First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study

a reply to: GetHyped

Of course you see it as bad science because that's what you want to believe.

This is the big problem with materialist. You can never accept the fact that this is just your opinion. I can accept the fact that you think it's bad science because it's obvious you're lead by belief. So, materialist have a pattern. Every study that they don't agree with is woo or now bad science.

This is a common trait amongst pseudoskeptics and blind materialist.

The fact is, materialism by definition can't explain anything. Therefore, if you're a materialist you have to have strong faith.

The most you can say is, well the brain is active during x therefore the brain must be the cause of x. This is a blind assumption a materialists has to make because materialism by definition doesn't explain anything.

Materialism can't explain a simple thing like dreaming. The most a materialist can say is this part of the brain is active when you dream. This doesn't mean the part of the brain that's active is the cause of the experience of dreaming.

When a person recalls, specific memories. A materialist can only say that this part of the brain is active. There's no evidence that the material brain is the cause of you recalling a specific memory. How does the material brain know which memory I wish to recall? How does the material brain know the difference between these memories? How does the material brain know which neurons to activate that's associated with a specific memory that you're recalling?

So, a materialist starts at a huge disadvantage because materialism doesn't explain anything. As a materialist, you have to take a leap of faith that activity in the brain = experience. It's like saying the DVD player is responsible for the DVD I chose to watch because it's active while I'm watching the DVD.

Again, the papers null hypothesis failed because it was flawed as Parnia pointed out.

While pre-placement of visual targets in resuscitation areas aimed at testing VA was feasible from a practical viewpoint (there were no reported adverse incidents), the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.While pre-placement of visual targets in resuscitation areas aimed at testing VA was feasible from a practical viewpoint (there were no reported adverse incidents), the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.

He's saying while these things seemed feasible from a practical viewpoint, they weren't. This is because Dr. don't have time to look for rooms with shelves while they're trying to revive patients during a cardiac arrest and there's no evidence that an a person having an NDE would be looking for a random picture on a shelf. In fact, 78% of the CA events took place in rooms without shelves. So of course this doesn't invalidate anything accept in the mind of blind materialist.

You then said:

One vague, subjective hit out of 140 under very unscientific conditions means jack #.

Again, this is your misguided opinion and not one from the actual researcher that carried out the study.

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

So your claim that it was vague and subjective doesn't support what actually occurred. The guy described the nursing staff in detail and described the sounds of the machines that were used. The opinion article you posted recognized this and said:

We need to consider what the odds are that one of the 140 people would have a memory (almost certainly contaminated, as no procedure was in place to prevent contamination) that matched events during cardiac arrest in some arbitrary details. This certainly sound consistent with random background noise in the data, and is therefore not evidence of anything.

This statement is dripping with nonsense but the first point is this. He contradicts what you just said about a vague, subjective hit. He just said it wasn't vague. He said it was a contamination of the persons memory. There was nothing VAGUE about the DETAILS given.

Secondly, the person writing the article whose supposed to be a Professional says, that it was almost certainly contamination with zero evidence that this was the case. In order to prevent contamination, you have to first show that the patient was capable of forming detailed memories about activities going on in the room around his body while in this state.

I remember when I was unconscious from exhaustion in the hospital, I don't remember anything from the point when I went unconscious to being taken to the hospital. I just remember waking up in my bed. If I would have seen them taking me to my hospital bed from outside of my body, and then described these things in detail, that would need to be explained.

So by it's own admission, your opinion article supports NDE's and the need for further research. This is because the person remembered details about things that occurred when he shouldn't have seen anything.

a reply to: neoholographic

When a person recalls, specific memories. A materialist can only say that this part of the brain is active. There's no evidence that the material brain is the cause of you recalling a specific memory. How does the material brain know which memory I wish to recall? How does the material brain know the difference between these memories? How does the material brain know which neurons to activate that's associated with a specific memory that you're recalling?

The problem with idealists is they rest their entire arguments on the assumption that they are something within the brain, the paradox of the immaterial ghost trapped in a material machine. You have assumed that an immaterial substance, a "mind" substance—of which there is no evidence—has enough causal power to affect material. This is also based on zero evidence, and as such, a folly. Paradoxically and contradictorily, your idea of personhood does not include your physical personhood, but is limited to a conjecture made in abstracto, that "you" are some ghostly wraith with zero properties, and the body is just a medium through which you receive information. Again, an assumption based on nothing but folk psychology and bad philosophy.

In order to convince physicalists that you are correct, you must describe how an immaterial "you" can operate the physical "not-you", which when you untangle the illogical inconsistencies, is an impossibility. Even the philosopher upon which you rest your entire idealist mythology, your hope for a reality like the Matrix—Descartes—was unable to explain this.

If what you assume is true, however, that we are ghosts in machines, reductio ad absurdum arises. Through what processes can an immaterial mind or consciousness receive input from a material body? How is this input "received" or seen without any material to accept said input? Where does the mind end and the body meet? Does the mind have a mind?

The material brain knows which memories you wish to recall because, as is evidenced by simply looking in a mirror, that you are the the body, and anything which its boundaries contain, including all organs and processes. No "mind" is ever needed to explain this phenomena, and so far, physicalist metaphysics has been able to provide repeatable, predictable and practical observation to states of affairs, while idealist metaphysics has accomplished nothing of the sort.

a reply to: Aphorism

Most of what you said is a hodge podge of nonsense and has nothing to do with the thread but I will still respond. You said:

In order to convince physicalists that you are correct, you must describe how an immaterial "you" can operate the physical "not-you",

First off, who claimed that the immaterial you, is not the same as the physical you? In order for me to have to prove this point to you, I would first have to actually make this point. This is something you made up and then said, well you first need to prove what I just made up.

Again, utter nonsense. I never said the immaterial you is something separate from a material you.

You then said:

Even the philosopher upon which you rest your entire idealist mythology, your hope for a reality like the Matrix—Descartes—was unable to explain this.

Again, more nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with what I said. You seem to want to debate a point that maybe you read somewhere and you thought it was a good point. You're debating Dualism and the Philosophy of the Mind. I think I remember you making these same points in the Philosophy thread and even then it had nothing to do with what was actually being said.

Do I agree with Descartes on Dualism? No, I don't. I don't separate the mind from the body anymore than I would separate non-locality, entanglement and superposition from electrons or photons. So, I know in every other thread you post you try to debate Descartes, but that has nothing to do with anything that's being talked about.

There's also growing evidence that the wave function is non physical and it can carry information. This would be yet another blow to materialism and show that matter may just be like Play Dough and it's construct is fundamentally information and not any objective material reality.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Here's more Scientist seeing the same thing and being puzzled by it.

Link

You said:

Through what processes can an immaterial mind or consciousness receive input from a material body?

Again, your problem is that you want to debate Descartes and Dualism and I suggest you start a thread in the Philosophy section. Why would the immaterial mind need a process to receive information from the material when I never mentioned Descartes or Dualism? In the context of what I'm saying, exactly what process are you talking about? What type of process do you think would be needed based on what I actually said vs. your patent answers to every debate about Descartes and Dualism?

You said:

The material brain knows which memories you wish to recall because, as is evidenced by simply looking in a mirror, that you are the the body, and anything which its boundaries contain, including all organs and processes.

What???

More Gobbledy Gook!

This is meaningless. The fact is, materialism is built on strong faith because it can't explain anything by definition. It has to say, all these complex things are going on in the brain THEREFORE it must be the cause of x,y and z. This isn't science, this ifs faith.

I was watching a debate the other day and the materialist said these things are an illusion cause by complex processes in the brain. He couldn't explain how any of these processes would give rise to things like consciousness and experience but he had faith in it nonetheless.

Materialism by definition can't explain anything.

Say I wish to recall a memory when I first went swimming and a memory from boot camp in the Army. How does the material brain initiate recall of these memories?

How does the material brain tell the material brain which memory the material brain wishes to recall?

How does the material brain know the difference between these two memories and how does it know I wish to recall a memory when I first went swimming vs. a memory from the Army?

How does the material brain know which neurons to activate that's associated with those specific memories amongst the trillions of connections in the brain?

Again, materialism by definition can't explain any of this. The most it can say is, these parts of the brain are active THEREFORE IT MUST BE THE CAUSE OF X. This is just belief and has nothing to do with science.

Finally, if you want to debate Descartes and Dualism, I suggest you start a thread in the Philosophy forum.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: GetHyped

Of course you see it as bad science because that's what you want to believe.

"The null hypothesis failed to be rejected but the study was still a resounding success!"

This is the big problem with materialist. You can never accept the fact that this is just your opinion. I can accept the fact that you think it's bad science because it's obvious you're lead by belief. So, materialist have a pattern. Every study that they don't agree with is woo or now bad science.

"The null hypothesis failed to be rejected but the study was still a resounding success!"

This is a common trait amongst pseudoskeptics and blind materialist.

Nice ad hominem. You know what the hallmark of a crank is? Yup, you guessed it:

"The null hypothesis failed to be rejected but the study was still a resounding success!"

The fact is, materialism by definition can't explain anything. Therefore, if you're a materialist you have to have strong faith.

He says, communicating over the very medium that "materialist" science produced. But hey, what has science ever done for us?

The most you can say is, well the brain is active during x therefore the brain must be the cause of x. This is a blind assumption a materialists has to make because materialism by definition doesn't explain anything.

You know what an unwarranted assumption is? "Even though every testable claim can be answered by the emergent hypothesis, consciousness is actually separate because something something magic".

Materialism can't explain a simple thing like dreaming. The most a materialist can say is this part of the brain is active when you dream. This doesn't mean the part of the brain that's active is the cause of the experience of dreaming.

Appeal to Ignorance. "We can't fully explain a phenomenon therefore let me interject my magical ideas instead".

When a person recalls, specific memories. A materialist can only say that this part of the brain is active. There's no evidence that the material brain is the cause of you recalling a specific memory. How does the material brain know which memory I wish to recall? How does the material brain know the difference between these memories? How does the material brain know which neurons to activate that's associated with a specific memory that you're recalling?

See above.

So, a materialist starts at a huge disadvantage because materialism doesn't explain anything. As a materialist, you have to take a leap of faith that activity in the brain = experience. It's like saying the DVD player is responsible for the DVD I chose to watch because it's active while I'm watching the DVD.

You appear to be unaware that the field of neuroscience exists. But let me guess... you know more than the experts in that field as well, right? Dunning-Kruger.

Again, the papers null hypothesis failed because it was flawed as Parnia pointed out.

While pre-placement of visual targets in resuscitation areas aimed at testing VA was feasible from a practical viewpoint (there were no reported adverse incidents), the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.While pre-placement of visual targets in resuscitation areas aimed at testing VA was feasible from a practical viewpoint (there were no reported adverse incidents), the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.

He's saying while these things seemed feasible from a practical viewpoint, they weren't. This is because Dr. don't have time to look for rooms with shelves while they're trying to revive patients during a cardiac arrest and there's no evidence that an a person having an NDE would be looking for a random picture on a shelf. In fact, 78% of the CA events took place in rooms without shelves. So of course this doesn't invalidate anything accept in the mind of blind materialist.

"My study failed to reject the null hypothesis so i'm going to move the goalposts and say that the null hypothesis was invalid after it wasn't rejected".

You then said:

One vague, subjective hit out of 140 under very unscientific conditions means jack #.

Again, this is your misguided opinion and not one from the actual researcher that carried out the study.

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

So your claim that it was vague and subjective doesn't support what actually occurred. The guy described the nursing staff in detail and described the sounds of the machines that were used. The opinion article you posted recognized this and said:

We need to consider what the odds are that one of the 140 people would have a memory (almost certainly contaminated, as no procedure was in place to prevent contamination) that matched events during cardiac arrest in some arbitrary details. This certainly sound consistent with random background noise in the data, and is therefore not evidence of anything.

This statement is dripping with nonsense but the first point is this. He contradicts what you just said about a vague, subjective hit. He just said it wasn't vague. He said it was a contamination of the persons memory. There was nothing VAGUE about the DETAILS given.

Secondly, the person writing the article whose supposed to be a Professional says, that it was almost certainly contamination with zero evidence that this was the case. In order to prevent contamination, you have to first show that the patient was capable of forming detailed memories about activities going on in the room around his body while in this state.

Did you even read the paper? I explicitly mentioned the questionable methodology used to recount the experiences. This says more about your credulity and intellectual dishonesty than anything else.

I remember when I was unconscious from exhaustion in the hospital, I don't remember anything from the point when I went unconscious to being taken to the hospital. I just remember waking up in my bed. If I would have seen them taking me to my hospital bed from outside of my body, and then described these things in detail, that would need to be explained.

Which is why an experiment with an appropriate null hypothesis was devised. And it failed to reject it. For the umpteenth time.

So by it's own admission, your opinion article supports NDE's and the need for further research. This is because the person remembered details about things that occurred when he shouldn't have seen anything.

The old crank "the experiment yielded no positive results but this is actually good news, it just means more research is needed" hand waving. Right.

a reply to: GetHyped

An entire post filled with nothing.

This is the just of your post:

"The null hypothesis failed to be rejected but the study was still a resounding success!"

With no mention of this:

While pre-placement of visual targets in resuscitation areas aimed at testing VA was feasible from a practical viewpoint (there were no reported adverse incidents), the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.While pre-placement of visual targets in resuscitation areas aimed at testing VA was feasible from a practical viewpoint (there were no reported adverse incidents), the observation that 78% of CA events took place in areas without shelves illustrates the challenge in objectively testing the claims of VA in CA using our proposed methodology.

This is why Parnia is correct. NOTHING has invalidated the research because of the flaws in thinking that Doctors would have time to make sure they were in rooms with shelves when a patient is going into a cardiac arrest. So 78% of the time they were in a room without shelves. Also, there's no evidence based on actual NDE cases that people having these experiences are looking for hidden pictures on a shelf.

Anyone with a little common sense and whose not blinded by materialism could see this.

Wow, you're doing so bad in this debate, you sunk to the usual materialist nonsense.

Appeal to Ignorance. "We can't fully explain a phenomenon therefore let me interject my magical ideas instead".

So any idea that doesn't conform to your materialist belief is magical????

TYPICAL NONSENSE!

The fact is you have no answers because by definition materialism can't explain anything.

1a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

CAN BE EXPLAINED AS MANIFESTATIONS OF MATTER

Materialism is a faith based religion.

Nothing in itself is explained because everything is just a manifestation of a material process. So, x,y and z occur because of the BELIEF BY MATERIALIST that some process is the cause of x, y and z. Materialism never has any evidence but they just know and anyone else that dares to think outside of a materialist paradigm is just dealing in woo or magical.

TYPICAL!!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You said:

If our brains control everything we experience, isn't it reasonable to have a base assumption that the feeling of consciousness is also something emanating from our brains?

Of course it's reasonable to have this base assumption based on your beliefs not science. It's just as reasonable to have a base assumption that the material brain isn't responsible for consciousness, the source of EEG rhythms or things like recall of specific memories because there's no evidence that the brain can do these things and there's growing evidence that these features are connected to quantum biology.

So, you're making this base assumption on your belief because there isn't any evidence to support your base assumption.

I'm talking about actual evidence that actually explains why we see these features vs. most materialist that just say the brain must be responsible for these things without any evidence. That's called faith in your belief not science.

The problem here lies in the fact that materialist can't accept that others are making reasonable assumptions based on evidence. If you disagree with the materialist paradigm, then it's woo, confirmation bias, wishful thinking or pseudoscience.

This base assumption many people share is just application of Occam's razor.

We know for a fact that our brain is capable of doing things like creating false memories and that they can be edited over time and they aren't like a recording. We also know that our brain is capable of essentially lying to ourselves to avoid traumatic experiences (split personality disorder etc.). We know that by having our brain damaged (through injuries to our brain/Alzheimer's disease etc.), our personality and who we "are" suffers. We know that when we dream these images we see while dreaming all emerge from our own brain and our past experiences not some kind of outside source.

These are just some examples I can come up with off the top of my head. I don't see why you're making an exception to NDEs which seem like a dream-like state. Some experiments have also shown this state can also be replicated by stimulating certain parts of our brain without the requirement to "almost be dead". We don't quite yet understand this mechanism, sure, but I still think it's far more likely that just like EVERYTHING else that makes us "us", it's part of the brain, not anything else.

Logically thinking all these things point towards the conclusion that our brain controls every aspect of our personality and "consciousness". So taking a default stance that NDE experiences also are connected to the brain and don't exist outside of it , before more evidence is collected, seems logical to me. It is an opinion, just like your own, but before we know more, I feel like the logical conclusion is to believe that and not the more desirable outcome that allows us to cheat death.

Furthermore, from history I can see that human beings are egoistic, we want to believe that this Universe is created for us. For a lot of us it's very hard to entertain the idea that we're just another organism on this planet and when we die, we cease to exist. I assume that you don't believe that a gazelle in African savanna has a consciousness separate from their brain and this consciousness goes somewhere after the animal dies.

Human beings like to make an exception to themselves. Somehow *we* have this special case of consciousness that somehow emerged at some point during our evolution. Somehow this consciousness is capable of surviving our material death. These sort of beliefs existed long before we have developed scientific method to try and test them like what this study attempted to do, which to me shows that it's just an inherent part of our species (and likely every sentient species).

So at the end of the day, I say that being sceptical about people's claims that our "consciousness" is capable of surviving the demise of our physical bodies, is the correct approach if you want to think about this reality in a truthful manner. At least until more solid evidence shows up to display the contrary. And this study failed to do that.



And to be a bit snarky, I guess Parnia should have read the NDE reports and known that putting a hypothetical penguin picture on the shelf would make it completely invisible to his patients because that's how NDEs apparently work. So he was wasting his time from the beginning!

So I propose that next study should make doctors do different dances (Gangnam Style horse dance, Hey Macarena, Can't Touch This as an examples. Let's skip twerking though.) in the middle of the surgery because doctors are close to the patients' body and apparently people can remember things happening near their body only.

That way there's a higher likelihood they would remember and we could see if even just one person had access to information that wasn't supposed to be available to them.

I caint' wait until science has hacked the brain so that you can see what that individual is seeing and hearing before and after death, that way we could get feedback on what is going on.

a reply to: TheCable

Your entire post is filled with opinion and faith.

Materialism should be classified as the old religion because it explains nothing. By definition it can't explain anything. Materialist have to have strong faith. Not just from the standpoint of biology and the brain but the universe as a whole. They scoff at Jesus turning water into wine but the miracle of materialism makes turning water into wine look like a simple card trick. You said:

We know for a fact that our brain is capable of doing things like creating false memories and that they can be edited over time and they aren't like a recording. We also know that our brain is capable of essentially lying to ourselves to avoid traumatic experiences (split personality disorder etc.). We know that by having our brain damaged (through injuries to our brain/Alzheimer's disease etc.), our personality and who we "are" suffers. We know that when we dream these images we see while dreaming all emerge from our own brain and our past experiences not some kind of outside source.

This is your opinion based on your belief not science. The most materialist can say is there's a process in the brain that's occurring and they can show you activity in the brain but they can't show you how this activity is the cause of subjective experience. They say when you do x this part of the brain is active and THEREFORE this part of the brain must be the cause of X. No evidence that this material process can be the cause of X, but to materialist it must be the case. This is why more and more scientist are starting to look for other explanations because materialism explains nothing.

Here's an article about false memories that shows you how materialism works.

It’s easy enough to explain why we remember things: multiple regions of the brain — particularly the hippocampus — are devoted to the job. It’s easy to understand why we forget stuff too: there’s only so much any busy brain can handle. What’s trickier is what happens in between: when we clearly remember things that simply never happened.

science.time.com...

IT'S EASY ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN WHY WE REMEMBER THINGS.

This is the blind faith of materialism. Materialism doesn't explain why we remember things or the experience we have when remembering things. Materialism just tells you what part of the brain is active when this experience occurs. I can tell you what parts of my computer and computer monitor are active when I turn them on. This activity doesn't explain my experience while surfing the internet.

The most a materialist can say is that the brain can process vast amounts of information. It doesn't tell you how the material brain can navigate and operate through the information that's being processed to have an experience.

For instance. I go to Olive Garden. The material brain then processes the memory of me going to Olive Garden. The food I ordered, the Waitress, the smell of the food and maybe I bumped into a friend.

THIS IS WHERE MATERIALISM ENDS.

It doesn't tell you what causes the experience of that memory.

If I wish to recall that memory, how does the material brain initiate recall of this specific memory?

How does the material brain know which memory I wish to recall?

How does the material brain tell the material brain that the material brain wishes to recall this memory?

How does the material brain know how I feel about this memory?

How does the material brain know the differences between my feeling about this memory and the feelings of another memory?

How does the material brain know which neurons to activate that's associated with this specific memory?

How does the material brain know the difference between a memory where I went to Olive Garden vs. a memory when I first went swimming?

This is why I call materialism the old religion. It explains nothing and by definition it can't explain anything. It shows you the process that's occurring but you have to make a leap of faith to say that activity is the cause of experience.

My DVD is active when it's playing a DVD but it says nothing about my experience of watching the DVD or why I chose the DVD.

The materialist will say, just because we don't have the answer that doesn't mean you should just fill in the gaps. This is just nonsense. The fact that materialism can't answer these questions doesn't mean that materialism will answer these question. So anytime people try to look for answers that don't fit into a materialist paradigm then it's woo or pseudoscience. This is just a cult like mentality.

You don't know the answers but you do know that there can't be any answers that don't fit into your materialist belief.

HOW IS THIS RATIONAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM???

This is why materialism is such an illogical point of view. It says over and over again that it doesn't have the answers and then it says but you can't find the answers unless those answers agree with materialism.

You then talked about brain damage and personality.

Just because the brain is damaged doesn't mean that the brain is the cause of personality. No more than if my TV is damaged means that there isn't a clear signal coming from TV stations. It just means the receiver of these signals is damaged. If my tray on the DVD player is damaged. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with the information on my DVD, it just means the place where the DVD opens and closes is damaged.

So when your brain is damaged it could just mean your mind doesn't have access to the parts of the machine that's damaged.

Dr. Stuart Hameroff is a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. Together with British quantum physicist Sir Roger Penrose, Hameroff is the co-author of the controversial Orch OR model of consciousness. Excellent Watch

originally posted by: neoholographic
Your entire post is filled with opinion and faith. Materialism should be classified as the old religion because it explains nothing.

George Rodonaia's NDE illustrated this point perfectly as well.

After his experience, he realized that everything he was taught, which was all based on dialectical materialism, was a lie.

Un-Understandable makes you afraid of something. That’s why I was afraid too, I was afraid of this darkness I was afraid of being there. but more afraid of that I was somewhere without my body. But I was..
and I was a scientist you know I worked on the idea of Psychology, languages. I learned physics, I learned chemistry, I learned many other physiology’s, Anatomy.. and all it was based on dialectical materialism, historical materialism and in my idea it was impossible to be somewhere without you body. Where Is my main component? My life? My body? I was scared to death but I was already dead. That was the amazing feeling to understand that you are. but you are not.

If you think you are. If I think I thought I am? but if I am and if I think why can’t I think positively of what is happening around me and I began to think about light. I saw a light outside of darkness and it shocked me but the first feeling that I had was to go to that light. The first thought that came to me was to go into that light and I had that movement.

George Rodonaia’s – NDE – A Scientist’s Afterlife

"Dr. Rodonaia was killed by the KGB, pronounced dead, taken to the morgue for three days and returned to life during his own autopsy. Dr. Rodonaia was a psychiatric researcher who worked for the KGB and later became a dissident. He was a scientist trained in historical materialism and did not believe in God."

"George Rodonaia underwent one of the most extended cases of a near-death experience ever recorded. Pronounced dead immediately after he was hit by a car in 1976, he was left for three days in the morgue. He did not "return to life" until a doctor began to make an incision in his abdomen as part of an autopsy procedure. Prior to his NDE he worked as a neuropathologist. He was also an avowed atheist. LINK

I have a question....

Okay, so if what I experienced during the night was just my mind playing tricks and it was sleep paralysis, then how do you explain the toilet flushing itself, or the lights turning themselves on and off?

Im sure you materialists feel all warm and fuzzy with your own explanations of sleep paralysis and "false memories", Id like to hear your explanations for physical phenomenon with witnesses.
Mass hysteria maybe? Surely you have something better than just mass hysteria.
Or maybe these things are "impossible" and I must certainly just be making up "false memories" with others who witnessed the same things.

Yeah, like an old tube TV screen, the glass and diodes remain charged for several minutes after the TV is shut off, often leaving a static charge on the surface of the glass or sometimes a slowly fading photogenic afterburn in the tube that follows the shape of the final images on the screen. Your brain prolly goes through something like that. I'm not knocking it, this ain't debunking. Only the facts. Science and similies are my new personal trend.

originally posted by: OneManArmy
I have a question....

Okay, so if what I experienced during the night was just my mind playing tricks and it was sleep paralysis, then how do you explain the toilet flushing itself, or the lights turning themselves on and off?

Got any video recordings of this? I always hear about people seeing physical manifestations of these things, but I've yet to see video evidence of it. Most video "evidence" tends to just be orbs. Have you set up video recorders to watch your toilet to see if it flushes on its own? Have you checked the wiring in your house to see if it is faulty in any way? Old houses tend to have bad wiring or exposed wiring. I can see your lights turning on when they shouldn't be due to a crossed wire or something.

Im sure you materialists feel all warm and fuzzy with your own explanations of sleep paralysis and "false memories", Id like to hear your explanations for physical phenomenon with witnesses.
Mass hysteria maybe? Surely you have something better than just mass hysteria.
Or maybe these things are "impossible" and I must certainly just be making up "false memories" with others who witnessed the same things.

Some actual evidence outside of your claims would be nice. And I don't feel warm and fuzzy with my explanations. I'm just trying to make sure all angles are explored before jumping the gun to the unexplained.

Also, I'm really getting tired of this materialist slur. I'm just a skeptic. Why are the slurs necessary? Because I disagree with your opinion? That's not a good way to foster debate and open thought.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OneManArmy
I have a question....

Okay, so if what I experienced during the night was just my mind playing tricks and it was sleep paralysis, then how do you explain the toilet flushing itself, or the lights turning themselves on and off?

Got any video recordings of this? I always hear about people seeing physical manifestations of these things, but I've yet to see video evidence of it. Most video "evidence" tends to just be orbs. Have you set up video recorders to watch your toilet to see if it flushes on its own? Have you checked the wiring in your house to see if it is faulty in any way? Old houses tend to have bad wiring or exposed wiring. I can see your lights turning on when they shouldn't be due to a crossed wire or something.

Im sure you materialists feel all warm and fuzzy with your own explanations of sleep paralysis and "false memories", Id like to hear your explanations for physical phenomenon with witnesses.
Mass hysteria maybe? Surely you have something better than just mass hysteria.
Or maybe these things are "impossible" and I must certainly just be making up "false memories" with others who witnessed the same things.

Some actual evidence outside of your claims would be nice. And I don't feel warm and fuzzy with my explanations. I'm just trying to make sure all angles are explored before jumping the gun to the unexplained.

Also, I'm really getting tired of this materialist slur. I'm just a skeptic. Why are the slurs necessary? Because I disagree with your opinion? That's not a good way to foster debate and open thought.

These things happened way way back in the early 80's, video recorders werent that prevalent in the poor neighbourhood I grew up in. I really wish I did have a recording. These things always happened out of the blue, without warning. Without having a permanent recording facility it would be almost impossible to catch.
I apologise for my tone, it wasnt directed at you personally. Just a general feel Im getting from the thread.

My main point is that WE DONT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. To think that we do is as ignorant as it gets.
Some things are still unexplained. Some things cannot be explained in a material sense.

Its like trying to explain whats inside a black hole, or what existed before the big bang?
We just dont have the adequate tools for some things yet. That doesnt stop some people taking possibilities and declaring them irrefutable explanations.

I apologise for drip feeding information about my past experience and then unjustly attacking your explanation based on the limited information. Thats just not good cricket, my bad. I think I have made myself look a bit of an arsehole. Certainly not for the first time, and not for the last time Im as equally certain.

a reply to: Asynchrony

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm guessing there are other posts like this, talking about electricity.

I am not too familiar with the Electric Universe theory but basically electricity plays a more significant role in our Universe.

Now when we see a beautiful sunset or something even grander than a sunset, maybe standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon or anything that takes our breath away, we sort of have this feeling or sensation.

In certain moments in our life we have very minor out of body experiences, you could describe as feeling electric.

In times of death, this electric feeling or out of body experience maybe a lot more intense, a lot more.

Now our brain produces a small amount of electricity.

It is possible that exists an invisible network of electricity that is part of our Universe that either our souls/conscious are connected to this electric current, or maybe we "borrow it" so to speak.

And when we die our soul or conscious goes off into the current of the invisible network of electricity.

And when we have out of body or near death experiences we leave our bodies and our soul is in the electric current, then when we return to our bodies, we return to borrowing the electric current.

originally posted by: cloaked4u
I caint' wait until science has hacked the brain so that you can see what that individual is seeing and hearing before and after death, that way we could get feedback on what is going on.

Might not be that far in the future
www.dailymail.co.uk... l

But at the moment of Death I suspect you would see nothing due to lack of activity.

Personally , I would like to see a study at the point of death where energy levels are observed. We know that energy can't be created nor destroyed so all that energy in our bodies has to transferor or convert into something else.

The interesting question will be: if the energy levels while alive equal the transformed or converted energy levels after death. Or will their be a small uncounted level of energy?


Ofcourse the test will only be as good as our technology to capture and monitor energy levels and a closed system capable of isolating all external and internal energy.

a reply to: VoidHawk

i used my eyes, seeing almost as if i was looking through a long tunnel. i knew i was floating on the ceiling, somehow
that seemed normal to me at the time. My room was empty of other people so i can't recount any amazing stories.

Mine was induced by pethedine in a hospital, i had not heard of obes back then, so believe it to be a real experience.

originally posted by: OneManArmy
These things happened way way back in the early 80's, video recorders werent that prevalent in the poor neighbourhood I grew up in. I really wish I did have a recording. These things always happened out of the blue, without warning. Without having a permanent recording facility it would be almost impossible to catch.
I apologise for my tone, it wasnt directed at you personally. Just a general feel Im getting from the thread.

My main point is that WE DONT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. To think that we do is as ignorant as it gets.
Some things are still unexplained. Some things cannot be explained in a material sense.

That's why I'm an agnostic. When I realize the limitations to humans' pursuit of knowledge, instead of substituting an assumption, I just say that I don't know.

Its like trying to explain whats inside a black hole, or what existed before the big bang?
We just dont have the adequate tools for some things yet. That doesnt stop some people taking possibilities and declaring them irrefutable explanations.

Well according to science the answer to those questions is currently "inconclusive". And yes you are correct about people declaring possibilities as irrefutable explanations, but science isn't the mechanism doing that, it's the pseudo-sciences that are doing that.

I apologise for drip feeding information about my past experience and then unjustly attacking your explanation based on the limited information. Thats just not good cricket, my bad. I think I have made myself look a bit of an arsehole. Certainly not for the first time, and not for the last time Im as equally certain.

It's fine. We're all humans. I'm just glad you realized your mistake and admitted to it. You're a better man than most on these forums.

When we asleep we dream, so, our brains are still working, I see and hear the dream, in colour as it happens, so unless the brain has started to decay, and I have no idea how long that takes, I'll presume something is going on until decay sets in.
I am reminded of something I read about a French doctor who weighed terminally ill patients before and after death, and found that there was a weight difference of 2 English ounces between life and death of the body, no idea if that has any bearing on life after death.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Thanks for the reply and I remember reading about the George Rodonais case.

a reply to: blaenau2000

That's an excellent watch and thanks for the video. Of course materialist will call Hameroff a practitioner of woo and an idiot but anyone whose not blinded by materialism can see this isn't the case if they watch this and other interviews.