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.

 

Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife

page: 13
36
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

elysiumfire
Serdgiam:

...it seems to have broken into two "rival" camps.


Not rival, but disparate.


Not disparate, but divergent.



The old 'classical' physics (or Newtonian physics) deals with reality on the macro scale; whereas the 'new' physics deals with reality at the sub-atomic, quantum level. Unfortunately, the two do not associate well with each other, there is no seamless and smooth transition from macro to micro realities. Newtonian physics breaks down at the micro scale, gravity cannot be incorporated at this level, it is too weak.


Right.

So, what do you feel is the explanation for the lack of a coherent transition? I actually think this specific arena is what might allow us to directly explore and quantify many of the things that people have historically attributed to the "paranormal." And given enough time, perhaps even enable us to explore some of the "big" questions, such as life after death.

If we are really able to understand NDE, then I think it is entirely possible it could revolutionize medicine, especially resuscitation.




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Serdgiam:

If we are really able to understand NDE, then I think it is entirely possible it could revolutionize medicine, especially resuscitation.


Absolutely. Dr. Sam Parnia of Southampton hospital, England, currently resident in America, has already brought such insight you suggest into the medical field of resuscitation. NDE study on the medical side, has revealed surprising insights regarding the death process, and the fact that dying simply of old age is not an instantaneous all body 'switch off', but a slow and incremental modular process, with various parts of the body dying at different rates. Of course, if any one of the vital 'triangle' (lungs, heart, brain) is stopped then death usually follows within minutes.

Whilst a cadaver is lying in state, waiting to be buried or cremated, energetic interactions are still ongoing within the physical carcass. Hair is still growing, nails too. Entropic process are ongoing, afterall, we are quite biodegradable.


So, what do you feel is the explanation for the lack of a coherent transition?


I'll have to come back to this question. I had written something, but was unhappy with the articulation.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


I still would like to know why someone who does not believe in the afterlife, takes on the name of an afterlife? Isn't that a contradiction?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   

sleepdealer
reply to post by wildtimes
 


No, that is not substantial evidence, not in the scientific sense.


Yes, it is evidence. You seem to be mistaking "proof" for "evidence".

I suppose, in the end, we will all know whether we convicted the wrong man on strength of that evidence... or we will know nothing at all, and therefore not care.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

elysiumfire
The sense of disembodiment of consciousness occurs within the psychology of the experient as a dissociative state.

Okay. Suppose we allow for consciousness to continue when the physical body has been destroyed, how or what would be the mechanism of sensory stimulus. If consciousness (representing sentient awareness and intelligence) is still functioning, how is it able to sense external stimuli, process that stimuli, and still present the experient with sensory experience?


We cannot actually see anything at all with our eyes, even now. When you look at, for example, a chair, you do not see a chair. What you see is an image of a chair reconstructed in a complex chain of events involving photons being reflected by the chair, and ending in ... well, that's really what the argument is about - whether it ends in a brain's interpretation of electrical inputs from the optic nerves, or whether it ends in the consciousness interpreting input from the brain.

I don't know what input a disembodied consciousness would interpret, but cannot discount the possibility of a mechanism for that input to exist. It couldn't be any more bizarre than someone actually believing they can see a chair with their eyes.

It seems to me the argument is between materialists who think that the interpretive stream ends with a biochemical reaction and spiritualists who believe there is something more, something that makes that sighting of a chair a sighting of a chair, rather than just a sighting of "something".

Many NDE experiencers describe what they "see" as somehow more real than what they "see" with their eyes. This would seem to me to imply a different mechanism for sight, perhaps one more directly connected to what they are "seeing" than a tenuous stream of photons. What that mechanism may be I have no idea, no more so than Sargon knew that he was actually just interpreting photons every time he looked at his throne.



edit on 2013/11/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

sleepdealer

Neurotransmitter receptors research is intricate and really not that advanced at the moment, so the precise molecular mechanisms behind these experiences elude us for now.



Precisely.

Yet you have rejected a possibility out of hand, in an arena that you admit little is known about.

Interesting.

Have you taken time to study the scientific method? Did you skip the chapter on what they call it when investigative avenues are closed off before we even know what to investigate?

Just a thought, but why do you suppose those receptors are there to begin with? What advantage would they confer on a soulless automaton? Why those receptors, and not receptors for ceramic glazing?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

wildtimes

When we come to a place where we find there IS A COMMON DENOMINATOR for ALL humanity, we will be 'there' - at "The Real Truth." Until then, religious factions will fuss and fight and belittle one another, when in actuality NONE of them (of the Abrahamics, anyway) have ALL of "The Real Truth."



I wouldn't single out the Abrahamics myself - I would just leave it at saying that NONE of them have all of "the real truth" - not just the Abrahamics.

Religion - of any stripe - is the attempt of the finite to comprehend the infinite. It's like a single blade of grass trying to comprehend the entire Earth, and everything on it...

... only bigger.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   

wildtimes.
.

Sure, it's not "surprising" - but the thing is: IT MAKES SENSE!
A wrathful, angry, jealous God is incompatible with what we know about compassion, love, honesty, and the virtues that we, as humans, are born with.




You mean like what Jesus taught?

People should read the book before giving a review...

...right?

Right.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by applesthateatpeople
 



You mean like what Jesus taught?

People should read the book before giving a review...

...right?

Right.
They should also learn ABOUT the book, where it came from, who wrote it, how long it took, and whether or not it makes sense. MOST of that book (the Bible) is not about Jesus at all, it's about a wrathful, angry, jealous God. Leave that part OUT, and read what Jesus taught (as reported by others than he himself), and it's an entirely different picture -

one that not only explains modern NDEs, but might actually explain his OWN resuscitation. He said we could do all the things he did, and more. And to believe him. Simple.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


You mean the Jefferson bible. That's what he did.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I think nenothtu and I seem to see things relatively the same way, which is why I will ask this...

Is the sky blue because we see it as blue? Is the water blue because we see it as blue?

How many of you have been in an airplane and once you have gotten into the sky, did you notice it is not blue? And if you hold ocean water in your hand, why is it not blue?

Blue is the reflection, now whether blue in the sky is the reflection from the water back to the sky or the water is blue because of the reflection of the ozone layer, one thing is certain, neither the water or the sky are blue in actuality.

So what causes blue? As neither the sky nor the water are blue, then where does it come from that we perceive it as blue? Light refraction? Colors are colors simply because of how much light an object does not absorb. Color theory teaches us that. The hours I spent in art school drawing spheres and contrast of black and white shadowing....

The point is this, as an object can only show a color because of light absorption or reflection, then we cannot truly say an object is that color. If the perception of our eyes say something is real because we see it with our natural eyes, then we have been deceived by our natural perception. The sky is not blue, we only think it is.

Next time you fly, look out your window and see what I mean. And since natural life is merely the processes of something natural, is it really only natural? Our senses don't tell us the whole story. Where does the blue begin in the sky? Where does the blue begin in the water?

From space our planet is blue and green, but we know water and earth are tangible, but the blue and green are not. We only perceive it as tangible. And since blue and green are merely a trick of light, then why dismiss the supernatural based on natural perspective?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Probably because it is true and the only real explanation for how we and the Universe is here. The Bible is probably the most reliable book for the supernatural with our ultimate teacher being God himself though Jesus Christ the creator himself.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: self-edited. off topic. problem resolved, I think.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Thanks, S/O. I forgot you were using European date - and wondered how you could edit this back in June -

what happened?

Anyway, the OP is back up, guys. Thanks to S/O.


ON TOPIC:

@ Kaboose: the more we learn about what we are able to do in terms of resuscitation on a regular basis now, and manipulation of things that 2000 years ago would have seemed "miraculous", the more I give credit to the 'outlandish' parts of what Jesus said and supposedly did.

BUT, I Still don't buy that he ALONE was the only Son of God, nor ANY of the OT stories, though.
But maybe he DID 'come back' from the dead, in the resuscitated same body as before - especially if it was at Passover, it might have been chilly enough to keep his 'remains' in a state of suspended animation.


edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Keeping his body in a chilly place would be miraculous if the weather permitted it, and the climate of Israel does not allow that for that time of the year.

Israel Climate

Israel is temperate, that means it has very little change in the weather and maintains a smaller window of climate than the United States, which is why most people think shepherds could not be out in their fields in "December"...because it may have been too cold. They don't realize the whole planet does not have the same temperature zones. And they don't account also for the fact of the southern hemisphere being opposite.

Israel is still pretty warm in December, so that belief that it was too cold, isn't based in reality. But we don't know how big the tomb was or where it was placed, other than tradition. It's really hard to say if the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was in that location or even the stable in Bethlehem. There is no hard evidence on that.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


In a bit of a "twist," the colors we see are every color but the color the objects actually "is."

The color we see things to be is the color that is refracted/reflected from the object. All of the actual colors of the object are absorbed.

I guess it could still be argued that this should be considered the universally accepted "color," but I do think its important to understand how we perceive color as we do.

We can also speak of two different color palettes, one where colors are mixed to gain black (like in painting), and one where the colors are mixed to gain white (like on our computer monitor).

Color is just a part of the wavelengths that go far beyond our perspective. And, I think that the difference between perception and actuality might fully encompass the topic at hand, and the "why and how" of NDE, OOBE, and life after death.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Serdgiam
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


In a bit of a "twist," the colors we see are every color but the color the objects actually "is."

The color we see things to be is the color that is refracted/reflected from the object. All of the actual colors of the object are absorbed.

I guess it could still be argued that this should be considered the universally accepted "color," but I do think its important to understand how we perceive color as we do.

We can also speak of two different color palettes, one where colors are mixed to gain black (like in painting), and one where the colors are mixed to gain white (like on our computer monitor).

Color is just a part of the wavelengths that go far beyond our perspective. And, I think that the difference between perception and actuality might fully encompass the topic at hand, and the "why and how" of NDE, OOBE, and life after death.


I knew eventually that what I learned in Color Theory class may pay off one day....those 7:15 AM classes really had to stretch my brain.

Yes, our perception of what our five senses tell us, is really not what all is going on. CYMK vs. RGB, both color schemes and both what our eyes see, but for two different applications.

For those who don't know, CYMK is on paper, RGB is on the computer screen. So perhaps some people see the CYMK on paper while others only see the RGB on the computer screen?

But you wouldn't see the RGB unless the computer is fired up and turned on. Maybe scientists are starting to see RGB instead of only CYMK?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
As a "hobby," I do ICC certified calibrations



WarminIndy
Yes, our perception of what our five senses tell us, is really not what all is going on.


This is one of the issues with science, imo. And one that I have personally struggled with. To actually explore something, we have to bring it within the perceivable limits of our senses.

That said, I do not feel there is a universal baseline on efficiency of an individuals senses. Meaning, one person may be more effective at intergrating them than another. In an extreme, this is shown between a blind person and one with healthy eyes.

However, it also brings up the point of; Can we learn to not only use individuals senses to a greater degree, but all of them together? And how would that be done? I think there is a chance that we can improve this, and various different cultures have had their opinion on it. I actually went down this path, and found that I couldnt necessarily change the efficacy of the perception itself. However, I could change how much could be "parsed," or experienced, at any given time. I think this starts to directly point to an avenue/method of being able to "see" in a different way, as neno so importantly brought up.



So perhaps some people see the CYMK on paper while others only see the RGB on the computer screen


Sometimes I have wondered if people might all have the same favorite color. They identify it differently, as "that" color is blue, and "this" color is green. But, to the individuals perception, perhaps one persons green is another persons blue. There are some ways to disprove this due to standardization of eye construction, but I have always had a nagging feeling about it.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Like the fact that my favorite blue hoodie is actually every color BUT blue? And the blue is just that particular wavelength failing to absorb and being reflected where I can see it? Which means the blue is a lie. Yeah. Mindscrewed.
edit on 6-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Yeah, but, you can still enjoy gazing at it!! I love blue, and hoodies are my 'uniform.'

Anyway, they say NDEs are way "realer" than "real" - that the colors surpass ANYTHING we have here (and I LOVE the colorful world as I see it, whether it's all 'reflected' or not.) Still, makes one think, doesn't it??

If COLORS are actually reflected, and not true to the physics of the object - what about SOULS?


edit on 11/6/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join