An interesting article on scientific explanations of near-death / out-of-body experiences

by cedars 95 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cyberjesus

  Life is like electricity inside a computer.... either the switch is on and you have energy or not..... batteries inside the computer count as energy....

  The RAM is volatile memory... if you are lets say writing a letter in WORD (without autosave) and the computer is turned off then everything you typed is gone....

  When we die (the switch is turned off) then all the data in the brain dissapears...if you turn the comp off and on again then you have to re-type the whole letter again..

  So lets just say that in fact you die and then come back to life.....you would not know what happend because you lost all of the knowledge you had because you died..... and if you remember everything then your didnt really die and your data didnt go anywhere... and if you lost some energy some of the data might be scrambled....

  how does aperson interprets that white noise?..... oh yeah after life experience....

  nde are nothing but glitches in your RAM. period.
• 

  unstopableravens

  the problem is even if its possible and i say possible that died and gone to heaven ,it would do very little to make someone who is not a believer, beleive, and may increase your beliefs but all it would do is put fear into people but i dont think it will convince ppl much.
• 

  designs

  A friend, a JW, had a heart attack and died in the doctors office and was revived he had no visions or memory or bright white lights during the time he was dead.
• 

  GromitSK

  @designs - I am not sure that experience tells you much. I never remember my dreams does that mean I don't dream? :) reporting not having an experience isn't the same is reporting positively having one.

  @sab - your comment regarding Paine and not enforcing ideas on others seems reasonable to me. Folks can believe whatever they like unchallenged as long as they don't try to convince others it is true. Then the arguments begin and IMHO not unreasonable demands for evidence.

  The fact a person loves you is no guarantee that what they tell you is true. They don't need to be lying, they can simply be mistaken yes? Mistaken about what they heard and saw and what caused it.

  @cyber - you appear to be assuming that consciousness is a product of the brain and requires one. This is the subject of debate amongst many. If some of the reported post-mortem phenomena are correct, it would appear this brain/mind dependency is not the case.
• 

  cantleave

  If some of the reported post-mortem phenomena are correct, it would appear this brain/mind dependency is not the case.

  I'm intrigued - tell me more?
• 

  GromitSK

  @cantleave - you'd need to be a bit more specific lol it's a big subject. A bit like asking me to tell you more about Art - thinking about it, that wouldn't take long for me.

  For example: there is debate in some quarters about whether the brain produces consciousness or simply acts as a transmitter/filter; the so-called transmission and production theories. You'd have to do some reading on the subject to form your own view.

  If for example, folks whose physical bodies have gone (ie they're dead lol) can communicate and their existence shown to have continued without a physical body, which includes their brain, then their consciousness clearly doesn't need a physical brain. It's a big if though. There has been quite a lot of research over the past 150 years into the subject. Again you'd need to form your own view on the evidence presented.
• 

  skiforever

  The source of consciousness is debatable. It appears many here have a strictly materialist view of it. They believe that consciousness is derived from processes in the physical brain. Therefore when the brain dies consciousness ends.

  I believe the proponderance of evidence suggests that the mind/consciousness resides outside of the physical brain. I believe the brain is the interface that our consciousness uses to interact with the physical world. However since consciousness isn't dependent on the brain for it's existence, it survives the brain's death.

  This explains why many of those who have gone thru NDEs can recall the procedures used to revived them, the monitor readings of the medical equipment, what the medical staff said, and many other details with complete clarity all while their brain registers no activity whatsoever.
• 

  sabastious

  An immaterial realm solves this problem quite poorly. As it becomes untestable. Therefore it is no longer logically (or scientifically) an acceptable solution, rather it becomes actually a disproof of the proposition you stated (from a purely mathematical-logical viewpoint).

  That's why I said this:

  Heaven is OLD NEWS when you think about it, it's just been removed from the table due to lack of reproducible evidence. There has always been loads of evidence, but it's been locked in the confines of the personal experiences of people. Therefore it slipped through the cracks of science, logic and reason.

  Using math to explain heaven is a fools errand.

  If evidence was shown, you cannot disprove the idea anymore as there is evidence. Therefore your statement is logically contradictory. If there were evidence, we would've known by now and there is someone giving you a guaranteed $1M in case you do as well.

  There are types of evidence and a certain type logically cannot exit outside of the mind of the experiencer. This means that we have to trust what these people have to say. It's impossible to remove the human element from science and therefore there is no such thing as unbias science (peer review doesn't work, but that's another subject altogether). The modern scientific model is limiting because it doesn't have a way of confirming personal testimony without fault. It slams up against a wall in that avenue.

  With "truth" I assume you mean the concept of what is testable to be true in all circumstance then yes, there are those that favor order (as in God created everything orderly) and they are dictators and religionists. The truth is that there is no order in the universe, everything is totally random (look at the Universe) and thus favor the inconvenient truth that we're here entirely by our own with no-one to 'save' us in case we screw up. Thus I favor the truth over the 'order'.

  The universe is nothing but order. Chaos is just a step towards the direction of Order therefore it's just a means to an end. To say there is no order in the universe is a desperate argument.

  I won't, they aren't and attempting special pleading doesn't change the facts. Experinces near death in an altered mental state are nothing more that evidence that you can experience things in an altered mental state. They are in no way proof of anything more than that.

  If I drink a cup of caffeinated coffee I have put my mind in an altered state. Someone else can drink the same cup and experience similar results which can be corroborated. Just because the mind is within an altered state doesn't automatically spoil the testing environment, it just makes it difficult to reproduce accurately. I don't take you for a man who backs down from a challenge.

  You have left out all kinds of controls to make that a valid test. Perhaps a person could have an NDE and take my shirt challenge....

  Absolutely, the problem is creating the environemnt. Scientists who work in the field of death can get a little out of control. The data we have is essentially random and often unreliable. However, there is enough to draw the conclusion that NDE's are worth looking into further for the purposes of explaining the Second Realm.

  And you're making a great argument for the pointlessness of even trying to worry about invisible beings, because if God allows the scenario to be so fixed against mere mortals (where Jesus says that 'angels of darkness' will pose as angels of light), then there's a 50/50 chance, at best. SO even those who think they're communicating with the good guys don't stand a chance, as it may be a 'false flag'.

  Yes, trust will awlays be an issue which means lies will always have extreme power (heaven doesn't have lies). That's why the science of lying is very important. The more we can neutralize the problem of lying the more we will know about the universe.

  @sab - your comment regarding Paine and not enforcing ideas on others seems reasonable to me. Folks can believe whatever they like unchallenged as long as they don't try to convince others it is true. Then the arguments begin and IMHO not unreasonable demands for evidence.

  There is nothing wrong with trying to convince others of your revelation. What's wrong is to IMPOSE your revelation on others. Like how the Watchtower says that they are the truth which would mean their revelations and chosenness are readily apparent to the outside world. They fail to understand the basic principle of personal revelation as told by Thomas Paine. That they simply cannot be demonstrated to others. The Watchtower has always ran with the idea that their superiority can be affirmatively demonstrated to the public, but it cannot and that's why they have to spike their punch. They want to be known as the chosen people of God, but they cannot offer proof of the assertion.

  -Sab
• 

  DavePerez

  USR said:

  perez : i think thats a cope out, 1john 4:1 tell us to test these things , satan may appear to be light but hes not jesus is the light, satanis going to twist gods word like he did in genesis 3, and matthew 4, etc... so i dont see it as a 50/50 chance if you examine all things by means of gods word

  So let me guess: you're the bright boy who can see through the deceptions of Satan, and you can use the principles and hints that Jesus gave everyone else in print (which Satan also knows) to overcome his deception, using your powers of testing and evaluation?

  You don't think it's reasonable to assume that Satan knows in complete detail what the Bible says, and even knows what you personally understand it to say, and that his greater command of the facts wouldn't make it relatively easy for a supernatural being to avoid conflicts that he knows you would recognize as falsehood? Or to change up his strategy?

  I forgot: you are "special" because the Bible tells you so, as well as everyone else that reads in it that they are special, too. No one can fool you!

  So even though God apparently allows imposters to cheat through use of deception and tricks, you don't see a slight problem with that basic premise, that God is both a referree AND a participant in the conflict?

  No clue that it just MIGHT be a false dilemma, where the correct answer is neither Satan or God, but none of the above, and that there's no one asking the question?

  Look into "appeal to ego", and get back to me after you do. As it stands, many allow their personal thirst for ego gratification to allow themselves to be played like a fiddle by modern men who rely on the books left by ancient clever men who were the REAL deceivers of their contemporaries; belief in invisible beings was/is a successful attempt to control the behavior of others (and usually without needing to resort to physical force).
• 

  GromitSK

  There is nothing wrong with trying to convince others of your revelation.

  I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. I don't think it is reasonable to complain when others challenge it vigorously on the basis of evidence though.

  They fail to understand the basic principle of personal revelation as told by Thomas Paine. That they simply cannot be demonstrated to others.

  If such phenomena cannot be deomstrated to others, then it is perfectly reasonably for others not to believe it isn't it?