I see that others are in their own paradigms, and maybe they're necessary for their spirit growths.
I was just reading this thread, Journey Through an NDE.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Very good thread.
I made a post here, sharing something of some experiences, they were just lucid meditations, and the thing is, when 2 people can share an experience,
like my son and I did. Just like my family sharing a siting in the sky, and no it wasnt a bird, lantern, satellite, they flew 50-150 feet and a
little higher, but lower than most planes by a long shot, directly over the roof soundlessly. And someone else must have picked that up on radar
because my son called me out for the chopper chases too. So, shared experiences, are really very interesting. You do know that anything psi shared
opens the whole rabbit hole up for everything in this thread, for the thread I linked above as well. How do you share a psi experience? How do 2
people share a guide?
You cannot! Your dmt trip would be unique.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Reminds me of the countless thousands of studies they've done in universities throughout the world with psi and telepathy, where they had overall
findings. Shown 4 objects 25% was expected to be norm. The average left hemisphered student in the university studies showed an 8% or so increase
statistically and that was huge. They recalled breast implants on a stat of less than 1% and promote aspirin for heart attack victims on miniscule
results too. When they selected only the students who were artistic or had some psi in their lives, they had around 60%, so over 35% higher than the
average.
I would suggest for those who just accept answers, ignore data, and don't research, to actually explore, seek, and try to find, because that is the
actual reason we're here.
Ben Breedlove Passed Away Christmas Day, But Not Before Sharing His NDE With The World, page 11
privacy
reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 01:46 PM by jonnywhite
reply to post by Xtraeme
I think it's far simpler just to assume that the reason Atheists think the way they do is because they're basing what they think on current evidence, not on hocus pocus. To think that there is nothing after death is just to acknowledge that everything dies and doesn't come back. When a dog dies, it doesn't come back. When a fly dies, it doesn't come back. When a whale dies, it doesn't come back. We have many millions of identified species on earth, with many more yet to be found (and some never to be found that got destroyed by being pushed deep into the earth??). Do you honestly think that all of this life goes on after death in another dimension or phase of existence? All of the evidence we have suggests that when things die, it's over. Nothing else. So an atheist simply goes with that. This doesn't mean an atheist can go on a shooting rampage because there's nothing after death. it doesn't excuse wrongdoing. If you think that's why atheists are the way they're then you have a warped understanding of what drives them. They're driven by pure rationale perception. They don't use intuition to stretch out beyond observable or understandable limits. They just go with what's around them and is measured.
My opinion is that when we die we have a spiritual experience in a dying body. That doesn't mean we survive death. In fact, i don't think we do. But I think dying is not as bad as life can be! Think of all the things that happen in life. Then think of your dreams. Dreams, by and large, are much better, more peaceful, more expansive, and so on. Dying in a dream is not so bad. I mean, really think about it. A lot of our problems in life are connected to our body and ego. Now imagine that for a few moments all of these connections are released. Suddenly, you're no longer connected to your body or your ego. You're free. This is, I think, how we will all die.
We will die in peace. Without the stresses of this world attached to us.
Please watch this video:
I think it's far simpler just to assume that the reason Atheists think the way they do is because they're basing what they think on current evidence, not on hocus pocus. To think that there is nothing after death is just to acknowledge that everything dies and doesn't come back. When a dog dies, it doesn't come back. When a fly dies, it doesn't come back. When a whale dies, it doesn't come back. We have many millions of identified species on earth, with many more yet to be found (and some never to be found that got destroyed by being pushed deep into the earth??). Do you honestly think that all of this life goes on after death in another dimension or phase of existence? All of the evidence we have suggests that when things die, it's over. Nothing else. So an atheist simply goes with that. This doesn't mean an atheist can go on a shooting rampage because there's nothing after death. it doesn't excuse wrongdoing. If you think that's why atheists are the way they're then you have a warped understanding of what drives them. They're driven by pure rationale perception. They don't use intuition to stretch out beyond observable or understandable limits. They just go with what's around them and is measured.
My opinion is that when we die we have a spiritual experience in a dying body. That doesn't mean we survive death. In fact, i don't think we do. But I think dying is not as bad as life can be! Think of all the things that happen in life. Then think of your dreams. Dreams, by and large, are much better, more peaceful, more expansive, and so on. Dying in a dream is not so bad. I mean, really think about it. A lot of our problems in life are connected to our body and ego. Now imagine that for a few moments all of these connections are released. Suddenly, you're no longer connected to your body or your ego. You're free. This is, I think, how we will all die.
We will die in peace. Without the stresses of this world attached to us.
Please watch this video:
edit on 7-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 8-1-2012 @ 04:04 PM by Xtraeme
reply to post by jonnywhite
So it sounds like you're basically in agreement with my original assessment, where I said, "Isn't it just as comforting from the atheistic position to imagine that upon death there's nothing? And because nothing else exists therefore all pain, anguish, and responsibility ceases." This is an expectation as much as it is an emotional motivation.
Isn't it far simpler to imagine that life should have never came in to existence? Isn't it far simpler to imagine that nothing should exist rather than something? Isn't it far simpler to imagine that life should be sustained by anything other than a flaming ball of plasma that we circle about on a daily basis? What is "simpler" is a value judgment based on familiarity (unless of course it's merely cancellation in the presence of a tautology).
This is a category mistake. You're outlining assumptions not evidence (i.e. Locke's "tabula rasa" implies upon death the return to nothingness). At present, unfortunately, there is no known way to demonstrate whether this is also true of consciousness. Cognitive researchers like S. Blackmoore and D. Dennett refer to this as the "original sin of cognitivism" or the "Cartesian Theatre." Both hold that mind should not be viewed as a dualistic object where consciousness is separate from the brain. This is their foundational assumption.
Depending on the belief system that you draw from determines whether or not this is accepted as a foundational truth. If you were Hindi and lived in Delhi the default societal position would be reincarnation. Do we know whether or not this is factually true? Absolutely not. Do we know it's factually true that when something passes on it's gone from not only physical existence but every other possible scenario? Nope, it's just a best guess because the vast majority of people don't report any further contact. So that appears to be it.
Due to the ambiguity it's best to look at all data points (possibilianism) and until we can say something in a definitive manner, hold our tongue, and keep our hypotheses separate from our facts. What we can say for certain, is that the physical body perishes and there appears to be little to no contact afterwards. Obviously, the acceptance of the idea of "contact" depends upon whether you can buy the idea of nonphysical exploration and shared experience verified by identifying an initially unknown object. Unless we can form a testable hypothesis, extending the argument beyond this point is to engage in conjecture and supposition.
Now that your assumptions have been stated, what evidence would you point to support your viewpoint? A theist derives from the idea of out of body and near death experiences that there's something more. An atheist sees the death of a loved one and concludes since there's no further contact everything comes to an end. There's no data upon death (unless you go looking for it in odd places). So there's little to no evidence for either viewpoint. This is why earlier I had said, "Each group has a rather inconclusive series of facts to support their argument."
Seeing as how I've been agnostic for most of my life (now omnitheistic), with a fairly low opinion of theists, I think you're speaking out of a sense being slighted. The vast majority of people who have a Western mindset accept the idea of death as "final" due to philosophy that is grounded in physicality. This is perfectly reasonable. It's what we observe. So it seems perfectly obvious that's as far as we should extend our argument.
However where this starts to break down is when we get to living sapient creatures (namely us). Humans primarily live a private life that's "conceptual." What's out there in the real world is external, what's in the head is "ideation."
That doesn't mean we survive death. In fact, i don't think we do. But I think dying is not as bad as life can be! ... We will die in peace. Without the stresses of this world attached to us.
So it sounds like you're basically in agreement with my original assessment, where I said, "Isn't it just as comforting from the atheistic position to imagine that upon death there's nothing? And because nothing else exists therefore all pain, anguish, and responsibility ceases." This is an expectation as much as it is an emotional motivation.
I think it's far simpler ...
Isn't it far simpler to imagine that life should have never came in to existence? Isn't it far simpler to imagine that nothing should exist rather than something? Isn't it far simpler to imagine that life should be sustained by anything other than a flaming ball of plasma that we circle about on a daily basis? What is "simpler" is a value judgment based on familiarity (unless of course it's merely cancellation in the presence of a tautology).
All of the evidence we have suggests that when things die, it's over.
This is a category mistake. You're outlining assumptions not evidence (i.e. Locke's "tabula rasa" implies upon death the return to nothingness). At present, unfortunately, there is no known way to demonstrate whether this is also true of consciousness. Cognitive researchers like S. Blackmoore and D. Dennett refer to this as the "original sin of cognitivism" or the "Cartesian Theatre." Both hold that mind should not be viewed as a dualistic object where consciousness is separate from the brain. This is their foundational assumption.
Depending on the belief system that you draw from determines whether or not this is accepted as a foundational truth. If you were Hindi and lived in Delhi the default societal position would be reincarnation. Do we know whether or not this is factually true? Absolutely not. Do we know it's factually true that when something passes on it's gone from not only physical existence but every other possible scenario? Nope, it's just a best guess because the vast majority of people don't report any further contact. So that appears to be it.
Due to the ambiguity it's best to look at all data points (possibilianism) and until we can say something in a definitive manner, hold our tongue, and keep our hypotheses separate from our facts. What we can say for certain, is that the physical body perishes and there appears to be little to no contact afterwards. Obviously, the acceptance of the idea of "contact" depends upon whether you can buy the idea of nonphysical exploration and shared experience verified by identifying an initially unknown object. Unless we can form a testable hypothesis, extending the argument beyond this point is to engage in conjecture and supposition.
I think it's far simpler just to assume that the reason Atheists think the way they do is because they're basing what they think on current evidence ...
Now that your assumptions have been stated, what evidence would you point to support your viewpoint? A theist derives from the idea of out of body and near death experiences that there's something more. An atheist sees the death of a loved one and concludes since there's no further contact everything comes to an end. There's no data upon death (unless you go looking for it in odd places). So there's little to no evidence for either viewpoint. This is why earlier I had said, "Each group has a rather inconclusive series of facts to support their argument."
If you think that's why atheists are the way they're then you have a warped understanding of what drives them. They're driven by pure rationale perception.
Seeing as how I've been agnostic for most of my life (now omnitheistic), with a fairly low opinion of theists, I think you're speaking out of a sense being slighted. The vast majority of people who have a Western mindset accept the idea of death as "final" due to philosophy that is grounded in physicality. This is perfectly reasonable. It's what we observe. So it seems perfectly obvious that's as far as we should extend our argument.
However where this starts to break down is when we get to living sapient creatures (namely us). Humans primarily live a private life that's "conceptual." What's out there in the real world is external, what's in the head is "ideation."
edit on 8-1-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 8-1-2012 @ 04:05 PM by Xtraeme
This is bizarre because everything that we know anything about is physical. Yet the mind which conjures up all these measurements about physicality is
very difficult to fit into the same model. This has resulted in areas of study as diverse as philosophy, neuroscience, behavioral science, psychology,
to more out there research at UCLA for OBEs,[1] flotation tanks, Timothy Leary psychedelic
approach to studying states of consciousness, Stanford's SRI studies into remote viewing, and so on.
This idea of information versus physicality is an extremely important topic because even in physical theory for an object to exist it must possess information. Plato's allegory of the cave was probably the first time anyone expressed on paper the notion of ideas (or "forms") as contrasted against physicality. Leading to the whole question of essentialness. Is physical reality more essential than platonic reality? Or is information as a foundational building block (i.e. numbers which need no physical form) more essential than physicality? Or is there some sort of codependence? Mathematical physicist Dr. Tegmark makes a good case for the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. If this sort of theory turns out to be true then information precedes manifestation (i.e. meaning that dimensionless physical constants have to be set in advance), which would indicate physical reality isn't as real as we imagine it to be because it's actually the effect not the cause.
This changes the foundational bedrock depending on which viewpoint we accept. So, which is more rational and why? Also how can a rational universe which we live in support irrational creatures (humanity) which are capable of contradictions? How does the mind at night freely create whole true-to-life fully interactive environments that would take scores of 3D artists months to generate and hundreds of man hours for programmers and designers to script? The only honest answer I can come up with is: I don't know.
We don't make advancement without looking for new things. Imagine if 1000 years ago someone had said, "I wonder if there are more stars up there in the sky than the ones we can see?" A skeptical mindset that only works with current data would argue, "If we can't see it how would it be there? We see the stars that are there and we don't see things that aren't there." Hundreds of years later we would invent the telescope. As our ancestors looked through the eyepiece they learned there were innumerable stars and whole galaxies they hadn't seen before. Imagine if we had never bothered looking, because "why look for something that isn't there?" So what method should we use to sort out bad data when dealing with edge-science? That's the real question. There's an answer to this question and it doesn't require arbitrarily shooting down ideas that don't fit our collective intuition of what's tenable.
I'm not entirely sure what you hope to show with the video. I've seen it before and from my earlier research I remember Dr. Taylor was criticized by a number of her colleagues for failing to keep up with contemporary neuroscience because the left brain and right brain dichotomy was long ago proven false. So I'm not sure what, if anything, we can derive from her experience. Perhaps it's just a brain going haywire due to the stroke. Maybe it was something else and she was treading the boundary between nonphysicality and physicality. I'm inclined to say her experience was physical in nature, since the experience directly corresponded to the stroke. Obviously she interpreted it as a spiritual experience. If I'm remembering correctly the main thrust of her talk was focused on conveying the importance of the feeling or "sensuous" side of existence over pure rationality. The "feeling" dimension of existence certainly has experiential value, but I find this less than ideal because it's not something which can be conveyed easily in words like rational thought. So sadly it's subjective and lost on the rest of us.
This idea of information versus physicality is an extremely important topic because even in physical theory for an object to exist it must possess information. Plato's allegory of the cave was probably the first time anyone expressed on paper the notion of ideas (or "forms") as contrasted against physicality. Leading to the whole question of essentialness. Is physical reality more essential than platonic reality? Or is information as a foundational building block (i.e. numbers which need no physical form) more essential than physicality? Or is there some sort of codependence? Mathematical physicist Dr. Tegmark makes a good case for the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. If this sort of theory turns out to be true then information precedes manifestation (i.e. meaning that dimensionless physical constants have to be set in advance), which would indicate physical reality isn't as real as we imagine it to be because it's actually the effect not the cause.
This changes the foundational bedrock depending on which viewpoint we accept. So, which is more rational and why? Also how can a rational universe which we live in support irrational creatures (humanity) which are capable of contradictions? How does the mind at night freely create whole true-to-life fully interactive environments that would take scores of 3D artists months to generate and hundreds of man hours for programmers and designers to script? The only honest answer I can come up with is: I don't know.
They don't use intuition to stretch out beyond observable or understandable limits. They just go with what's around them and is measured.
We don't make advancement without looking for new things. Imagine if 1000 years ago someone had said, "I wonder if there are more stars up there in the sky than the ones we can see?" A skeptical mindset that only works with current data would argue, "If we can't see it how would it be there? We see the stars that are there and we don't see things that aren't there." Hundreds of years later we would invent the telescope. As our ancestors looked through the eyepiece they learned there were innumerable stars and whole galaxies they hadn't seen before. Imagine if we had never bothered looking, because "why look for something that isn't there?" So what method should we use to sort out bad data when dealing with edge-science? That's the real question. There's an answer to this question and it doesn't require arbitrarily shooting down ideas that don't fit our collective intuition of what's tenable.
Please watch this video:
I'm not entirely sure what you hope to show with the video. I've seen it before and from my earlier research I remember Dr. Taylor was criticized by a number of her colleagues for failing to keep up with contemporary neuroscience because the left brain and right brain dichotomy was long ago proven false. So I'm not sure what, if anything, we can derive from her experience. Perhaps it's just a brain going haywire due to the stroke. Maybe it was something else and she was treading the boundary between nonphysicality and physicality. I'm inclined to say her experience was physical in nature, since the experience directly corresponded to the stroke. Obviously she interpreted it as a spiritual experience. If I'm remembering correctly the main thrust of her talk was focused on conveying the importance of the feeling or "sensuous" side of existence over pure rationality. The "feeling" dimension of existence certainly has experiential value, but I find this less than ideal because it's not something which can be conveyed easily in words like rational thought. So sadly it's subjective and lost on the rest of us.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason
given)
reply posted on 8-1-2012 @ 09:18 PM by GreenIrish
reply to post by hapablab
Hi Hap,
Absolutely and completely agree with you -- where's the compassion? I was shocked when I read that comment. Where on Earth is this person's heart? Or brain, for that matter?
Certainly not in this cold and dismissive post.
These vids made me cry. But they also inspired me and confirmed (yet again) my own lack of fear when it comes to death, which I have always viewed as a natural and connected (and even desirable) part of birth. This young man came here to teach us all something...and his message about being 'proud of me' is one more energy should be spent on cultivating in our own kids.
Namaste.
GI
Hi Hap,
Absolutely and completely agree with you -- where's the compassion? I was shocked when I read that comment. Where on Earth is this person's heart? Or brain, for that matter?
Certainly not in this cold and dismissive post.
These vids made me cry. But they also inspired me and confirmed (yet again) my own lack of fear when it comes to death, which I have always viewed as a natural and connected (and even desirable) part of birth. This young man came here to teach us all something...and his message about being 'proud of me' is one more energy should be spent on cultivating in our own kids.
Namaste.
GI
reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 10:29 PM by refused
Originally posted by JanJamboree
DMT hallucinations provoked by physical distress. Next...
That's hardly an explanation. Next... onto to what? Yeah, his experience probably was due to DMT. But what is DMT and why does everyone on this giant planet who experiences a DMT trip, be it from a NDE or from ingesting DMT drugs, ALL report a distinct and vivid spiritual experience detailing interactions with a realm (and sometimes even intelligent entities) beyond our own?
Coincidence? You probably think so given your dismissive attitude of this topic.
Does the fact that DMT is involved mean that what he experienced was fake and meaningless? Just a conjuration of an intoxicated mind on the edge of letting go? If so, why did our biological ancestors maintain such a useless brain function over a millenia of evolution and adaptation? Why do all ancient mysterious cultures who obtained knowledge far beyond their Earthly capabilities blame DMT for their insights?
One example; the Mayans literally created the most accurate calendar on earth without so much as the naked human eye, a clear night and maybe a looking glass. They mapped the orbits of planets that we've only recently re-discovered with all our sophisticated technology. And where do they claim they learned of this impossible cosmic information? Not from hundreds of years of hard work or mysterious ancient technology. From intense DMT-induced meditation. Another coincidence, perhaps? Maybe they were just good guessers who enjoyed tripping out.
The fact remains; DMT, although a hallucinogenic chemical, is as important to human spirituality and understanding as anything else in the human body. It should not, and does not, discredit anything.
This post was interesting and your disrespectful dismissal of it is offensive at best. So what, you know the "how". But no body knows the "why".
edit on 16-1-2012 by refused because: because I felt like it
I-Team: Strange Circumstances Surround Park Disappearances (vid on link)
Posted 16 days ago with 30 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 30 member flags
My Ghost Radar Predicts a Mega-Quake on June 15, 2012 at Noon!
Posted 17 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 7 member flags
I would like to share an experience.. Telepathy , Communicating through the inner soul and uses of t
Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Could this be the reasons our world is such a hellhole for many people?
General Conspiracies: 27 minutes ago
General Conspiracies: 27 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Zombies? Strange happenings in Florida and Georgia [TIME LINE]
Diseases and Pandemics: 13 hours ago, 19 flags
Diseases and Pandemics: 13 hours ago, 19 flags
Spirit Animal Guides Mine is Raven, what is yours?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 17 hours ago, 18 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 17 hours ago, 18 flags
10-year-old deaf girl hears herself for the first time-Must See!!
Science & Technology: 11 hours ago, 18 flags
Science & Technology: 11 hours ago, 18 flags
Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed the Pacific to US
Breaking Alternative News: 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 17 hours ago, 17 flags
BREAKING!!! Gunman hold up in Dallas sky crane LIVE FEED
Other Current Events: 13 hours ago, 11 flags
Other Current Events: 13 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
BREAKING!!! Gunman hold up in Dallas sky crane LIVE FEED
Other Current Events: 13 hours ago, 109 replies
Other Current Events: 13 hours ago, 109 replies
Spirit Animal Guides Mine is Raven, what is yours?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 17 hours ago, 101 replies
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 17 hours ago, 101 replies
Obama's Days are Numbered -- Mike Zullo reports from Hawaii -
General Conspiracies: 14 hours ago, 76 replies
General Conspiracies: 14 hours ago, 76 replies
Aussie Gov Says They'll Fine Anyone Who Blames Carbon Tax For Price Increases, Despite Carbon Tax C
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 61 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 61 replies
Face eating guy from Miami on 'experimental new LSD?'
General Conspiracies: 13 hours ago, 60 replies
General Conspiracies: 13 hours ago, 60 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.272 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.272 seconds
