Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If science proves NDE are just caused by brain chemicals, would that make you less likely to believe

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
As an agnostic, I'm coming to a conclusion that near death experiences are brain chemicals although science has not fully tested this out yet. I would LOVE to believe that we really do go on to a better place but reading more about science debunking these documented experiences makes me sad honestly.

Pam Reynolds has one of the most convincing documented cases of an NDE, you can youtube her story along with others.

Here is a very detailed source of it being debunked
www.infidels.org...

www.scientificamerican.com...

As far as the "blind" woman having a NDE and seeing for the first time, I've always had issues believing it. What she may "see" isn't what we "see" if that makes any sense. I also have read online about drugs causing blind people to "see" also.

I'm unsure about ghosts but reading a bunch of articles say that they are merely hallucinations. There have been gas leaks that made people hallucinate. Perhaps even when we claim to see something and another person claims to see something it's just jumping the bandwagon. Haunted places where people claim to hear "things" have debunked also...
Deceased loved ones being seen are hallucinations and the way we grieve and cope.

www.cracked.com...






Believe me, if I could make myself believe in this I would but it looks like science is winning here...




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
What if the chemical is the way you transition from life to death? It would be present during NDEs, and still leave open the possibility of an afterlife.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by chelle21689
 


Most of these experiences are for the individual person. The others are just of the mind. Until you experience God for yourself in some sort of way, you will probably still tend to shy away from faith.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
When I read about beautiful NDEs, I want to believe they are real.
When I read "to hell and back" stories, however....
edit on 8-10-2012 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Death is just the end of the individual. We are all one. The universe, which made you, is alive and is who you really are. You are the universe having an experience through individuals. 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.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This made me think about enochwasright's thread about.
I think it was can raising a family lead to salvation.
You see we understand that 1+1=2
but 1human+1human=3humans
Anything is possible and one answer never covers all perspectives.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   

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.


Well, for one, the concept of "loneliness" is a construct of the illusion of separation. Therefore, prior to separation, there is no such thing.

Also, I don't think death of the individual and thus the identity necessarily means your memories are erased. I remember a mosquito bite I once had. Although, the mosquito bite is no longer a part of my body, I still have the memory of it. Although the mosquito bite has lost its perspective and its temporary version of what it knew the world was, I still remember what it was to me-the whole. When the identity transfers from that of the individual to that of the whole, then your memories you had as an individual can now be viewed from a broader, more accurate perspective.



To become the whole is to be free of your subjective limitations and for once, see what the universe really is.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

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....

If a NDE 'breaks the veil' between this world and hell, then the person experiencing the event will be spiritually stronger when they return to this world.

Those who have witnessed Tartarus, Hades or Sheol and returned are the lucky ones.

They will also become a firm believer in Jesus Christ because they will know where they will return to if they do not have faith in YHWH.

@OP.
From experience, morphene allows the person to see other worlds running parallel with this one.

Brain chemicals + enlarged peneal gland simply proves that there are other worlds out there that all spirits have access to once their physical body perishes.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

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.


That's the thing though. People keep saying "OH well there's reports of people reporting what has happened in the other room or blah blah blah" but I haven't seen any reports or documents on this. Nothing that I've seen to be confirmed. I'm beginning to think it's all just wishful thinking =( I mean it kind of makes sense though if it really is just drugs. They say '___' is released in the brain and that's why it's so powerful just like those who have taken '___' or some drug and have been on a trip to experiencing similar things.

The thing with the Pam Reynolds case it is all explained if you haven't even clicked the link and read the links I've sent then there's no point in debating about this because you have to see the other side too. Believe me I've read a lot about what skeptics and believers believe.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Not just that but people who are clinically dead that experience the NDE are such a SMALLLLLL percentage! That's what is scary. Why does not everyone who is clinically dead experience this NDE?

If you tell me it's like a dream and not everyone remembers then that kind of sides with the science/skeptic theories.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

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.


I'm glad at least one person has answered the title of the question. That's what scares me though. 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.

I still have a small amount of faith in me...I just hope it doesn't totally go away.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

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)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

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)


Good answer and thanks for providing the source. I'm still open to whatever may be out there but I think deep in my heart there's something more. Not sure if that is just me trying to do wishful thinking though.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

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?


I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I understand your question. Do you mean is there a difference between a neurologist and a neurosurgeon? Sure -- a neurosurgeon is a surgeon, rather than a scientist or diagnostician. Not sure what difference that would make, though -- he's related his own experience, not evaluating someone else's.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
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. My mom claims she almost died and went unconscious when she was in labor giving birth to my brother. She said she felt her spirit pop out of her body and went through a tunnel of light and there being all kinds of beautiful colors leading her to her mother who was above standing like the virgin mary with her hands open. Her mother died a year ago when I was born. Anyways, she said to her mom that she missed her and wanted to go to heaven with her but her mother would not take her up there with her. She kept begging her mom and she said no because she had us to look after. And then she saw my baby brother being descended down and that's when she was back to consciousness and my brother was being born. O.o Dont' know what to hink.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

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'd say that's a skeptic who is attempting to dismiss valid observations simply because he doesn't like them.


I also wonder why people who aren't clinically dead experience near death experiences.


That's hard to say, but it would seem to indicate that consciousness is something that is neither material, nor is it confined to the material world (which, as I said earlier, kind of gunks up the works as far as science is concerned.) Perhaps, while 100% of people are "liberated" from their bodies at death (real, permanent, "no coming back" death,) some small percent jump out while undergoing trauma, while the rest of us do not. Similar to how everyone dreams, but some small percent are unable to recall them, so for all intents and purposes, they do not dream.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join