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.

 

Can science explain Heaven in NDEs? They're working on it.

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD
 


How would a blind person even know that a new type of experience was one of sight? It's just a new experience. They wouldn't say, "I can see!" because they wouldn't know that the new experience was what the rest of us call "sight." The same story goes for deaf people and hearing. They would just be having a new experience that was very strange to them. Even if they did establish that they had "seen" something in the NDE, they wouldn't know what worlds go with what colors, or how to describe their visual experience. This means there's no way to tell if what they were seeing coresponded to anything in the room, because they wouldn't be able to describe it in a way that we could understand. If they did have a new visual experience you can be certain that it was a hallucination induced by the dying brain.

Actually, you're wrong. It's physiologically impossible for the congenitally blind to have visual hallucinations. That's not opinion, that's fact. As for knowing whether it was vision or not, you'd have to be familiar with the specific cases.

Bradley Barrows for example:



His case is documented in the book Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind where it goes into more detail.




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


There is a tremendous body of evidence connecting consciousness to the brain. The brain based theory of consciousness is not compatable with genuine experiences of the afterlife in NDEs.

Coulddead,

If they have a visual experience during an NDE then it's not impossible for them to have visual experiences, is it? If it's a fact that these experiences are not hallucinations then the matter is settled, scientifically speaking, isn't it? If it's not a hallucination, then it's real. But, we know that the matter is not settled, and in fact the mainsteam scientific opinion is that these people are not seeing heaven.

Most blindness is not congenital. Most people who are blind have developed visual centers in their brain and can have visual hallucinations. Anyone who reports having a visual experience is capable - neurobiologically - of having a visual experience or they are mistaken in their report.

Edit to add: It would seem that the fellow in the video makes several general arguments which aren't dependant on the specific experience of blind people. To me, it sounds like these arguments would apply to dreams just as much as they would to NDE. For example the suggestion that since these "other worlds" are intricate and detailed, and since most of us "cannot even draw a stick figure in real life," it is hard to accept that they are a product of our imaginations. Does he suppose that the dream world is a real, mystical, place that we go to at night? And that we ought to appeal to paranormal explanations rather than scientific ones for dreams too?

[edit on 3/30/10 by OnceReturned]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


For example, if I decide to think about a monitor, we can see what part of my brain lights up when I think about a monitor, but there is no way to tell what caused me to think about a monitor in the first place.

People don't decide what thoughts to have. Their thoughts come unbidden. Nietzsche famously refuted Descarte's cogito, ergo, sum thus.

Thoughts are responses to external stimuli. There is no evidence for free will, which you would need in order to sustain the version of dualism you seem to be promoting.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I agree. The fact that we are not conscious of the basis for all of our thoughts does not mean that they come from something mysterious. It just means that their basis is subconscious. To be a thing that thinks can be rather frustrating. It doesn't feel very much like I'm at the helm of the whole process. My thoughts, words, perceptions, all just seem to be handed over to my consciousness from something outside of my awareness that has all of this stuff worked out in advance before I even get to see it. It's an amusing state of affairs.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


reply to post by nomorecruelty

Take the case of the man who was in the car accident - the paramedics were there at the scene the entire time, had already pronounced him dead for at least an hour and a half, and were waiting on the coroner to arrive.

Did the paramedics keep checking his respiration and heartbeat all that time? Or were they just standing around, shooting the breeze?

Since neither of us was there on the scene, one would be left to assume that the "paramedics" on the scene were professional trained and licensed.

(Don Piper) said he went over to the paramedics and told them they needed to help the "dead" man because he was still alive.

Right. So they were standing around shooting the breeze. The victim could have started breathing again at any time during those 90 minutes.

See above response.

Can "scientists" ever explain this? Probably not.

I just did, and I'm not even a scientist.

Scientists can't explain it. And you aren't a Scientist, correct? Sooo eh, who cares if you can or can't explain it.

And why the quotation marks around 'scientists'? Are you suggesting that scientists are really frauds and imposters?

p.s. the above is but ONE account of an experience - there are thousands, if not more, of these that have happened.

In that case, I suggest you have a look through your files and post one more credible than this.

There are countless ones out there - again, Hint: Google. I don't have on a pair of pantyhose - i.e. I'm not your personal secretary.

*

reply to post by nomorecruelty

Doctors, who hold MD degrees, state that the human brain cannot survive non activity (death) without oxygen more than 4-6 minutes.

The world record for static apnea (holding your breath under water) is a staggering 11 minutes 35 seconds, achieved by Stéphane Mifsud in June 2009. I myself have held my breath for over four minutes (aged fifteen, timed by my classmates) without any noticeable ill effects.

Holding your breath is not the same as 'clinical' or 'biological' death, Einstein.

If you want to debate the MD's, feel free - you can't dispute the facts.

It's you we're debating, not the MDs, and you're presenting fiction, not facts.

No need to debate me - there are documented experiments already on the books. Hint: Google



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


why do you keep bringing up Don freakin piper? its old news!!!
people have debunked already come up with something else!!
seriously

boo!!!hiss!!
nobody cares anymore

try another NDE or something please
just something new



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


i have A.D.D. and i have random crazy thoughts all the time i dont know where they come from but i am most certanly not touched by some "god"

the greeks believed our thoughts were not our own but the gods telling us to feel or do something.
i disagree and i think most religious people would also if not then blah


[edit on 31-3-2010 by ashanu90]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


Since neither of us was there on the scene, one would be left to assume that the "paramedics" on the scene were professional trained and licensed.

That doesn't mean they were able to determine whether the man was dead or alive with certainty. Paramedics don't carry EEG machines around with them*. Here is how a patient is determined to be dead or alive in the state of Kentucky:


446.400 Determination of death -- Minimal conditions to be met.

For all legal purposes, the occurrence of human death shall be determined in accordance with the usual and customary standards of medical practice, provided that death shall not be determined to have occurred unless the following minimal conditions have been met:
  1. When respiration and circulation are not artificially maintained, there is an irreversible cessation of spontaneous respiration and circulation; or
  2. When respiration and circulation are artificially maintained, and there is a total and irreversible cessation of all brain function, including the brain stem and that such determination is made by two (2) licensed physicians.

Note that only the first case applies in accidents where paramedics may be present. Basically, if no evidence of heart activity is seen, the paramedic may declare the patient dead.

Here are the corresponding procedures for Marin County, California:


IV. POLICY

A. Paramedics may not pronounce death, they may declare apparent death.

B. Death may be declared when all of the following criteria are met
  1. Patient is in cardiac arrest (pulseless and non-breathing)
  2. The patient was discovered in a state of cardiac arrest AND was not known to be alive in the preceding fifteen (15) minutes. If Do Not Resuscitate advance directive is present, witness to the arrest does not preclude declaration of death
  3. Asystole has been documented in two monitoring leads for one (1) minute. "Asystole" means that no monitor activity has been observed since any monitor was applied... Verification of asystole is not necessary if one of the following are present
    • Death is being declared pursuant to a properly executed Do Not Resuscitate advance directive.
    • Decomposition of body tissues
    • Decapitation
    • Incineration
    • Separation of or massive destruction to heart or brain
    • Lividity and/or rigor is present.

    Source (PDF)

In the state of Connecticut,

  1. All 'clinically dead' patients shall receive resuscitative measures unless meeting contraindications identified later in this program.
  2. 'Clinically dead' means an unresponsive patient without respirations or a carotid pulse. Source

Want more? I've been doing a little googling, as you recommended, and in general what I've found is that if the patient's heartbeat doesn't resume within fifteen minutes of the commencement of resuscitation procedures, the paramedics declare him or her dead (or apparently dead), and that's it.

Overall, my investigations fail to support your unquestioning faith in the competence of paramedics. Even paramedics themselves don't believe in it, to judge by this little discussion.

I don't mean to cast doubt on the competence of this essential and philanthropic profession, but it must be noted that paramedics are human too.

Baltimore City paramedic disciplined after declaring gunshot victim dead who wasn’t.

It happens.


Scientists can't explain it. And you aren't a Scientist, correct? Sooo eh, who cares if you can or can't explain it.

It's only you and your fellow believers in superstitious nonsense who think scientists can't explain it. In fact, all that is needed to explain it, as I have shown, is a lack of gullibility and simple common sense.


nomorecruelty: The above is but ONE account of an experience - there are thousands, if not more, of these that have happened.

Astyanax: In that case, I suggest you have a look through your files and post one more credible than this.

nomorecruelty: There are countless ones out there - again, Hint: Google. I don't have on a pair of pantyhose - i.e. I'm not your personal secretary.

You're the one making the claim, so it is up to you to provide convincing evidence of it. If you can't, admit your failure and leave the thread. As for your tastes in underwear, madam, I couldn't care less about them; where I come from, ladies don't discuss such things with strangers.


Holding your breath is not the same as 'clinical' or 'biological' death, Einstein.

You were insisting that the human brain could not survive for more than six minutes without fresh oxygen. I proved you wrong. The question of clinical death didsn't come into it.


No need to debate me - there are documented experiments already on the books. Hint: Google

Well, show us those experiments, then. I'm not your research assistant. If you expect any of us to believe your credulous, superstitious claims, you'd better provide more evidence than what some moneygrubbing preacher wrote in a book.
 

*And even their testimony is questionable, as OnceReturned has pointed out.

[edit on 31/3/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


Can "scientists" ever explain this? Probably not.

I just did, and I'm not even a scientist.

And why the quotation marks around 'scientists'? Are you suggesting that scientists are really frauds and imposters?


p.s. the above is but ONE account of an experience - there are thousands, if not more, of these that have happened.

In that case, I suggest you have a look through your files and post one more credible than this.


The story of Piper being dead for 90 minutes and then recovering has zero credibility.* He was probably alive and the EMTs just didn't notice it perhaps due to a weak pulse. Your comment about 6 minutes is generally about right, with the main exception to that being cases where people have say drowned in extremely cold water where the low temperature slows down the decay the brain experiences at higher temperatures once it stops getting oxygen.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


Doctors, who hold MD degrees, state that the human brain cannot survive non activity (death) without oxygen more than 4-6 minutes.

The world record for static apnea (holding your breath under water) is a staggering 11 minutes 35 seconds, achieved by Stéphane Mifsud in June 2009. I myself have held my breath for over four minutes (aged fifteen, timed by my classmates) without any noticeable ill effects.


Holding your breath isn't the same as stopping your heart, as long as you have air in your lungs and your heart is beating, you have several sources of oxygen for the brain, the oxygen already dissolved in your bloodstream at the beginning of your breath-holding session, plus the additional oxygen extracted from your lungs during that time.

Temperature is key to exceeding the approximate 6 minute time period, which only seems to apply to a warm brain:

Drowning


The rule "no patient should be pronounced dead until warm and dead" applies. Children in particular have a good chance of survival in water up to 3 minutes, or 10 minutes in cold water (10 to 15 °C or 50 to 60 °F). Submersion in cold water can slow the metabolism drastically. There are rare but documented cases of survivable submersion for extreme lengths of time. In one case a child named Michelle Funk survived drowning after being submerged in cold water for 70 minutes. In another, an 18 year old man survived 38 minutes under water. This is known as cold water drowning.


*So, if Piper had been a cold water drowning victim or otherwise a victim of hypothermia, his story might have some credibility, but I didn't see any mention of hypothermia in his story.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


Well it is hard to debunk the theory until you have had a real NDE for yourself. Every atheist i have read about that has gone through a true NDE has changed their views on life. And don’t bring up Blackmore
. She was high on weed and lying with a Ouija board, does not count. She wasn’t even close to real death.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Well, thanks for the add ; )

Regarding holonomic brain theory, I would think that consciousness itself would be analogous to the laser, but I am not 100% positive if the model would say the same- the model might say the electric impulses are analogous to a laser.

I doubt that NDE's are a literal matter of a person "going" to "heaven" but I do think they are real conscious experiences that are experienced in a holographic way according to the persons individuality.

For example, although very similar, the details in NDE's are always a little different. Some people meet God, some meet 12 beings of light, some meet Jesus Christ, some are filled with incredible knowledge, some meet relatives, etc. It seems obvious to me that the person is having some sort of conscious experience, but when they "return" their brain interprets the frequencies/energy/whatever into a 3D experience according to their individuality.

There is a website that talks about spiritual experiences and the brain (i.e. The God Chemical, The God Spot, etc) - also including an article on consciousness and NDE's.

(www.npr.org...)

Now, the fact that there are areas in the brain that correspond to various spiritual experiences does not mean that such experiences are limited to the brain. I think there is definitely something going on apart from the brain and the brain is used as a way to decode such experiences.

Plus -why in the world would we evolve these areas in the brain to experience "God" or spirituality for no reason?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BellaMente
Well, thanks for the add ; )

Regarding holonomic brain theory, I would think that consciousness itself would be analogous to the laser, but I am not 100% positive if the model would say the same- the model might say the electric impulses are analogous to a laser.

I doubt that NDE's are a literal matter of a person "going" to "heaven" but I do think they are real conscious experiences that are experienced in a holographic way according to the persons individuality.

For example, although very similar, the details in NDE's are always a little different. Some people meet God, some meet 12 beings of light, some meet Jesus Christ, some are filled with incredible knowledge, some meet relatives, etc. It seems obvious to me that the person is having some sort of conscious experience, but when they "return" their brain interprets the frequencies/energy/whatever into a 3D experience according to their individuality.

There is a website that talks about spiritual experiences and the brain (i.e. The God Chemical, The God Spot, etc) - also including an article on consciousness and NDE's.

(www.npr.org...)

Now, the fact that there are areas in the brain that correspond to various spiritual experiences does not mean that such experiences are limited to the brain. I think there is definitely something going on apart from the brain and the brain is used as a way to decode such experiences.

Plus -why in the world would we evolve these areas in the brain to experience "God" or spirituality for no reason?






OMG! You're mixing a healthy dose of skepticism with an open mind! You're a heretic to the modern day "skeptic" community!

Rules of today's skeptic which applies to this thread:

1. If a person shares a story that goes beyond the schema of modern day belief, they are either not telling the truth or are hallucination

Modern day skeptic solution: Stop debate as I am right and they are wrong. I will go out of my way to wave my hands around and yell it to the sky.

2. If two people experience something beyond the rationale of science, they have to be not telling the truth.

Modern day skeptic solution: See above



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BellaMente
 


For example, although very similar, the details in NDE's are always a little different. Some people meet God, some meet 12 beings of light, some meet Jesus Christ, some are filled with incredible knowledge, some meet relatives, etc. It seems obvious to me that the person is having some sort of conscious experience, but when they "return" their brain interprets the frequencies/energy/whatever into a 3D experience according to their individuality.

More like 'according to their culture'. The character of the near-death experience is described in the Bardo Thodol, which Westerners call the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The 'first bardo', an intermediate state between death and life described in the book, closely resembles modern-day accounts of NDEs, though interpreted in terms of Tibetan Buddhist thought.

Tibetan Buddhism has its own descriptions of the near-death experience, which is conceived as a period of actual death followed by a resurrection.

It seems to me that the shutdown process undergone by the brain in extremis results in the generation of a standard set of sense-impressions, which are those of the NDE or first bardo. It is understandable that people should imbue these impressions with special value, given the circumstances under which they are generated, but to call them evidence for life after death or the existence of immortal souls is problematic.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Right on, but I've read many accounts of NDE's (there is a lot of information at www.near-death.com... )and countless people from the same culture have many different experiences.

Another thing I was just reminded of... If NDE's are attributed to the brain alone... Then who can say that they are less real than our perceived "reality"? Everything we perceive to be "real" is perceived by the brain, so then NDE's are in the same boat as our materialistic world. So then how do you prove which one is "more real" than the other?

Funny too, I remember reading that NDE's are described by many as feeling "more real" than regular reality... Like their life they lived was only a long dream that they just woke up from...



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BellaMente
 


Everything we perceive to be "real" is perceived by the brain, so then NDE's are in the same boat as our materialistic world. So then how do you prove which one is "more real" than the other?

We could ask the same question about dreams. And the answer, too, is the same: we know dreams and near-death-experiences are illusory because, when they are over, we return to a world unchanged in its externalities.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
But you are basing that off a premise that an unchanged world is true reality.

What if an unchanging and limiting world is the real dream? Maybe this mental realm of dreams/OBE's/NDE's - where there are no limiting circumstances - is the true reality.

Nobody can prove if an unchanging world is more real than a changing world.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BellaMente
But you are basing that off a premise that an unchanged world is true reality.

Unchanged only in the respect that it is recognizably the same world we thought we had left, but yes. Because it corresponds to observation. And besides, any other assumption is futile since the reality we apprehend fails to conform to it, and because we cannot make reliable predictions in it, as we can in this one.


What if an unchanging and limiting world is the real dream?

To paraphrase Rhett Butler: frankly, my dear, I don't give a dream.


Maybe this mental realm of dreams/OBE's/NDE's - where there are no limiting circumstances - is the true reality.

This is reminsicent of the fantasies of children and those who fail at living: a world in which anything we like is made possible, and wishes all come true.


Nobody can prove if an unchanging world is more real than a changing world.

This is not what we are discussing, though. I never meant to imply that the world is static.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


I'm sure it's a fascinating experience, and I suppose it's possible that it could include elements which might be difficult for me to explain. I can't say with certainty how I would respond, but my belief now is that unless I was presented with some verifiable information which I could not possible know, I would dismiss it as a dying brain experience. Psychoactive drugs can generate experiences which are nothing like conventional consciousness, but so can dreams, I dont think anything mystical is going on. It seems like if it's a real phenomenon, I shouldn't have to experience the shock and awe of actually going through it in order to understand/prove/investigate it.

BellaMente,

You know very well that we cannot prove that we are not dreaming even now, or that dreams are not the "real" reality and this one is fake. But, we must - absolutely must - live our lives as though we occupy reality when we are awake. It's the only way to proceed. Our difficulties with proving the "reality" of this reality seem trivial, because they are impossible to overcome, yet we have to proceed with certainty about the matter. We have to get jobs and not crash our cars and eat food and all that as though "this reality" is the real one. The pragmatic issues seem to make up our minds for us.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Right on - I agree with you, and I would say that I do live my waking life as it is reality... At least most of the time lol.

I am just trying to point out that it IS possible that such a dream realm or plane of existence where mind and imagination reigns could very well be the true reality and nobody can really prove either assumption.

Personally, I would even prefer this mind/imagination/dream realm over this world any day! I think it would be awesome and I'd be less bored at times if I could still hang out with my childhood imaginary friends... lol

By the way, speaking of psychoactive drugs, I agree with you and think that the same brain functions apply to those as NDE's and dreams. I would absolutely LOVE to get involved with some research on this. I personally think all this stuff has to do with some manipulations to the Fourier Transforms that govern certain brain areas - it would be so cool if I could find the right people and discover some of the mathematics behind this stuff!

I remember for one of my previous psychology classes we read the book An Unquiet Mind - an autobiography of a psychiatrist who suffers from Bipolar Disorder. The interesting thing I noticed was that all of her hallucinations had an underlying symbolism to it - some obvious and some not so obvious. Now, this same type of symbolism is found in dreams, and whether you believe this symbolism has a deeper meaning to an individual or not, the parallels between dreams and hallucinations are interesting either way.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BellaMente


By the way, speaking of psychoactive drugs, I agree with you and think that the same brain functions apply to those as NDE's and dreams. I would absolutely LOVE to get involved with some research on this.


you should message me then, i know quite a bit about these things



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join