The Afterlife? Real or Not

[Stevenson]

Who are all of these neroscientisists and neurobilogists of which you speak?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9598971/Is-the-afterlife-full-of-fluffy-clouds-and-angels.html

 

[Stevenson]

Well, kudos to you Denny as you are the only naysaying poster in this thread who has posted even a single source to back up your beliefs. I read the article and found only trace elements of science in it though, but at least it's something. We have posted articles, movies, books, people , i.e., evidence to back up our claims that there is some proof of an afterlife. Surprisingly, the cult of science folk posting in this thread have provided no proof other than dogmatic claims, and anonymous work of anonymous scientists and studies. How very, very unscientific of you all.


So here's a little science for ya:

"In recent years, a number of scientific studies conducted by independent researchers have found that as many as 10-20 percent of individuals who undergo cardiac arrest report lucid, well-structured thought processes, reasoning, memories, and sometimes detailed recall of their cardiac arrest. What makes these experiences remarkable is that while studies of the brain during cardiac arrest have consistently that there is no brain activity during this period, these individuals have reported detailed perceptions that appear to indicate the presence of a high-level of consciousness in the absence of measurable brain activity."

- Academic Textbook, Parnia S, Spearpoint K, Fenwick P, The Near Death Experience and After Care of Cardiac Arrest Survivors in Cardiac Arrest The Science and Practice of Resuscitation Medicine Edited by Paradis N et al 2nd ed

 

[Denny Crane]

Silly.

They may be dreaming right up to zero brain activity, if it is truly zero.

The people who report religious experiences are born again types.

 

[Stevenson]

as noted anecdotal evidence is accepted for ordinary claims for which a base of evidence has already been established supporting at least some potential probability of truth.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. In a murder trial for instance, first person, eyewitness testimony is considered just about the most credible. The purpose of cross-examination after all is to test the veracity of the witness and his/her recollection. Juries then weigh that testimony. Our entire jurisprudence is based on witness testimony i.e., anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is most certainly not limited to "ordinary claims for which a base of evidence has already been established..." That is factually incorrect.

 

[Stevenson]

Even if they are dreams, the flaw in your argument Denny is that the study says that there is conscious activity AFTER brain functions cease, not just "up until" they cease. That is the whole point.

 

[Denny Crane]

How do they measure this conscious activity?

They don't. It's not science to ask someone about a dream and pretend it occurred when brain activity was minimal or zero .

 

[Stevenson]

The study is linked to the site. Read it and you can see how it's objectively measured.

 

[Denny Crane]

Unless they can read minds, it's not objective.

 

[barfo]

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. In a murder trial for instance, first person, eyewitness testimony is considered just about the most credible. The purpose of cross-examination after all is to test the veracity of the witness and his/her recollection. Juries then weigh that testimony. Our entire jurisprudence is based on witness testimony i.e., anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is most certainly not limited to "ordinary claims for which a base of evidence has already been established..." That is factually incorrect.

Not sure that's entirely true. It's certainly the case that our system is based on witness testimony, since when it was developed there was no DNA testing, no videotapes, etc. However, is a judge or jury going to believe the videotape of the crime, or eyewitness testimony that it happened in some way incompatible with the videotape?

barfo

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

When the brain is deprived of oxygen and starts to die, a flood of endorphins erupts and causes the person to trip balls.

 

[magnifier661]

When the brain is deprived of oxygen and starts to die, a flood of endorphins erupts and causes the person to trip balls.

That's false... They've looked into that, when it was suggested that DMT is created by the pineal gland. Studies confirmed that the brain after and during trauma does not release DMT or endorphins. I used to think that until I read the study btw...

 

[magnifier661]

Unless they can read minds, it's not objective.

So most therapeutic study by psychiatrist are purely objective and should be discounted?

 

[magnifier661]

Silly.

They may be dreaming right up to zero brain activity, if it is truly zero.

The people who report religious experiences are born again types.

Another false claim. Actually most that have that "white light" experience are from non religious types. Possibly after the experience, they may seek God, but before that, many said they did not believe in God.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

OK so now I've read the same wikipedia article that Mags has, and here's what I've gathered: this seems to be a very advanced field of study with a lot of contentious viewpoints bouncing around. Coming from a contentious and cryptic academic background myself, I can tell you that none of us random jackoffs on a sports forum who are only skimming the surface and finding the arguments we want to hear to validate our worldviews have any idea what we are talking about.

Unless one of you is a cognitive neurologist and isn't saying so.

 

[Stevenson]

Well, I suppose Jesus and Buddha didn't know what they were talking about either, but of course they weren't cognitive neurologists

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/15/near-death-experience-brain-last-hurrah

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rain-activity-trigger-paranormal-visions.html

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Well, I suppose Jesus and Buddha didn't know what they were talking about either, but of course they weren't cognitive neurologists

Lol

 

[BigGameDamian]

Watch the documentary film, "Ghostbusters."

You can believe your eyes right?

The real movie you need to watch on this topic is Chances Are.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well, I suppose Jesus and Buddha didn't know what they were talking about either, but of course they weren't cognitive neurologists

as far as the afterlife goes they said a lot of mutually exclusive things, so at least one of them was full of crap.

 

[crowTrobot]

OK so now I've read the same wikipedia article that Mags has, and here's what I've gathered: this seems to be a very advanced field of study with a lot of contentious viewpoints bouncing around. Coming from a contentious and cryptic academic background myself, I can tell you that none of us random jackoffs on a sports forum who are only skimming the surface and finding the arguments we want to hear to validate our worldviews have any idea what we are talking about.

there is contention between scientists and people who don't understand the nature of objectivity pointing to bogus subjective claims driven by wishful thinking (or quacks trying to cash in on wishful thinkers by selling books), but there is nothing at all contentious within the field of neurobiology.

whatever consciousness is, ALL objective evidence absolutely indicates it emerges from activity in the physical brain, and cannot exist without it. the significance of this simply cannot be brushed under the carpet. no amount of wishful thinking or anecdotal claims can make it go away.

I can tell you that none of us random jackoffs on a sports forum who are only skimming the surface and finding the arguments we want to hear to validate our worldviews have any idea what we are talking about.

speak for yourself. I've been studying this for years. I've read and objectively considered most publicized claims of evidence for an afterlife. Most are silly. A few are interesting. None are convincingly without possible alternate physical explanation.

I've also put as much time into considering and coming to grips with the implications of evolution as any scientist. our mental functioning while the most advanced, is otherwise not particularly special or differentiable from other animals. there is no reason we should expect there to be continuation of consciousness after death in any form just because we happen to be self-aware and able to consider the possibility.

 

[magnifier661]

there is contention between scientists and people who don't understand the nature of objectivity pointing to bogus subjective claims driven by wishful thinking (or quacks trying to cash in on wishful thinkers by selling books), but there is nothing at all contentious within the field of neurobiology.

whatever consciousness is, ALL objective evidence absolutely indicates it emerges from activity in the physical brain, and cannot exist without it. the significance of this simply cannot be brushed under the carpet. no amount of wishful thinking can make it go away.



speak for yourself. I've been studying this for years. I've read and objectively considered most publicized claims of evidence for an afterlife. Most are silly. A few are interesting. None are convincingly without possible alternate physical explanation.

I've also put as much time into considering and coming to grips with the implications of evolution as any scientist. our mental functioning while the most advanced, is otherwise not particularly special or differentiable from other animals. there is no reason we should expect there to be continuation of consciousness after death in any form.

So you believe that your brain does release endorphins and/or DMT? I find that interesting... I'm curious what leads you to believe that this is true?

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/

Brain activity could be impulses of a brain trying to stay alive. I haven't read the entire study, so I won't try to agree or disagree with it. I've been interested in brain impulses and how it effects "reality" for someone dying or having a "near death" experience. I used to think your pineal gland would release endorphins or DMT to the brain as a defense mechanism to cope before death. All the studies I've read claim this to be false.

 

[magnifier661]

Has anyone tried DMT? I wonder how many don't believe in an afterlife that have done it. The rides it took me were insane. I've seen things I could never imagine.

 

[crowTrobot]

So you believe that your brain does release endorphins and/or DMT? I find that interesting... I'm curious what leads you to believe that this is true?

I have no idea what specifically happens in NDEs. That isn't relevant to my post.

I was arguing more what our starting assumptions should be until proven otherwise. Different aspects of mind function have been shown time and again to be dependent on the functioning of different areas of the brain. Combine that with the fact that we are not really THAT much different than Chimps or Dolphins etc. with which our species shares a common ancestor, and you have a clear indication of where an objective observer's expectations on the subject should lie.

Also, note that I would love for evidence to emerge that the mind continue's after death somehow. You could say I've followed the subject rooting against my expectations. So far it has been a disappointment.

 

[magnifier661]

I have no idea what specifically happens in NDEs. That isn't relevant to my post.

I was arguing more what our starting assumptions should be until proven otherwise. Different aspects of mind function have been shown time and again to be dependent on the functioning of different areas of the brain. Combine that with the fact that we are not really THAT much different than Chimps or Dolphins etc. with which our species shares a common ancestor, and you have a clear indication of where an objective observer's expectations on the subject should lie.

Also, note that I would love for evidence to emerge that the mind continue's after death somehow. You could say I've followed the subject rooting against my expectations. So far it has been a disappointment.

I don't know if you asking a theist this, or a general scientific study, outside theistic means.

If you ask me, I don't believe our physical self "organic self" works after death. A theist believes the spiritual self conscious continues to exist outside the physical word. It disconnects with the organic self and becomes like a ghost, that you would consider what a ghost is I guess.

 

[crowTrobot]

If you ask me, I don't believe our physical self "organic self" works after death. A theist believes the spiritual self conscious continues to exist outside the physical word. It disconnects with the organic self and becomes like a ghost, that you would consider what a ghost is I guess.

do you think the spiritual self contains who "you" are? in other words does it contain what makes you an individual differentiable from other humans - your memories, personality, intellectual and emotional disposition etc?

 

[magnifier661]

do you think the spiritual self contains who "you" are? in other words does it contain what makes you an individual differentiable from other humans - your memories, personality, intellectual and emotional disposition etc?

That's what I believe. I don't believe we manifest into some physical being or take shape like ourselves. I think we become a conscious energy that remembers who we are "our ego", and we are of a spirit "without matter". Our physical self is then recycled into the already existing universe.

I don't have science to back me. Just my faith.