Is the afterlife even possible?

[Morality Games]

My point all along about the NDE is: there is evidence; lots of evidence; sufficient evidence to sink a small aircraft carrier. Go to Davedes recent post. Click on the links; read the information. This is a tiny, tiny fraction of what is out there. A growing number of scientists and doctors are now taking the subject seriously.

Well, whatever you studied in those 25 years, it wasn't science. There is a difference between 'evidence' and 'scientific evidence' aside from the obvious addition of the adjective 'scientific' to the latter term. Evidence must fulfill many logical conditions before it can be considered scientific, and little of what has been presented in favor of NDE comes close to satisfying that exacting standard.

Anyway, I don't think there is necessarily a problem with an afterlife existing, just that believing in one as if it were as well-established a fact as gravity is wrong.

[Radarlove]

Morality Games,

The word science comes from the Latin 'scientia' meaning knowledge.
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is 'knowledge attained through study or practice.' What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most common description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality. The NDE would fit into the study of social science.

Now, like yourself, I am not interested in belief or faith. I have absolutely no interest in religion, for example. As Marx famously said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

But, unlike you, I still hold to humanity's ability of intelligence and perception. If 1 person states they had an unusual non-scientific experience, I wouldn't be interested. 1,000, it becomes a little more interesting. The NDE has been experienced by tens of millions of people. In America alone, the 1992 Gallup Poll suggested 13 million. Add all the other countries around the world and I would suggest up to 100 million people living in the world today have experienced an NDE.

Surely, that is worth investigating? And surely the emphasis is placed on science to carry out this research. So, why aren't they researching this extremely important field? Why has science turned a blind eye?

It has been left to a few scientists and doctors with no grants or financial aid from the scientific community. And the more they suggest that the clinical evidence backs up the claims of those who have experienced an NDE; that there are other realities, other dimensions in time and space beyond our physical one, the greater the wall of silence and the more these researchers are treated like someone who has just farted in a crowded lift.

I would suggest science is not only acting irresponsibly but are also letting down, very badly, the general public. For science is about accruing knowledge and then expanding and improving on that knowledge. Mankind has placed their faith in science to gain a better understanding of reality. Yet, the scientific community show total disinterest in the NDE because the phenomenon does not comply to their restricted belief systems.

Therefore, it is not about lack of evidence, as some sceptics claim - as I have suggested, there is enough evidence out there to sink a small aircraft carrier - it is because the NDE does not fit into orthodox science's narrow paradym of reality. It would mean science doing a U-turn, holding their hand up and stating. "Sorry, we got it wrong, there is an afterlife after all." And no-one likes egg on their face - especially science.

[Jack]

This reads more like an excuse for having evidence that doesn't stand up to critical examination than anything else. Anybody can do science. Research it yourself. Submit your documented test results for peer review. Put the evidence and substantiation out there for skeptical review.

Just don't ask us to accept for no good reason something that has alternate explanations unless you can discredit all but yours.

[Maryjane]

Quite right Jack. I'll reject Piscean's story for several reasons.

Quote by: Piscean Hey, thank you for coming on here and sharing what you've learned. I for one know you aren't deceiving anyone. It's good to hear about all the others who have died and come back changed like myself. My story is pretty interesting. I was taken into surgery as a little kid (like 2 I think) I had a section of my intestines that didn't work right. Anyway during the surgery the anathestic actually killed me. I was out of my body for a few minutes. The surgeons were freaked out. I remember watching them and seeing my body. I was in the presence of something beyond great. I call this God or our source. Anyway pretty quickly I was taken back into my body and it came back to life. The surgeons never told my parents I had died on the operating table. While I was in recovery I drew a lot of pictures which caused my mom to realize something had happened. When she confronted the surgeons they admitted to her that they did lose me for a while. This is probably a pretty common thing from what you've studied but I figured I'd share.

He doesn't know for sure what age he was. If he was indeed 2, his cognative abilities wouldn't be advanced enough to articulate, much less understand the concept of death. He also wouldn't be able to express much in drawings beyond barbaric scribbling. It's very difficult for even a parent to comprehend what a child that age is saying much less to figure out what he was trying to relay to her about dying on the operating table. Sorry...

[davedes]

Attacking these anecdotes in such a personal tone is what keeps them supressed in the first place.

Rejecting the account completely on the basis of "like 2 I think" is a rather 'unscientific' and biased analysis, in my mind.

Piscean -- thanks for sharing. I too am curious to know how one can experience/remember a NDE at such a young age.

[davedes]

Quote by: Jack This reads more like an excuse for having evidence that doesn't stand up to critical examination than anything else. Anybody can do science. Research it yourself. Submit your documented test results for peer review. Put the evidence and substantiation out there for skeptical review.

Serious study in parapsychology is rarely reviewed in a neutral manner, and many times not reviewed at all. Many of the scientists who do review the subject neutrally often agree that "something is going on here." The unfortunate thing is that making any greater claim than that, or even studying deeper into the subject, tends to be a huge taboo in science. These scientists become re-labelled as cooks and pseudoscientists, and their reputation is destroyed.

Parapsychology, which includes the study of OBEs and NDEs, is taken very seriously by thousands of scientists. Hundreds of institutes and many more academic publishings are invovled, all of them finding some extremely fascinating results that challenge the very roots of science. The mainstream scientific community has barely touched the subject, which is especially strange when you consider the impact it can have.

As of yet, evidence concerning the link between consciousness and the brain is very scarce. Research into veridical OBEs and NDEs, both very difficult to study frequently, is also relatively scarce. However, this a substantial amount of very credible evidence (much more than mere anecdotes) that supports such topics as ESP, psychokinesis and telepathy.

The question is whether this evidence is accurate, reproducible, honest, controlled, etc. It should be reviewed neutrally and scientifically, but unfortunately it rarely is.

I found this to be an interesting interview with Dr. Dean Radin about psychic phenomenon and the taboo involved with it.
YouTube - Dean Radin, Ph.D on Quantum Physics 1 of 3

If you wish I can supply links to the "psi" papers, institutes, studies, etc. but since many of them are not NDE/OBE related I'm not sure if it would be suitable to this topic.

Sorry for the little rant. I just don't like seeing people throw about the assumption that "the scientific community is all-accepting," as I would not always consider that the case.

[Jack]

As of yet, evidence concerning the link between consciousness and the brain is very scarce. Research into veridical OBEs and NDEs, both very difficult to study frequently, is also relatively scarce. However, this a substantial amount of very credible evidence (much more than mere anecdotes) that supports such topics as ESP, psychokinesis and telepathy. The question is whether this evidence is accurate, reproducible, honest, controlled, etc. It should be reviewed neutrally and scientifically, but unfortunately it rarely is.

Look at your first sentence. You say yourself that the "evidence concerning the link between consciousness and the brain is very scarce". That's not the fault of scientists. A lack of credible evidence, according to peers within that community of psychologists, tells me that either we don't yet have the means or sufficient evidence (that can be reproduced) to reach a conclusion, or that the evidence that has been produced is literally incredible.

The claims made in parapsychology are difficult to investigate and skepticism is often discouraged while "acceptance prior to validating the evidence" is justified. I'm a skeptic. My cultural and psychological outlook defaults to disbelief with a fairly high standard for belief (when it comes to philosophical musings that identify themselves as being outside the framework of the reality I know and live in. "Para"psychology, "Meta"physics, theology; I understand and have done my share of exploring and getting carried away now and then. It never lasts. I am a skeptic-junky, or as Zappa would say, my bull**** detector is one of my primary senses. I'm in a "Show Me" state of mind. If my gaydar worked half as well as my bull**** detector I'd be a happy man.

So don't try and blame me for being unconvinced. I'm unconvinced, as are apparently many psychologists who peer review these concepts. Your job is to convince us. Offer compelling evidence, don't blame your audience for disbelief. You can't earn my belief with pallor tricks. I know about magic, and the power of the mind. I've never been successfully hypnotized. I naturally distrust initially. When I decide the evidence is sufficiently strong to earn my trust, my belief, then they get it. You can't just claim credibility for something that has a testable premise. The conclusions of the tests will either defer credibility or expose the paucity or complete lack of testable evidence. And based on my own experiences, I have far more reason to be skeptical than believing.

I'm unconvinced. Convince me. Don't try to shame me into agreement. It won't work. Besides, since we're talking about something that can only be known with any certainty after death, it's ultimately unimportant to me. I don't mean that in a snobish way. I mean it can have no effect on my present experience, so I can postpone coming to any type of conclusion about things that may or may not concern me in another reality than this one. I'm in no hurry to become adamant about meta and para states. And some theories are so far out there they inadvertently provide humor. I can always use more humor in my life.

[davedes]

Quote by: Jack Look at your first sentence. You say yourself that the "evidence concerning the link between consciousness and the brain is very scarce". That's not the fault of scientists. A lack of credible evidence, according to peers within that community of psychologists, tells me that either we don't yet have the means or sufficient evidence (that can be reproduced) to reach a conclusion, or that the evidence that has been produced is literally incredible.

When I say "the link between the consciousness and the brain" I do not just mean the concept of consciousness surviving, but I also refer to the concept of it dying. I mean to say that evidence is scarce on "both sides" of the argument.

I would agree that this is due to incredibility and the current capabilities. But I do think that both issues will be resolved in the near future. It was once acceptable to call parapsychology a field of dishonest pseudoscientists, but things have since changed. Parapsychology is much more focused on "proving" this in the most credible, reproducible and scientific terms possible.

The topic of OBEs and NDEs are relatively new in the field of parapsychology, so they have received some of the least attention, and the evidence is still scarce in comparison. This is why I am reluctant to continue here, as it does not truly relate to this subject (feel free to split, I'm sure "psi" and psychic ability would produce an interesting debate on its own). But I'll continue anyways...

The claims made in parapsychology are difficult to investigate and skepticism is often discouraged while "acceptance prior to validating the evidence" is justified.

Today's community of academic parapsychologists are not like this. This looks like a blatant stereotype, and if you do wish to promote it I'd at least like some supporting evidence to justify your own claim.

I'm a skeptic. My cultural and psychological outlook defaults to disbelief with a fairly high standard for belief (when it comes to philosophical musings that identify themselves as being outside the framework of the reality I know and live in. "Para"psychology, "Meta"physics, theology; I understand and have done my share of exploring and getting carried away now and then. It never lasts. I am a skeptic-junky, or as Zappa would say, my bull**** detector is one of my primary senses. I'm in a "Show Me" state of mind. If my gaydar worked half as well as my bull**** detector I'd be a happy man.

I hope my posts aren't giving off the wrong impression. I'm a skeptic as well, although not to the same extent that you seem to be.

I do not subscribe to the notion of NDE afterlife and I'm waiting for much more evidence before even accepting veridical OBEs. I remain skeptical of "psi" ability although I will admit that there is a substantial amount of testable and credible evidence. Whether this evidence is accurate is another matter. However, I do not reject these concepts outright (that I would consider unhealthy skepticism).

When I first heard the claim that people can leave their body to view objects outside of their sensory perception, I was extremely skeptical. However, I was provided with steps and practices that would allow me to "leave" my body (which alone sounded interesting enough) and I was encouraged to verify the experience for myself. Take, for example, the supposed Playing Card Experiment. Sounds interesting? I'm definitely not yet convinced, but I still have yet to go out-of-body. (OBEs are still a very new subject to me)

So don't try and blame me for being unconvinced. I'm unconvinced, as are apparently many psychologists who peer review these concepts. Your job is to convince us. Offer compelling evidence, don't blame your audience for disbelief. You can't earn my belief with pallor tricks. I know about magic, and the power of the mind. I've never been successfully hypnotized. I naturally distrust initially. When I decide the evidence is sufficiently strong to earn my trust, my belief, then they get it. You can't just claim credibility for something that has a testable premise. The conclusions of the tests will either defer credibility or expose the paucity or complete lack of testable evidence. And based on my own experiences, I have far more reason to be skeptical than believing.

I do not blame you for being unconvinced. Sorry if it came off like that. I was completely unconvinced at first, and in many respects I still am (as I outlined above).

Again, as I said earlier, this is less focused on OBEs and NDEs as I currently have yet to find extremely compelling scientific evidence to support veridical experiences and/or afterlife experiences (and as such I am very skeptical to both those claims).

Below I'll provide you with some interesting papers on psi -- mainly on the topics of ESP, telepathy and psychokinesis. Although I have read through some of them, I have not read all of them. These papers would do nothing to convince me, personally, but since you do ask for scientific evidence, I will comply.

Lengthy Publications:
An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning (1995)
Does Psi Exist? (1994)
Observation of a psychokinetic effect under highly controlled conditions (1993)
The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective (1982)
Precognitive Remote Perception: Replication of Remote Viewing (1996)
Assessing the Evidence for Mind-Matter Interaction Effects (2006)
ESP and the Brain: Current Status
Various PEAR publications
Various psi-related publications

Further reading:
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Parapsychological Association
The Rhine Research Center
The RetroPsychoKinesis Project
Dean Radin - Entangled Minds

For lighter reading, here is an interesting article on the history of psychokinesis. It's by no means "scientific," unlike the above.
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/pkindex.htm

Note: Controlled psi experiments are done on an extremely small scale. No moving of tables, no fluent reading of minds, no teleportation to other rooms. The most common experiments deal with the mind's influence on randon number generators.

Something perhaps more convincing than text on paper is actually experiencing the phenomenon first-hand. Imagine if you verified your own OBE, not just once but so many times that the statistical results pointed well away from mere coincidence. Of course, there is also a possibility that the statistics will not point at anything meaningful, and if that's the case you'd just be left with numerous memories of profoundly interesting lucid-dream-like experiences (which I don't see as a terribly bad thing).

I am not here to convince you. I am not the "believer" as you seem to assume I am. I am in the same boat as you -- the difference is that I make an attempt to either verify or falsify these claims through (a) independent research and (b) first-hand experimentation. If you truly wish to be convinced, you will need to put a bit of effort into it.

I'm exhausted.. g'night!

[Piscean]

He doesn't know for sure what age he was. If he was indeed 2, his cognative abilities wouldn't be advanced enough to articulate, much less understand the concept of death. He also wouldn't be able to express much in drawings beyond barbaric scribbling. It's very difficult for even a parent to comprehend what a child that age is saying much less to figure out what he was trying to relay to her about dying on the operating table. Sorry...

Actually I could draw very well at 2.5 years and even read some. Ovecourse I didn't know they what death was. I'm teling you my perspective at age 28 when I do know what death isI still remember part of the expirience of being outside my body.And the doctors/surgeons did confirm that I had died. At this age I know what I expirienced was death at the time I was to young to have names for these things but I have had the expirience of death, it is continued life. You have therefore no reason, from what I've shared to doubt the truth in it unless you just believe I'm a liar. Or you really don't want to believe in eternity or continued life.

[loser]

Debate is a 'nice' synonym for argue. Now I know that there are a lot of people out there who will argue with a sign post. And so it goes...

Another synonym is deliberate, as in 'to deliberate' like a juror deliberating the 'facts' in a trial. The judge asks them to use 'reason'.

One of the silliest (and most unreasonable) things that I hear people retort is "Prove it!" What could be more ridiculous than that? Asking someone to present evidence is like asking them to end the debate.

If something can be proved, it will be common knowledge. If it is common knowledge, how can it be debated?

Do we debate whether or not we live on a planet? Not too much, I think...most of us agree with that. Is George Bush the president of the U.S.? Not much to debate there, is it? Is he a bad president? Well, still not much of a debate but better. How about, "Was America's attack on Iraq a good move?" Very debatable, I think.

It becomes obvious that subjective things are much more debatable than objective things ("Is blue a pretty color?" vs. "Does a dog normally have four legs?"). Also, it's quite clear that things that can't be proved or that lack empirical evidence are much more debatable than things more certain. Therefore, God and evolution and aliens and Bigfoot and the afterlife are all highly debatable because, at the present moment, there is no proof and scant 'evidence'. If aliens land on our planet in the future, their existence (and, perhaps, even God's) will no longer be debated.

Keep this in mind: If something is proved, it's no longer debatable (by reasonable men). For example, if all of you knew just how intelligent I was, there wouldn't be a debate about it. Since you don't, continue to argue...the side you take will speak volumes about your ability to discern.

How can afterlife be possible? Only if life itself is possible? For, indeed, if life is possible, then afterlife is possible.

You say that life ceases at death. You are absolutely right. However, before you were born, your life was non-existent. This non-life did not prevent life, did it? Neither will death prevent rebirth. The only way that afterlife would be impossible is if nothing existed in the first place!

Amazingly, the Bible discusses the different kinds of 'existences' or "bodies" that exist. I know that the Bible is very unpopular here at the Forum and it cannot be offered as proof BUT if it was written by men then their suggestions, conclusions, or reasonings are ever bit as valid as any of ours. If directed by God, well, who are you to argue?

"1Co 15:35 Some of you have asked, "How will the dead be raised to life? What kind of bodies will they have?"
1Co 15:36 Don't be foolish. A seed must die before it can sprout from the ground.
1Co 15:37 Wheat seeds and all other seeds look different from the sprouts that come up.
1Co 15:38 This is because God gives everything the kind of body he wants it to have.
1Co 15:39 People, animals, birds, and fish are each made of flesh, but none of them are alike.
1Co 15:40 Everything in the heavens has a body, and so does everything on earth. But each one is very different from all the others.
1Co 15:41 The sun isn't like the moon, the moon isn't like the stars, and each star is different.
1Co 15:42 That's how it will be when our bodies are raised to life. These bodies will die, but the bodies that are raised will live forever.
1Co 15:43 These ugly and weak bodies will become beautiful and strong.
1Co 15:44 As surely as there are physical bodies, there are spiritual bodies. And our physical bodies will be changed into spiritual bodies.
1Co 15:45 The first man was named Adam, and the Scriptures tell us that he was a living person. But Jesus, who may be called the last Adam, is a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 We see that the one with a spiritual body did not come first. He came after the one who had a physical body.
1Co 15:47 The first man was made from the dust of the earth, but the second man came from heaven.
1Co 15:48 Everyone on earth has a body like the body of the one who was made from the dust of the earth. And everyone in heaven has a body like the body of the one who came from heaven.
1Co 15:49 Just as we are like the one who was made out of earth, we will be like the one who came from heaven.
1Co 15:50 My friends, I want you to know that our bodies of flesh and blood will decay. This means that they cannot share in God's kingdom, which lasts forever."

No proof, of course, but a hope shared by many. Read the whole chapter for context.

[Kuldeep]

Though, I have also seen two times in the dreams at quite grown up age.

1. I saw body lying on the ground and myself floating little above just by the side.

2. As if I was very ight and flying like a bird. I was returning from outside to my home. When I reached main gate of my house, I found it locked from inside. So I decided to enter from the window of second floor. I raised my self up and entered into the house. Climbed down to first floor where I was sleeping that night. I entered the room and then into the quilt inside which I was sleeping. No sooner I entered the quilt I opened my eyes. Who could tell whether it was a ordinary dream or, I was dead during the time I was flying???

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: loser You say that life ceases at death. You are absolutely right. However, before you were born, your life was non-existent. This non-life did not prevent life, did it? Neither will death prevent rebirth. The only way that afterlife would be impossible is if nothing existed in the first place!

Life does exist before anybody's birth or after his death right on this very earth. Life source is passed from parent to childern and then from children to their children...and so on and so forth.

But the point of debate is that "does the Individual self exists even after the physical death, after the physical body decaes !!! "

I liked the loser's argument that it is verymuch debatable since we are doubtful about that fact. I would add people who have experienced some un-natural happenings and which gives some gimpse of individual's existence after his physical death should not looked as something non-sensical but rather investigated. Till any conclusion is drawn, let the debate go on.

My only supportive evidence to Individul's life after its death is the Lady Professor living in my own city who has narrated not one but two of her past lives stiories. Friends around the Volconvo forum have thrased me out number of times for not getting a proof for that. Is not silly to ask a proof for that. A person's statement have been varified by her parents, relatives of present life and past lives relatives. It is established here in the city now that she remembers her past two lives. She gave a T.V. statement as well last year in the regar. not

What more proof I have to provide I am surprised!!!

My own feeling about our repeated lives is that we are all are having different amounts of luck, which is due to our past lives actions whose reactions we are yet to recieve. So we get those rewactions in the form of different amounts of luck.

[Radarlove]

Kuldeep,

When I researched reincarnation as evidence for an afterlife, I found the 40 year work of Professor Ian Stevenson to be quite compelling. Sadly, he died last year, but the Professor left a legacy well worth exploring.

Ian Stevenson - Reincarnation research

The use of regressive hypnosis, while on occasions impressive, was too flawed.

[Kuldeep]

I have many published stories with me but, I related only that with first hand knowledge. But still people doubt reincarnation.

What are yur own views ??

[Radarlove]

Davedes,

Over the years I have spent much time discussing and debating, arguing and reasoning with science fundamentalists, and my conclusions are, it is a waste of time and energy.

Their mantra is, "Show me the evidence - convince me - show me the evidence - convince me." But it doesn't matter how much evidence you offer them, it is never enough.

[Radarlove]

Kuldeep,

If you accept there is an afterlife then reincarnation becomes more feasible.

Discovering compelling evidence is difficult and why Professor Ian Stevenson's 40 year research is seen by some investigators as the best carried out to date.

Regressive hypnosis is far too inconsistent and flawed. I myself have experimented with this medium and while lengthy and full-rounded lives emerged, they are difficult to prove. On occasions, these lives felt quite real but they can be dismissed quite easily as fantasies of the unconscious.

I interviewed one Englishman, who claimed under hypnosis, he had fought in the Crimean War as a past life personality called Reuben. What made this interesting was the intricate detail the man offered of the regiment he belonged to along with the battle details described. Sceptics often dismiss this as cryptoamnesia. Where the unconscious will use knowledge gained from books, TV and the internet as a means of creating the experience.

What made this case unusual, was that records were found of the said regiment which verified the intricate detail the man described. Information which had never come to light before. Therefore, cryptoamnesia was not possible.

If one accepts reincarnation as real, then the next question is what exactly is it? Do we live many hundreds of lives as the same soul or are they different facets, different personalities of our collective soul?

[Kuldeep]

If one accepts reincarnation as real, then the next question is what exactly is it? Do we live many hundreds of lives as the same soul or are they different facets, different personalities of our collective soul?

I am in hurry ! We would take it sometime later. Not only hundreds, but infinite...you may not believe. Soul is a wage term, you have to understand what is soul. What you consider as YOU...so many things to get first cleared before, you can understand the reality in reality !!!

See you later.

[davedes]

I am not one for the past-life claim. If consciousness is shown to be a separate entity that can move through time and space and interact with other beings, then perhaps we should question whether these so-called 'past-lives' are something altogether very different.

I have read Buhlman's reports where he claims to have relived his 'past-life' in an OBE. I prefer Frank Kepple's interpretation of these experiences, if they are even true, in that you are simply merging and/or interacting with another conscious being, and thus gaining their memories. It's easy to interpret those memories as your own, which may lead you to assume it's a past-life that you are somehow uncovering.

Really, if psi truly exists, we should not be making such radical assumptions, else it may cloud the results!

Quote by: Radarlove Their mantra is, "Show me the evidence - convince me - show me the evidence - convince me." But it doesn't matter how much evidence you offer them, it is never enough.

Yep, I see this often.

Many of us have been raised on the "scientific" predisposition that consciousness dies with the brain. Considering the current scarcity of scientific evidence on both sides of the argument, a true skeptic would be wise to cast doubt on both claims.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Radarlove Morality Games, The word science comes from the Latin 'scientia' meaning knowledge. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is 'knowledge attained through study or practice.' What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most common description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality. The NDE would fit into the study of social science. Now, like yourself, I am not interested in belief or faith. I have absolutely no interest in religion, for example. As Marx famously said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." But, unlike you, I still hold to humanity's ability of intelligence and perception. If 1 person states they had an unusual non-scientific experience, I wouldn't be interested. 1,000, it becomes a little more interesting. The NDE has been experienced by tens of millions of people. In America alone, the 1992 Gallup Poll suggested 13 million. Add all the other countries around the world and I would suggest up to 100 million people living in the world today have experienced an NDE. Surely, that is worth investigating? And surely the emphasis is placed on science to carry out this research. So, why aren't they researching this extremely important field? Why has science turned a blind eye? It has been left to a few scientists and doctors with no grants or financial aid from the scientific community. And the more they suggest that the clinical evidence backs up the claims of those who have experienced an NDE; that there are other realities, other dimensions in time and space beyond our physical one, the greater the wall of silence and the more these researchers are treated like someone who has just farted in a crowded lift. I would suggest science is not only acting irresponsibly but are also letting down, very badly, the general public. For science is about accruing knowledge and then expanding and improving on that knowledge. Mankind has placed their faith in science to gain a better understanding of reality. Yet, the scientific community show total disinterest in the NDE because the phenomenon does not comply to their restricted belief systems. Therefore, it is not about lack of evidence, as some sceptics claim - as I have suggested, there is enough evidence out there to sink a small aircraft carrier - it is because the NDE does not fit into orthodox science's narrow paradym of reality. It would mean science doing a U-turn, holding their hand up and stating. "Sorry, we got it wrong, there is an afterlife after all." And no-one likes egg on their face - especially science.

That's not a reasonable outlook. Science doesn't care about NDE because there is nothing to study -- what a person experiences is private and cannot be tested or controlled under any conditions. In science, you can't declare, "This is real," when you can't observe the process. One can inquire into the content of near-death person's experience and get a rough idea, but that is still scientifically useless, as any commonality in experience can be viewed as a result of common expectation or imagining due to cultural conditioning, not a genuine afterlife.

For you see, the scientifically plausible explanation is that if they exist at all, NDE are nothing except chemicals in the nervous system going berserk. This because all mental functioning is reducible to the brain.

Now, there is a remote possibility NDE are representations of an afterlife, but it is still wrong to believe in them as if they were facts.

[orgaelin]

I hate joining such an interesting thread so late into the game. A couple of points I wanted to pick out:

Radarlove, I completely agree that regression is too inconsistent to be used to definitely prove reincarnation. Matters are made so much worse because we, as humans, are occasionally prone to delusion, and it is all too easy for even someone of perfectly sound mind to be convinced about something which is really just a product of his mind. Which all serves to discredit not only notions of reincarnation and life after death, but all manner of psi phenomena...

...but not entirely.

There is no proof or disproof of any of these things, only varying degrees of evidence. Having said that, I have on my desk a most excellent book by Dean Radin, which basically summarises the past 100 years of research into psi phenomena. I quote from Page 4...

In 1995 the American Institutes for Research reviewed formerly classified government-sponso