven hell etc etc.Hello if U believe Pam came out of her body then that means U believe in essence that Pam's consciouness is pure spirit, soul, or consciousnes does not die upon pysical death..
ok fine let's set all that jazz aside where do U think pam went after her body died or was in the process of death? U believe she came out if her body correct? where did she go? let's start there.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@infox1000
if you listen to the whole 2 hours she talks about it in more details ;bright light, heaven, god ,love ,& feeling love,& how she didnt want to go back, but she had to come back, because she had unfinished business so what happened U missed all that part?
I also had talked about how that other idiot said when he died he had the same exp he saw hell & heaven & all that jazz. I bring this up because every stupid NDE has some religious aspect to it . which makes me suspect .
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@infox1000
I think all them stupid NDE folks are either confused,stupid,delusional,or they made it all up,or embellished a little, or they where convinced by someone who believes in this stuff convinced them that they had some NDE sorta like someone who puts someone under past life regression hypnoses. which then the person who is under is convinced he/ she has lived a past life. in all cases the person who has the exp must be first open to the idea. people will believe what ever under stress
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare So now people who have NDEs are stupid and confused. If you're just going explain away NDEs rather than actually have an intelligent debate then I don't see the point in talking with you.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
lmao , listen u havent said much ;all u have done is say the same thing over & over again; u havent added to anything I have said or questioned. U arent even sure what happens after one dies or where one goes. the only thing U talked about is she came out of her body , ok great what else? U dont seem interested in anything else.
U said it yourself U arent even sure about the after life death state U cant even comment on heaven hell or any of my other mentions
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare "U arent even sure what happens after one dies or where one goes" well if you know please enlight me otherwise stay on topic.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
this is the topic...
xspettacolare 1 year ago
On that point though the number of people who have NDE has risen because of improved technology in resuscitation.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
that's not true advanced technology doesnt prove it or make it true..
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare What's not try? Are you trying to say advanced technology hasn't increases the changes of suriving a NDE? Be more clear with you're arguements.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
i just told u just because advanced technology has advanced & brought back folks from the dead still doesnt prove NDE or life after death or that consciousness exists outside the body or the dead brain.
U are assuming too much here. im sure folks even during the era of modern tech still are declared clinically dead ,& yet still come back to still will tell they saw & felt nothing, it was lights out.
this is where your faith comes in.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare Oh I see another straw man. I never said improved technology proves NDE or life after death. I was pointing how NDE have increased because of improve tech.
Ok and there are people that have NDEs. That's what we are talking about. Try to stay on topic.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
listen U didnt have to say it ,but by not saying it U said it,so it doesnt matter,cause U believe that NDE has a super natural aspect to it ie life after death heaven hell etc. inorder to believe in NDE U have to believe in everything else which faith talks about ,athough U say U dont believe in everything religion teaches.
improved technology proves NDE as true for U, because U already believe in it, so it only confirms what U already believed sorta like saying see told ya so.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare Stop creating straw men. I never said I believe NDE have a supernatural aspect. You seem to have a hard them dissociating NDE from religion or faith. By doing this you're not no different than someone who is religous thus you aren't open minded about the matter and will believe what you want to believe.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
false U do believe in NDE ,because your whole argument is that consciousness exists outside the living brain hence when we have a NDE it' proves we exist even after our bodies dies & rots away. so U do believe in soul after life etc etc etc.
this is your whole argument. U believe NDE is more then a dream how else would Pam have seen heard & felt so U believe Pam must of left her body.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare You're reaching way to much. First of all NDE and souls have nothing to do with each other. Like I said you can't help but connect NDEs to religion for some reason. Try to have an open mind with this.
Because NDEs are more than a dream. We can monitor dreams but NDEs happen when there is no brain activity, yet you continue to say it's a dream.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
there U go again U just said NDE is more then just a dream so that means it's more then a dream? admit now that U believe consciousness still exists outside the brain because Pam said she still existed when she was clinically dead this is just semantics what U call consciousness exiting out side the brain is sorta like believeing in the soul it seems to be the same thing from your understanding.
OK FINE NDE is more then a DREAM tell me what it is then?
xspettacolare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xspettacolare It is more than a dream. Like i said we can monitor dreams and why would you ask me to admit something I must've said at least 20 times now?
"OK FINE NDE is more then a DREAM tell me what it is then?"
You know very well no one knows what it is.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
either U believe that Pam came out of her body, & that she still existed ,even after her brain died or U dont.
this is the topic. will U live on even after your body dies .
this is the topic from your stance U seem to believe that U do.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare Well I don't see how one can think Pam didn't exist during her NDE. I mean she lived many years after the sugery.
I see you're asking loaded questions. I never said I believe or know for a fact life contines after death. My stance is that consciouness exists apart from the brain.
infox1000 1 year ago
@infox1000
omg!! so let me try & understand this, so U dont know for a fact life contines after death,but your stance is that consciouness exists apart from the brain.
U are contradicting yourself ;either U believe that U are the consciouness itself