It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study

page: 5
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
If one is "clinically dead" there are no brain waves showing on the EEG. Therefore, one can not have brain activity!
No brain activity, would mean that there are NO stimuli from any of the five recognized senses! SO, if this does not indicate, at the very least, the possibility of something after death, then we must admit that we do not understand as much as we thought we did, about individual cognition!

It could also be that there is in fact brain activity, but not something that can be picked up by the current technological limits of the EEG.



Good job! Ignore the entire premise of my post to argue about the capability of a machine designed and exclusively used to do what you are saying it may not be able to do...I hear an entire discipline of medicine, crashing down as we speak!...er...type!...


Why don't we build an ER and an ICU inside of the collector at CERN, to test your hypothesis!


Say 100 years there was no such thing as an EEG, then one day such a device was developed (coincidentally enough, the first EEGs were developed about 100 years ago).

Did that original device capture 100% of all possible brain activities that we can detect today? Most likely it did not. I'm sure 25 years later, the technology was better, but it probably still did not detect the brain activities we can detect with today's devices. 50 years after that? Again, probably better, but not absolute.

So now that it's 100 years later, can you be sure that the EEG technology we have cannot possibly advance any farther? Is the EEG technology we have today at such an ultimate pinnacle of sensitivity that we can never hope to create a more sensitive EEG in the future?

My point is that just because we cannot detect brain activity using today's equipment, that does not mean that there is no brain activity. We would be arrogant to think our science and our technology is so perfect that there cannot possibly be brain activity that cannot yet be measured or detected by EEGs.

I'm not saying there is definitely brain activity, but I'm not ready to say that just because an EEG can't detect it, that means there is none.


edit on 10/7/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

All instruments have limits to the accuracy of their measurements. Soylent Green is suggesting (quite reasonably, I might add) that just because our current technology cannot detect biological activity, doesn't mean that any isn't taking place, rather our instruments aren't accurate enough to measure it below the noise floor.


Wouldn't that be a sensitivity issue, rather than an accuracy one? They are obviously sensitive enough to measure multiple wave types and frequencies. Heck. I have a small powered speaker with some exposed circuitry and wiring that can reproduce the impulse wave produced by my own sinus node! I can only assume that some gov't program somewhere, ensured that our brains aren't producing any other form of known energy.

SO, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying it is quite possible that if we find this potential (pun intended) electrical activity taking place below the threshold of current (again, intended) detectability, we may, in fact, discover evidence of consciousness independent of a living body? Or, would it only explain away, stories like the OP's?



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

The implication would be that what we consider "no brain activity" is in fact "some brain activity" that is beyond the reach of our current technology. However, I'm personally of the inclination that these memories of experience are in fact the brain trying to make sense of the jumble of experience prior and post "no brain activity" after activity has re-started. If you're in intensive care (and especially injured enough to experience clinical death) this is an incredibly traumatic experience for your brain to make sense of and I don't think it's such a stretch for these memories to form after the events as a way of your subconscious attempting to make sense of the memory fragments and patchy chronology it does have.
edit on 7-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

SO, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying it is quite possible that if we find this potential (pun intended) electrical activity taking place below the threshold of current (again, intended) detectability, we may, in fact, discover evidence of consciousness independent of a living body? Or, would it only explain away, stories like the OP's?


You'd have to define "living body".

It's possible that there is still residual brain activity going on after what medicine calls "death" (after all, the brain chemicals are still there, and it is those chemicals that make the brain do its stuff). If there is still residual activity that our current equipment cannot detect, that may mean that medicine's definition of "death" may need to be adjusted.

Years ago, death was defined by when a heart stopped. We have learned since then that it isn't that simple, and the definition of death has been adjusted. Similarly, we may learn in the future that our current definitions of death are not correct, either.


edit on 10/7/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: surrealist

I can believe this, the only problem is that the only way to know if this is just an anomaly that happens to everyone if they are close to death, but still have their brain living, there could be some unknown connection, one thing is for sure that near death experiences are on another level than a death experience, lets not forget no one that we know has lived to tell the difference.
edit on 7-10-2014 by phinubian because: fixing



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinke
The OP's linked article does bring up the fact the researchers found in at least one of the cases the subject remembered things which indicates he/she was "aware" up to about 3 minutes after clincal death. This is probably a major reason this story matters.

In the linked article, there's this passage:

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.
“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

Does that PROVE he was "aware"? Can they show he didn't just coincidentally correctly recall certain things?

One of my thoughts is maybe the brain recorded the moments after clinical death and only created an experience from them AFTER his heart started to beat again. Of course, can the brain store memories when hte heart isn't beating? The linked article states the brain can operate about 20 to 30 seconds after the heart stops. What does "operate" exactly entail? Are we certain the brain shuts down completely after 20 to 30 seconds and NOTHING happens?

I was led to belive in the past leftover oxygen after death is used by the brain. However, if the brain shuts completely off after 20 to 30 seconds after heart failure then how can this happen?

And btw, I made a previous thread about this:
medicalxpress.com - Electrical signatures of consciousness in the dying brain...
edit on 7-10-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

The implication would be that what we consider "no brain activity" is in fact "some brain activity" that is beyond the reach of our current technology. However, I'm personally of the inclination that these memories of experience are in fact the brain trying to make sense of the jumble of experience prior and post "no brain activity" after activity has re-started. If you're in intensive care (and especially injured enough to experience clinical death) this is an incredibly traumatic experience for your brain to make sense of and I don't think it's such a stretch for these memories to form after the events as a way of your subconscious attempting to make sense of the memory fragments and patchy chronology it does have.


Yeah, yeah...Way to kick me in my facetiousness...

I think that is the difference between the two camps of most arguments regarding the unknown. Those who cater to scientific intelligence, seem to think that those who choose to pontificate the possibilities and give them weight with little regard for physical evidence, are somehow less intelligent, for it. But, perhaps...Just perhaps, the latter crowd has determined that life is simply too short to restrict our contemplative bandwidth to any old benign facet of intellect. And, instead choose to dance among the lances of light, racing outward, at the very fringe of the Cosmos!



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
Some things, perhaps many things, will not be understood in our lifetimes because science doesn't understand yet. There're many cases we have to make up our own mind. Science can't disprove God, not yet, for example. So we have to decide for ourselves what our thoughts about it are going to be.

I've always thought of myself as a agnostic, but in the past few years i changed it to agnostic atheist. I've never believed we know enough to rule out God, I just don't think there's enough reason to believe in God. I think science has supplied enough answers for thigns, like where we come from and what happens after death. Science certainly doesn't answer these questions completely without any shadows of doubt, but it's good enough. Why do we need further explanation? People don't think flies or termites or bacterium have afterlives, so why should we? Nature and evolutionary theory answer the question of what happens after death suitably enough.
edit on 7-10-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

SO, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying it is quite possible that if we find this potential (pun intended) electrical activity taking place below the threshold of current (again, intended) detectability, we may, in fact, discover evidence of consciousness independent of a living body? Or, would it only explain away, stories like the OP's?


You'd have to define "living body".

It's possible that there is still residual brain activity going on after what medicine calls "death" (after all, the brain chemicals are still there, and it is those chemicals that make the brain do its stuff). If there is still residual activity that our current equipment cannot detect, that may mean that medicine's definition of "death" may need to be adjusted.

Years ago, death was defined by when a heart stopped. We have learned since then that it isn't that simple, and the definition of death has been adjusted. Similarly, we may learn in the future that our current definitions of death are not correct, either.



Tomato, Tomotto... But, isn't that a bit of a cop-out? The real question is, what is the definition of consciousness? Science, and you apparently, believe that it is simply a chemical reaction taking place in a biological organism. My belief varies greatly. In that, it is an unknown energy from an undetermined source. And, as an energy, it is perfectly capable of remaining intact, without it's host. And, when the host is no longer viable, the energy returns to it's source!



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

You can't dismiss those who stick to the methodology of science and then in the same breath try and use a scientific study to support your position. Science isn't a la carte, you don't get to pick and choose the bits you like and dismiss the rest.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I love this, but it kinda makes me sad that only recently science (mainstream) is opening up to the possibility. There have been thousands cases of NDE some of which have details that can't be discounted (blind patients for instance). I guess better late than never.
edit on 7-10-2014 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
Some things, perhaps many things, will not be understood in our lifetimes because science doesn't understand yet. There're many cases we have to make up our own mind.

Science can't disprove God, not yet, for example. So we have to decide for ourselves what our thoughts about it are going to be.

I've always thought of myself as a agnostic, but in the past few years i changed it to agnostic atheist. I've never believed we know enough to rule out God, I just don't think there's enough reason to believe in God. I think science has supplied enough answers for thigns, like where we come from and what happens after death. Science certainly doesn't answer these questions completely without any shadows of doubt, but it's good enough. For example, I'm confident gravity will act tomorrow as it does today. Similarly, if I expect a fly doesn't have an afterlife then I have no reason to think I have one either. Evolution made us and will kill us to enable our species to survive. I've always thought of it as killing the old hats to bring in the new generation. Without it, we'd atrophy.


Do I really come across as that ignorant?

Personally, I do believe in God. And, I could tell you about my experiences and reasoning behind my belief, but I can not share them in their entirety. And, unfortunately, the parts that I am unable to share, are the most significant to my conclusions.

I wish I could though. I would do so, gladly!



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Does some part of us continue to exist for at least a moment outside our bodies when our flesh and blood earthly bodies cease to function?

I can say without out a doubt for me that a part of us does exist for at least a moment and can move a thousand miles in an instant as I described in my post www.abovetopsecret.com....

Eventually we all get the answer to this question or not for you non-believers.



edit on 10/7/14 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Life after death ! I believe there is !
We can't even say what everyone of us does for a third of our life !



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

You can't dismiss those who stick to the methodology of science and then in the same breath try and use a scientific study to support your position. Science isn't a la carte, you don't get to pick and choose the bits you like and dismiss the rest.


I'm not sure where I did that, but let's assume you are correct...My reply would be, "Sure I can". And, here's why.

Science, of it's very essence, is the study of our known Universe. It establishes laws, and determines what it considers to be fact, based on the premise of tried and true methodology. On it's face, it purports to be the authority of known physical knowledge to date. And, as such, commands a respect from all of those who have not invested the time to explore the veracity of this knowledge.

But, to those with a more discerning eye, we see it for what it truly is. We see the unprincipled, unscrupulous, agenda-driven minions, that are among the ranks of it's foundation. The underlayment of it's empire. We see the flaws inherent in every single human member of it's community! We see a "Tower of Babel" erected to the stars for all of the ignorant of the world to see.

The problem with science, is that it relies on so much of itself, that came before it. Every facet of every principle, used to establish a new basis of fact, is inherently taken on faith. But, yet, it is so adamant against those, outside of it's dogma, that do the same. And, it's this glaring hypocrisy that will ultimately lead to it's downfall.

I know. You feel the same about us...



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm not a neuro scientist or anything but chemicals I would think stay in limbo without intelligence of the body directing it. Chemicals get from point A to point B by the body's processes, it doesn't happen on it's own. Without a CNS or circulation sytem or even brain activity (EEG) chemicals even those already in the brain would not link into receptors with something directing it.

While not final death (true death), clinical death is usually defined as no heart rate (which means no oxygen) and no brain activity. People are taken off of life systems when they show no brain activity (deep coma) or response to any stimuli. That's enough for doctors to declare a person a vegetable that can't survive without machines. And coma patients still have body processes going on, which clinical death patient's do not. There have been cases of patients being dead for several hours with no brain damage. Conventional medicine says this is highly unlikely and that inevitable brain damage occurs (severity depending on the time afterward) after the brain does not receive oxygen past the 4 minute mark. Yet they come back with some being sharper then when they died. This does not make sense.





edit on 7-10-2014 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2014 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Best series ever !
I survived beyond and back , YouTube it and it will open your mind .



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Positivists absolutely refuse to discuss this intelligently. I've seen four pages of them arguing about what it means to be "dead", what "you" is, and a host of other irrelevant distractions designed to carefully avoid any discussion regarding the existential reality of the experience described in the OP.

This is what they do. When the facts don't jive with their assumptions, they start nitpicking definitions (or making new ones entirely) to make a reductionist explanation more plausible. Or they just change the subject and try to derail the thread.

Playing word games, in essence. They simply will not entertain any notion of life continuing beyond physical death--even to the point of manipulating, marginalizing or outright ignoring their own coveted "scientific evidence".

Science is great when it supports your sociopolitical agenda. Not so much when it doesn't, eh?


Excellent post!!

Spot on, and this occurs all the time. It's like Clinton and it depends on what your definition of is, is.

They hit road blocks all the time and when they do they either move the goalpost or they say the answer has to fit into a reductionist paradigm and there isn't any other answer no matter how much evidence points to a different conclusion.

The materialist view is a fantasy. If a universe like ours which started in a low entropy state can occur from a quantum fluctuation, then anything can occur. Materialist have to allow for everything from Boltzmann brains to Alice in Wonderland fluctuating into existence.

THE MIRACLE OF MATERIALISM MAKES TURNING WATER INTO WINE LOOK LIKE CHILD'S PLAY!!

The answer points to an intelligence directing and fine tuning everything. This intelligence could be a personal God or an impersonal God like Spinoza's. This is why when Scientist look for naturalness they find extraordinary fine tuning.

With materialism, you get every crazy universe you can think of fluctuating into existence. We could be the memories of a Boltzmann brain and that makes more sense than an entire universe like ours fluctuating into existence in this low entropy state.

So, life after death isn't something magical or mysterious if you're not in the religion of materialism. It's supported by evidence unless you're a blind materialist and you want to reduce everything to material components which make no sense when you have papers that talk about the wave function as a NON PHYSICAL REALITY.

Materialism requires blind faith and belief in a miracle that makes walking on water look like a simple card trick.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Personally, I don't know if there is a consciousness that can exist separate from my body or not. However, I've always wondered how it is that some people believe there is; how do these people "know" this?

Personally, I have always wondered just the opposite...

How it is that so many DON'T believe when the evidence is so massive.

Colton Burpo's case for example, he died and met his own unborn sister that he didn't even knew EXISTED.

George Rodonaia's case is another example.

While outside of his body, he diagnosed a child's illness that had doctors stumped.

These are not isolated incidents either, there are quite a few that I know about.


Such reports are very common among people who are comatose or who have near-death experiences (NDE). I know of several reports by patients in my practice, and I have spoken to neurosurgeons who have had patients with experiences that can be confirmed.

Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.

From a scientific standpoint, I think that we need to consider these personal reports as real evidence, of varying credibility. Materialists hate these accounts, because they (especially the corroborated ones) are very difficult to square with a materialist picture of reality. The materialist explanations, on the other hand, are generally baloney -- vaguely gesturing to endorphins and the like. Another thing that materialists hate is that the public loves this stuff and believes it -- it resonates in a way that abstract critiques of materialism fail to do.

Near-Death Experiences

"Colton, still 4 years old, told his mother “you had a baby die in your tummy didn’t you”, which completely shocked them both because they had never told him about their miscarriage. They asked him how he knew and he said that he met his sister in Heaven and she told him what happened."

"Well he’s 7 years old now and it took a couple of years for his parents to really understand what happened, but when Colton Burpo was four years he was having surgery in the hospital for a burst appendix. While he was in surgery he apparently had some sort of out of body experience and could see what his parents were doing. He witnessed that his dad was praying and his mom on her cellphone. Both parents say they have no clue how he knew that, but that it’s absolutely true. And the story just gets more interesting from there.

Apparently during the same surgery Colton went to Heaven where he recounts how he met his grandfather who he had never known, who he later recognized in photos. The interesting thing is that he didn’t recognize photos of his grandfather as an old man with glasses, which is how everyone knew him, but rather as a young man. Colton’s father literally had go find a photo of ‘Pop’ as a young man before Colton was able to recognize him. Now that’s pretty wild.

Four year old met his mother’s miscarried child in Heaven

"Dr. Rodonaia was killed by the KGB, pronounced dead, taken to the morgue for three days and returned to life during his own autopsy. Dr. Rodonaia was a psychiatric researcher who worked for the KGB and later became a dissident. He was a scientist trained in historical materialism and did not believe in God."

"George Rodonaia underwent one of the most extended cases of a near-death experience ever recorded. Pronounced dead immediately after he was hit by a car in 1976, he was left for three days in the morgue. He did not "return to life" until a doctor began to make an incision in his abdomen as part of an autopsy procedure. Prior to his NDE he worked as a neuropathologist. He was also an avowed atheist.
LINK




edit on 7-10-2014 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
This is why I joined ats in the first place !
Great thread !
Please don't derail.




top topics



 
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join