Scientist believes his experiements prove the survival of human consciousness after death.

This could go into several catergories but I will put it here because I beleive it has more of an impact on Religions.

An Arizona proffessor has been conducting studies into whether or not there is an afterlife for 7 years. By studying the accuracy of a medium to a person who has lost a loved one Swartz beleives that he has proven there is a live after death.

For seven years, Gary Schwartz, a UA professor and director of the Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science, has been conducting afterlife experiments and research that he believes prove the survival of human consciousness after death.

"When you look at the totality of the data, the simplest and most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the largest amount of data is the survival of consciousness hypothesis," he said.

The experiments are performed in a lab with a medium, a sitter and Schwartz. A medium is someone who believes that he or she can communicate with the dead, and a sitter is a person who wishes to gain knowledge about a deceased loved one.

The medium receives messages from the dead and then relays them to the sitter, who tells Schwartz if the information is correct or incorrect. These messages can include the deceased's cause of death, memories that include the deceased and the sitter and "signs" for the sitter that indicate the deceased is around him or her.

After the experiment, Schwartz analyzes the data and determines the accuracy of the medium's reading.

wildcat.arizona.edu...

Hey it could be but people still won't beleive

Simply stating facts about someones life that they shouldnt otherwise know does not constitute truth concerning life after death, IMO.
I will be the first one to admit that I do not know how they do what they do or know what they know, but just because I do not know the answer, I am not going to simply state, "Well since I dont know how they know, there MUST be an afterlife.".

The nonbelivers will always be stuborn. The argument has always been what religion is "right", and not if there is a after life to the belivers. Unfortionatly this doesnt solve that problem either. This is just awsome information to people like me who belive in "spritualism" and not cults.......I mean religions.

The second I read medium I switched off...

IMO, here is where it gets murky. We are lead to believe, that when we die, we "go somewhere".
Yet we also are aware of certain phenomena called "ghosts" To me, if a "spirit" is in heaven, it's not like there would be loudspeakers all around going "Paging Mr Jones" when a medium "connects"
Perhaps when you die, you become more "attuned" to people that may use a part of their brain that allows them to "connect" and when they do, we "know" they are seeking us. But that would mean that you could "leave" heaven and then return, and maybe you like what you used to have and stay and become a "ghost". Maybe a "ghost" is just the left over kinetic energy of our former selves when we "die" and one part goes on, the leftover stays behind to slowly fade away.
Sorry for the rambling, my point is, it's not that I don't believe in mediums or communication with the dead (cause I've tried with no success) you would just think, that mediums the world over would be besieged with "contacts" wanting to talk to their relatives that are alive.

Originally posted by NetStorm
But that would mean that you could "leave" heaven and then return, and maybe you like what you used to have and stay and become a "ghost".

That kinda reminds me of the belief that at night, your 'dreaming' is actualy your soul leaving your body and returning in the morning. If this is true in life, then in theory it can also be possible in death.

This experiment is full of holes. The first is the sitter has stored information very deeply in his brains, just like a trauma. So his brain activity is more focused on the person who died. What is left is telepathy, the medium gets the knowledge of the sitter more easily (because the sitter also thinks about it and it deeply carved into his brains) and then the information would ofcourse be the information which the sitter had in mind.

The whole experiment is then based upon telepathy between the sitter and medium, and there isn't any reason to believe he was talking to the death anymore.

This experiment proves nothing, and certainly scientists wouldn't believe it because it is most likely telepathy with the sitter.

No thanks.

I think it's great information.
Throughout thousands of years, we have lost touch with our spiritual sides. I believe at one time many more of us could communicate with the "hereafter" Religions have gone out of their way to convince us that spirits not of their making do not exist. So, saints and prophets are "real", but your dead relatives communicating to you aren't.
[I am reminded of how the Catholic Church taught us that fortune tellers and such were sinful.]

I have had two such encounters, one direct and one indirect. So, I believe.