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.

 

Clinically dead boy 'saw grandma in heaven'

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Debating the function of consciousness and its biological or other nature, is hardly a petty argument. It is a worthwhile debate, and until we can prove one way or the other, the debate will continue, if not in this thread, if never again in this site, it will be a debate that continues.




posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well if it's 100% natural, as we seem to agree, then science will 100% explain everything about it in due course, and you'll eventually have all your answers.

It also means that it couldn't possibly involve magic/god/supernature/metaphysical/etc.


And, btw, what the heck makes you think the processes of the brain aren't biological?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I understand that. But the debate in here is exactly the same as in 100's of threads here on ATS.

Some people who have experienced NDE were conscious of the environment outside the operating rooms and even described them to the last detail have not been explained. I can cite examples as I have in many threads.

Some people are not willing to accept that. They either call them liars or it has to be some naturalistic explanation which begs more questions.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Hubris.


You think you've above your own limitations.. Accept reality and be happy with it. You are who you are -- some kind of wicket awesome machine. But just a machine.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 




Well if it's 100% natural, as we seem to agree, then science will 100% explain everything about it in due course, and you'll eventually have all your answers.


Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Need I say more?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


nobody can explain that because it's like me saying "I have a friend who knew a guy who could float! Using nothing but his mind! He could float! Disprove that, Mr.Fancy "SCIENTIST."


Nobody can "disprove" what this person said without setting up a controlled experiment. If these people want to "die" again, for science,in a controlled setting, then we can find out quite easily by doing some simple tests.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 




nobody can explain that because it's like me saying "I have a friend who knew a guy who could float! Using nothing but his mind! He could float! Disprove that, Mr.Fancy "SCIENTIST."


That's a hearsay.

They have been documented in the medical journals.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I have never, not once, stated that the process of the brain is not biological. You are attempting to confuse consciousness with the brain, and it appears you are doing so to avoid admitting that no one truly knows where consciousness resides in the body, or even if it does at all. Thoughts outlive biological constructs, which is why we are able to progress as a species. Thoughts do not die with those who think them, and many thoughts have survived since time immemorial.

We are not completely subjective in our conscious state, and have the capability of thinking objectively. I believe that perhaps an argument can be made for biological mechanisms causing certain subjective thoughts, but if there is a valid argument that those biological mechanisms cause objective thought, you have not been one who has made that argument.

All we "agree" on is that the brain is 100% biological.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 



Hubris. You think you've above your own limitations


Would you care to explain how so?



Accept reality and be happy with it.


For a "scientific" thinker...you sure do make a lot of assumptions. I am very happy with reality...And in reality...I admit I don't know everything. And so I am free to speculate. I am free to speculate because I accept the fact that we do not know everything...and some things may not be able to be explained by our current knowledge.

You on the other hand...must live in a rigid world where you must know everything and everything must be explained by our current knowledge.


You are who you are -- some kind of wicket awesome machine. But just a machine.


Well usually machines are built to produce something...and the only tangible thing I produce is urine and feces...so that puts a whole new spin on what my "purpose" is in life...and who am I producing this for???



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


I explained to you how to disprove it.. get me a willing volunteer and we'll shock his/her heart until he/she is deceased, wheel them into a room with some specific attributes about it, then revive the subject, and ask them to describe those attributes about the room. Then we'll see how accurate their out of body experiences really are.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Going to start off by saying I only read the first couple of pages, maybe someone mentioned it by now, sorry if so. It seems like it got lost in the actual story, but my first thought when reading this story was, what in the world were they letting a 3-year-old play down by a lake by himself?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I can see how processes in the dying brain might induce a feeling of euphoria or tunnel-vision with a light at the end, but I always find that explanation lacking when it comes to seeing visions of people and places. Why is it that people only report seeing friends and family that have passed on? Wouldn't it be more natural to see visions of people that you see and interact with every day, if it was only due to chemicals in the brain? I mean, surely you'd have visions of your spouse or significant other more than a grandmother that might have died decades ago when you were a child or before you were even born.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Kaytagg
 



That all tells me that the brain is 100% natural and chemical reactions.



Well we know it isn't 100% chemical...since even your own post points out that a large part of it is electrical.

So we know that it is partially chemical, partially electrical, and I'm inclined to believe it is partially "something" else...although what that is I'm not sure.

How does one form an original thought? One not retrieved from memory? It would have to involve something that creates something "new" in the brain. Is the simple cause of a mis-fired in the electrical system...is it a chemical reaction that shouldn't have taken place? Or is it something else?

If it is just a mis-fire or a rouge chemical reaction...is all original thought just an accident? That isn't something I can get myself to believe.


It's hubris to think that there is "something more" to your brain AND consciousness than a series of chemical reactions. Why is that hubris? Because it assumes, on your part, that you can "beat" your destiny (in a manner of speaking). Except it's not really destiny, so much as the laws of nature. Like you're somehow above the simple machinery of nature, and that your consciousness is "beyond" that petty, bestial reality.

It's not.. your brain/consciousness aren't anything special.. It's just a bunch of reactions taking place in a complicated organ that sits ontop of your neck. There's no magic, no "extra" something or another which gets salvaged when you die, or anything like that.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Only because the guy didnt saw demons dosnt mean that he was in heaven! Also only because he saw his grandmother dosnt mean that was really his grandmother.

I believe when you die people that you liked but died will come after you to take you to judgement, but that dosnt mean that the guy that came after you is really him, it can be a soul which has the job to get into the body you liked but died...

Would you go with a stranger more or with a person you loved to a place you dont know?

And to the atheists that humble and are crying to explain it somehow all i can say is:



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimpish
 


haha...that's a good point that none of us are talking about.

In my experience...people who live by bodies of water have a false sense of security...no different than anyone else though. I'm sure they spent a lot of time going over the importance of water saftey with the 3 year old...and he probably played by the lake 100s of times by himself without going in...but he is 3 years old...and curiosity gets the best of you. This is no different than a kid who plays outside all the time...and then one time runs into the street.

Or...I'll share an embarresing little tidbit about myself. When I was young...don't know exact age...but I flipped on the light switch to my room and thought "I wonder how fast the light bulb gets hot". I knew it got hot...but I wasn't sure how fast it got hot. So I walked over to the lamp...and put my finger on the bulb. Let me tell you...it gets hot pretty darn fast. But it was my curiosity that got me...I half way knew it was going to be hot...but I touched it anyway just to see. Really has nothing to do with the topic...just thought I'd share.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
double post


[edit on 9-4-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bagari
 


Wow, that's actually a really good question.

Are you sure they ONLY see dead people?



Btw, nothing is ever going to actually get answered in this thread.. It's impossible to perform any kind of experiments on people -- that would be unethical. And even if we could experiment on people, nobody in this thread is going to go do it tomorrow, then come back and post about it..



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 



Because it assumes, on your part, that you can "beat" your destiny


No...you assume that it means that. I simply mean that I don't believe we have a complete understanding of how our brain and consciousness interact with each other.

If anyone is displaying hubris here...it is the one who believes they have all the answers...and that is not myself.



It's just a bunch of reactions taking place in a complicated organ that sits ontop of your neck.


You should really get started on those papers. If you have figured out exactly how the brain works AND exactly how the placebo effect works...then you should share it with the scientific community.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Kaytagg
 



Because it assumes, on your part, that you can "beat" your destiny

I simply mean that I don't believe we have a complete understanding of how our brain and consciousness interact with each other.



You're already invoking something that doesn't exist.. The consciousness doesn't "interact" with the brain; the consciousness is the "output" of a working brain. It doesn't exist in a static form, it's a fluid, perpetual "result" based on the particulars of how the chemistry in your brain happens to be organised at any given time.

Throw some drugs into the brain and the consciousness changes.


Think of it as a verb... It's what your brain is "doing," it isn't something unto itself, in some abstract, magical form..

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Kaytagg]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Kaytagg
 



Because it assumes, on your part, that you can "beat" your destiny

I simply mean that I don't believe we have a complete understanding of how our brain and consciousness interact with each other.



You're already invoking something that doesn't exist.. The consciousness doesn't "interact" with the brain; the consciousness is the "output" of a working brain. It doesn't exist in a static form, it's a fluid, perpetual "result" based on the particulars of how the chemistry in your brain happens to be organised at any given time.

Throw some drugs into the brain and the consciousness changes.


Think of it as a verb... It's what your brain is "doing," it isn't something unto itself, in some abstract, magical form..

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Kaytagg]


This is simply a theory, nothing more. No one has proven anything about where the consciousness resides, and all that can be offered is evidence of a correlation between brain functions and consciousness and as I have stated before Correlation does not prove Causation.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join