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.

 

What do you think happens when you die?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym

Originally posted by apc
Of course we can prove what happens to us after we die. We decompose... either quickly or slowly depending on how many preservatives we ate in life. Now, what can't be proven is what might happen to our conciousness after we die. Two entirely different subjects, the latter being based entirely on faith.


Well the latter is what the author of this thread is interested in I'm sure you'll find.



I am a person who believes in religion and science. I know what people say happens if you believe in god, but since I am very into scientific theory I would like to know what all the scientific people believe happen when you die. I guess I would like a different explaination from what you can read in a religous book. I was wondering if we just sit in the earth or do our souls live on. You hear all this talk about ghosts and evp, so how can we explain what happens when you die or even who chooses what we do. I mean not everyone turns into a ghost right? Please help me better understand this scientific approach to dying.


While some portions of the author's opening post are contradictory to his own statements, the gist of it remains the same: the desire for a scientific explanation. Science is not based on faith. And faith is not based on science. So no, the author was not asking for an answer based on faith.




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Well that goes back to my original point then. No-one can answer his question because Science can't prove what happens when you die either. Perhaps the author of the thread can clear this matter up for us?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Science has already shown what happens. I've already pointed out, as have other's. Hell, even you can perform an experiment this very minute! Unplug your computer and test if the information stored in the hard drive goes to an afterlife.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
In science it is impossible to explain how you will feel when you die, you won't know your dead but you won't think. It won't really matter. It's just lights out. Forever. You'll never have another thought, or anything it's gone done.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Science has already shown what happens. I've already pointed out, as have other's. Hell, even you can perform an experiment this very minute! Unplug your computer and test if the information stored in the hard drive goes to an afterlife.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Produkt]


How do you suppose I test that?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
If you can't see God in everything then you can't see God in anything. (I believe thats from the sikh belief system) Anyway,

I've also heard it said, and I agree with this, "The ultimate in optimism is believing that there is no life after death."

I honestly hope that there is no life after death. I'm just not that optimistic.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
In my world, the central nervous system, brain, etc. are just tools. The data they decipher and present is then pondered by the mind (soul). I have seen, personally, too many examples of contact with the deceased to ever imagine we are just meatbags.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   


How do you suppose I test that?


Hmm, good question. I mean, if you can't think up of a test that would show how one computer system over another computer system goes to an afterlife, then you haven't got much of a belief structure at all.

This is from another thread of mine concerning religion/soul's/divine creation

What IDT need's to be focusing on, rather then attacking the gaps of knowledge in existing scientific discoveries, IDT should be proving that life CANNOT occur naturally and that life NEEDS a creator. If they can do that, then the next and final step for them would be proving that an intelliget designer did in fact create the universe and direct the flow of life on this planet.

Also, the belief in god stems from the evolution of religion which has evidence for even today and in recent history in regards to the monotheistic belief. The unquestioning blind faith in god is an unfounded belief with no evidence that would lead one to know for a fact that there is a god at all. The only reasoning behind this belief is thanks to the religous scripture's devout believer's read. But, if religous scripture's can lay claim to a mystical diety without proof of such, then how come people don't believe as a matter of factual reality that many of the fantasy/sci-fi stories aren't just historical document's for other world's or dimension's? There's no proof that they aren't. Both the religous doctrine and the sci-fi book's were written by man. Look at scientology, litterally nothing to back it's claim, yet it's gaining follower's still.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Of course, I pretty much agree with your reasoning Produkt, though I didn't catch what the IDT stands for. Anyway, I don't know if there is a Creator, and doubt I will do so before I die. Yet, I do have a very strong belief in the afterlife, soul, spirits, etc. It is a belief that is not based on books, but on my life experiences. It is possible to believe and not be religious.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Yes, abit of a contradiction. Agreed. Moving on however.

The first link seem's pretty interesting. It says only 18% of the subject's actually reported NDE like experience's. That's a very small ammount. You have only 62 people out of 282. That leave's 220 people who didn't report any NDE like experience. Another interesting bit of information posted was brain wave activity. Mostly delta and theta wave's.



Monitoring of the electric activity of the cortex (EEG) has shown ischaemic changes consisting of a decrease of fast high amplitude waves and an increase of slow delta waves, and sometimes also an increase in amplitude of theta activity, progressively and ultimately declining to isoelectricity.


So, in some case's there was an increase in delta wave's and in other cases the increase was with theta wave's, prior to a flat EEG reading.



www.crossroadsinstitute.org...

Delta waves: Subjective feeling states: deep, dreamless sleep, non-REM sleep, trance, unconscious

Theta waves: intuitive, creative, recall, fantasy, imagery, creative, dreamlike, switching thoughts, drowsy; "oneness", "knowing"


I haven't noticed which subject's had these different brainwave activities, but it's very probable those who reported NDE experience's are the one's who had the increase in theta wave's and those who did not had the increase in delta wave's. this is a very important aspect to leave out. The site even goes onto discuss electromagnetic fields. It sounds like the site is implying the possibility of the soul being electromagnetic in nature perhaps? IDK... What part it doesn't allude to is how electrmagnetic fields in our brain's don't exist on their own, they are generated by the electric current in our brain's, and as I pointed out previously, you take away that electric current, everything fails, including the electromagnetic fields generated. If you integrate the research from that site along with the other two, it then become's even more appearent that nde's and oobe's are all in the head.

The other two site's are rather weak imo. They aren't verifiable scientific report's and as some remote viewers for example might appear to be real, they've been later found out as hoax's.


Yes the idea of NDE'ers experiencing pronounced theta waves (if that was the case ) is interesting especially when considered alongside the eastern views of an afterlife with themes such as thought induced realms and the role of the imaginal in it's creation, feelings of oneness etc. What's more interesting is at the times when veridical information was observed the brains were completely non functioning. The piece also takes your computer anology and redefines it positing the internet as consciousness rather than the hard drive to nicely explain mind/brain interface as opposed to mind as brain produced epiphenomena. Albeit it is only a theory. With regards to electro magnetic fields depending purely on electricic currents within our brain I suspect this can be as easliy redefined as the computer anology too but I'm no expert so I'll take your word for it.

With regards to the other two links I posted let me just reiterate that I offered an opinion that there is as fair an amount of soft/weak evidence supporting the afterlife hypothosis as there is for the reductionist theory, you asked for it, I provided it then you dismiss it as 'weak'. That's bog standard goal post shifting. The evidence on both sides amounts to just that and why I'll remain open minded until further notice.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by ubermunche]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I believe the smaller self leaves the body and waits on the other side untill it is time to live again.

Death is boring. Life is living.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
BlackGuardXIII,

Indeed, it is possible to believe without being religous. But what's that belief based upon? No direct evidence nor indirect evidence. All you've got are stories which are fully explainable by science. And the root of that belief either comes from the conscious or unconscious fear of one's own mortality, meaning, it's a hell of alot happier and fluffier to think we live on in a wonderfull great afterlife.


ubermunche,

In what way were the brains non-functioning? The paper cite's reading's after a cardiac arrest leading upto the cessation of cerebal function, not of reading's after the cessation cerebal function. After the brain fail's, an EEG cannot pick up an electric current for the life of it, there is no electric current. The site is also doesn't include the research taken from my previous link's on why people still appear to have nde's. There's no mention of the psychological nor physical causes from the brain itself. You also have to remember, 62 is an extremely small number in this study and show's that nde experience's are not a normal function of the brain, which the other two site's fully explain. Also, the internet anology is a little weak. The electromagnetic "internet" in our brain's is only there due to the electric current of the nerve cells generating that electromagnetic field. You take away that current, that electromagnetic field can no longer exist.

The evidence for nde's equalling afterlife/soul is zero. Which is why I still hold ground that any belief of an afterlife is still a blind faith in an afterlife/soul.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Produkt:
I'm not exactly sure how you meant your belief structure to test if information in a computer system has an afterlife comment, so correct me i I'm wrong.

Firstly, what relevance does my belief structure have in determining a suitable test for information on a computer's existence in an afterlife?

Secondly, this has to be the most ridiculous analogy I have ever come across to prove/disprove that we do not have an afterlife.

Once again, perhaps I have misunderstood what your point is, so please correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The computer analogy is a very valid one.

Our brain is nothing more than a bio-electric computer. So using that knowledge, when you pull the source of power for the computer your using right now in front of you, it no longer function's. The only difference being, one computer is organic, the other is silicon. The whole notion of an electromagnetic soul idea is unfounded and ridiculous. The electromagnetic field's in our brain's are generated by the electric current's coursing through the wiring's of our neuron's. Our neuron's require a source of power to function, that source being the chemical interaction of the foods we digest and the air we breath. From those interaction's, the nerve cells generate an electric current, as well as chemical signals in order to function. Our neuron's store information, how well we remember is based upon how well those neurons stored any particular piece of information we're trying to remember. If you can't show how one silicon computer based upon the same principle's as an organic computer goes to an afterlife, then how can you know for a fact that the organic computer goes to an afterlife? The internet analogy posed previously is without merit. Our brain's aren't connected to anything, nor are the electromagnetic fields. They exist within the brain itself. Not just that, but there's also no chance of transference to any other medium in the immediate surrounding's of the brain and the electromagnetic fields require an electric current to exist.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Produkt, the objections seem to be, as I understand it, that the brain is in a state whereby according to all scientific and medical criteria it is unable to generate the imagery, recall and such that is a hallmark of these experiences and certainly not capable of providing the veridical evidence such as the 'dentures' story. However....here is a link that answers these and many other questions from both sides of the debate no doubt far better than I could manage so feel free to take a look.

www.near-death.com...

I'd just like to widen this debate for a moment and take into account not just the survival issue but other related questions concerning whether there is a 'spiritual' aspect to the universe, ontological ideas of a conscious creator or at least some self aware organising principle encoded into the cosmoc etc. IMO most of these questions are outside the remit of science at present. Science may have made great strides in helping to understand the nature of the world and universe we live in but it has at present it's limitations to go beyond a certain point and still offer strong objective evidence rather than theory and conjecture just like those who champion a metaphysical component. That is why at the present time my I believe that agnosticism is really the only defensible position to take.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Death is so indescribable, there are no words to put it in any language.
Some of the Renaissance painter came closer to what is there to be seen than any other group of artists.
All you who do not believe, you have the largest, most loving place there can ever be to be in.
Do not 'think' the one life theory holds any credence at all.WARNING



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The first off-site article I read on that link, I'd like to point some problem's I've noticed.



If there was a physiological cause, all the patients should have had an NDE."


Not true, as not all patients would have the same physiological issues.




Eighteen per cent reported an NDE - classed as a memory of "a special state of consciousness, including specific elements such as out-of-body experience, pleasant feelings and seeing a tunnel."


Again, this small 18%, if they are indeed the one's who had the increase in theta wave's does indeed explain the pleasent feeling's and imaginary tunnels and such. Also, I wonder what the physiological difference's were with that 18% comapared to the rest who never reported such a thing.




"There is the idea that people can decide to some extent when they die," says van Lommel. "Perhaps when they had an NDE, their fear of death was over and they could let go."


Quite probable. Auto-Self suggestion can happen even on a subconscious level without our even knowing about it.




The 23 NDE patients who were still alive eight years later "had become more emotionally vulnerable and empathic", they write.


Understandable from a psychological veiwpoint.




Van Lommel's team report anecdotal stories of patients recalling events that happened around them during out of body experiences while they were clinically dead.


How many well documented cases for this exist in NDE research? People can say many thing's and be lying about it. Such as in the case for remote viewer's. They may appear real, but when time come's for a controlled scientific setting, they've been found out as hoax's. Unless there's well documented cases, such as video tape's showing what's going on at the time, and the patient actually describing what she considered was an oobe, then I would consider these cases highly suspect. There's also a phsyiological cause for oobe report's, I think I posted a link furthur back on this.




"In the NDE, you are unconscious. One of the things we know about brain function in unconsciousness, is that you cannot create images and if you do, you cannot remember them ... The brain isn’t functioning.


There are many level's of dreaming. Unconscious, conscious(lucid), day dreaming, fantasy, etc.






an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don’t know what’s happening and the brain isn’t working.


Not true. You can be unconscious while the brain still perform's it's task. The only time a brain ceases to function is when the electrical current's cease to propagate accross the neuron's.




The same is also true of people undergoing resuscitation from cardiac arrest. About 20% of cardiac arrest patients undergo very efficient resuscitation, and are fully or partially conscious, even though they have no heartbeat, are paralyzed by residual effects of brain oxygen starvation, and appear rather dead. Yet they are able to hear, sense, and visualize what occurs in their vicinity.


I could go on, but I've only gotten through half the site and this is getting long enough. I'll continue reading it however. I agree, having an open mind is a good thing, just not when the evidence point's in the opposite direction.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   


Again, this small 18%, if they are indeed the one's who had the increase in theta wave's does indeed explain the pleasent feeling's and imaginary tunnels and such. Also, I wonder what the physiological difference's were with that 18% comapared to the rest who never reported such a thing.


Agreed,, why only a certain percentage experience this deserves further investigation and is open to conjecture but with your talk of ‘imaginary tunnels and such’ you're already making apriori assumptions.




How many well documented cases for this exist in NDE research? People can say many thing's and be lying about it. Such as in the case for remote viewer's. They may appear real, but when time come's for a controlled scientific setting, they've been found out as hoax's. Unless there's well documented cases, such as video tape's showing what's going on at the time, and the patient actually describing what she considered was an oobe, then I would consider these cases highly suspect. There's also a phsyiological cause for oobe report's, I think I posted a link furthur back on this.


There are rare but very well documented cases with veridical evidence and support from medical staff/witnesses, while not being scientifically repeatable or empirical in nature it's still good quality evidence. Even taking into account the less qualitive mountain of anecdotal evidence it’s unlikely that all are or even most of the experiencers are lying. This is why applying standard explanations without placing them in the context of individual cases leads to flawed conclusions.



There are many level's of dreaming. Unconscious, conscious(lucid), day dreaming, fantasy, etc.


Unconscious in the context of sleep and dreams differs greatly to the type of unconscious being discussed in the article.



Not true. You can be unconscious while the brain still perform's it's task. The only time a brain ceases to function is when the electrical current's cease to propagate accross the neuron's.


The brain may still perform basic functions but the kind of clarity of vision, hearing, awareness, self awareness and recall reported in most NDE's is generally agreed to be beyond the known capabilities of an unconscious brain based on current knowledge. This is the objection Van Lommel raises with regards to veridical evidence and how it was perceived by the patients.




The same is also true of people undergoing resuscitation from cardiac arrest. About 20% of cardiac arrest patients undergo very efficient resuscitation, and are fully or partially conscious, even though they have no heartbeat, are paralyzed by residual effects of brain oxygen starvation, and appear rather dead. Yet they are able to hear, sense, and visualize what occurs in their vicinity.


Which merely proves that 20% were semi conscious and reported awareness of their surroundings not classic NDE scenarios.


I could go on, but I've only gotten through half the site and this is getting long enough. I'll continue reading it however. I agree, having an open mind is a good thing, just not when the evidence point's in the opposite direction.


IMO the evidence remains firmly ambiguous. Demanding higher standards for the survival hypothosis with calls for video tapes etc while happily accepting far less in support of a materialist view to arrive at solid conclusions smacks equally of a certain dogmatism and fixity of viewpoint as any accusations of blind faith for those who do not automatically rationalise the evidence to a certain way of thinking. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree for now or this discussion could go circular.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
'BlackGuardXIII,

Indeed, it is possible to believe without being religous. But what's that belief based upon? No direct evidence nor indirect evidence. All you've got are stories which are fully explainable by science. And the root of that belief either comes from the conscious or unconscious fear of one's own mortality, meaning, it's a hell of alot happier and fluffier to think we live on in a wonderfull great afterlife.' Produkt
As I have already stated earlier, my beliefs are based neither on anything I have read, nor out of some desire for a post mortem paradise, but on my own personal life experiences.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   


As I have already stated earlier, my beliefs are based neither on anything I have read, nor out of some desire for a post mortem paradise, but on my own personal life experiences.


So, prior to your current belief's you've never once read nor heard about an afterlife or the soul continuing to survive after death or ghost stories about dead people's spirit's? You were totally devoid of all this and non of it influenced you even on a subconscious level?

Must've lead a sheltered life.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join