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.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
When you die, you lose your identity that you have created for yourself in this life and you become your true self, which is the universe.
Individuality is an illusion.
Originally posted by Xaphan
Originally posted by smithjustinb
When you die, you lose your identity that you have created for yourself in this life and you become your true self, which is the universe.
Individuality is an illusion.
I have nothing against the whole life after death theory, and I somewhat believe it, but that part I find extremely unsettling. The idea of there being no such thing as individuality is terrifying. Why? Because that means if everything is one consciousness then it is ultimately alone. Just one entity. How horribly lonely that must be. Not only like that, but I enjoy this life. I love the people I know, I love my family, I like some of the incredible memories I have. If I'm going to lose all that along with the memories of it and transform into one single pointless blob of eternal energy that is all alone, then I think I'd much rather succumb to atheism and hope for eternal death, because that other idea sounds terrible lol.
Originally posted by EllaMarina
When I read about beautiful NDEs, I want to believe they are real.
When I read "to hell and back" stories, however....
Originally posted by Night Star
You can't say it's chemicals in the brain if you are clinically dead yet later report what your doctors were saying and doing while you were dead. Or you report what you've seen in other areas of the hospital. That has happened in some cases.
Originally posted by adjensen
No, it wouldn't.
Why? Because, logically, if science was to prove that NDEs are simply manifestations of the brain, then they have nothing to do with being dead, as the brain does not function if one is dead.
The thing that all NDEs have in common is that the person didn't die, they were still alive to tell their story. They may have been clinically dead, no brain activity, heart not pumping, etc, but the end result is that they didn't die, so, while the NDE may have been a "preview", it isn't necessarily what happens to you when you truly die.
That said, if one studies the phenomenon with an open mind, it becomes readily apparent that these are not simply the manifestations of a traumatized brain shutting down while being doused with hallucinogenic chemicals. I see that the first article relies on Persinger and his "God Helmet" -- without noting that his findings have been largely dismissed as the result of suggestion and/or a placebo effect. Attempts to replicate his claims in a non-biased environment have failed to do so.
Finally, the claim that the brain somehow evolved the means by which it comforts itself as "the lights go out" is laughable. Think about it for a minute and you'll see what I mean.
Originally posted by chelle21689
Science keeps proving faith wrong. I mean, the Greeks believed in all these different types of God responsible for water, love, and all kinds of things when they find out why it really rains and stuff like that.
It just saddens me that this experience is not that common and not everyone experiences it. It is scary to know that when one has died clinically that there was NOTHING.
Alex Tsakiris: In this case, if we really do step back one of the things that’s troubling to me, and you touched on it a minute ago, is how overwhelming the evidence seems to be. At this point, we can confidently say that near-death experiences didn’t just start happening in the last 20 years since we had advanced resuscitation techniques.
We can confidently say that 4% to 5% of everyone who has a cardiac arrest is having this. There’s obviously hundreds of millions of people over time who have had these accounts and we have thousands and thousands of well-documented, consistent accounts across cultures, across times. These are the measures that we would normally use to say, “This is a real phenomenon.”
And then when the skeptics, and really the mainstream scientists have pounded against it for 20 years with really what amounts to a bunch of very silly explanations but ones that have been carefully looked at and dismissed—was it CO2 , a fear of death, other psychological factors? Is it all the different things like REM intrusion? All these things.
Clearly this would normally be something where we’d be putting a lot of attention into it. Or that it would then become the presumed explanation for it. But none of that’s happening. They have managed to hold back the dyke, you know? (Source)
Dr. Eben Alexander: Okay, I think in trying to get back to your original question with the previous guest, to me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact.
And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain. As much as I know all the reductive materialist arguments against that, I think part of the problem is it’s like the guy looking for his keys under the streetlight. Reductive materialists are under the streetlight because that’s where they can see things. (Source)
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by chelle21689
Science keeps proving faith wrong. I mean, the Greeks believed in all these different types of God responsible for water, love, and all kinds of things when they find out why it really rains and stuff like that.
Be careful not to confuse "faith" with "unknowing". Faith and science have a common goal -- the discovery of the truth, wherever it might be. Science is handicapped, a bit, by being based on methodological naturalism, meaning that it not only has nothing to say about non-natural (or super-natural) phenomenon, it CAN'T say anything about those phenomenon, not even to say whether they exist or not.
Thus, science has nothing to say about what happens when you die, because there is nothing to say about it -- one minute, you exist as a natural being, the next you do not, and if you do not return to your natural being, science is done with you, because it can't speak to anything that is not of the natural, material world.
Thus, for a person of faith, faith and science need never be opposed to one another, because they are simply different methods of observation in the search for truth.
It just saddens me that this experience is not that common and not everyone experiences it. It is scary to know that when one has died clinically that there was NOTHING.
I was just listening to an interview with a neurosurgeon, who was in a coma for six days and experienced an NDE (this would be another example of zero brain activity, and yet something is going on) and the interviewer made this statement towards the end.
Alex Tsakiris: In this case, if we really do step back one of the things that’s troubling to me, and you touched on it a minute ago, is how overwhelming the evidence seems to be. At this point, we can confidently say that near-death experiences didn’t just start happening in the last 20 years since we had advanced resuscitation techniques.
We can confidently say that 4% to 5% of everyone who has a cardiac arrest is having this. There’s obviously hundreds of millions of people over time who have had these accounts and we have thousands and thousands of well-documented, consistent accounts across cultures, across times. These are the measures that we would normally use to say, “This is a real phenomenon.”
And then when the skeptics, and really the mainstream scientists have pounded against it for 20 years with really what amounts to a bunch of very silly explanations but ones that have been carefully looked at and dismissed—was it CO2 , a fear of death, other psychological factors? Is it all the different things like REM intrusion? All these things.
Clearly this would normally be something where we’d be putting a lot of attention into it. Or that it would then become the presumed explanation for it. But none of that’s happening. They have managed to hold back the dyke, you know? (Source)
and the neurosurgeon replies:
Dr. Eben Alexander: Okay, I think in trying to get back to your original question with the previous guest, to me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact.
And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain. As much as I know all the reductive materialist arguments against that, I think part of the problem is it’s like the guy looking for his keys under the streetlight. Reductive materialists are under the streetlight because that’s where they can see things. (Source)
So hang onto your faith -- it will take you places that science, intentionally, cannot.edit on 9-10-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by chelle21689
I wanted to add, I remember watching Through the Wormhole on the neurosurgeon's experience. I remember a skeptic saying that his don't count because he's not a neuroscience because there is a difference between the two. True or not?
Originally posted by chelle21689
Lol, I don't know what I'm asking really. I just remember a skeptic saying that you can't listen to the neurosurgeon because he's not a neuroscience and there's a difference.
I also wonder why people who aren't clinically dead experience near death experiences.