Is the afterlife even possible?

[Morality Games]

Which of course makes science little better than blind faith in this specific regard.

You people have such egos. If-you-cannot-observe-the-process-in-action-then-there-is-nothing-to-empirically-study. That's not a tough idea.

[orgaelin]

You people have such egos. If-you-cannot-observe-the-process-in-action-then-there-is-nothing-to-empirically-study. That's not a tough idea.

MG, would you care to qualify your accusation?!

The context missing from your quote is that we were talking about the tendency of the scientific community to ignore or worse suppress evidence which is contrary to the commonly held perceptions of what is correct. This very tendency is most often ascribed to religious beliefs, particularly among, as I said, the 'blind faith' types.

If you are really denying that this behaviour exists in the world of science then I would suggest you consider your purpose in contributing a comment, because really all you have achieved is to make yourself look dishonest or foolish in denying something so readily accepted by both religious and scientific people alike.

Additionally you appear to have thrown me into a box of your own design, labelled as you see fit. Proper examination of the other contents therein should prove you need to be more careful in your observations.

[Radarlove]

davedes,

"you are simply merging and/or interacting with another conscious being, and thus gaining their memories."

Monroe describes this as a rote-ball. After merging with another consciousness you experience that person's life and all their history, both intellectually and emotionally, within moments.

I feel some discomfort with the concept of past lives because you enter the beliefs and faith of eastern religion.

In recent years, my research suggests the concept of a collective soul. That your present personality doesn't reincarnate but moves into a second phase of life within a different dimension of time and space. That you live this second life and then merge with your collective.

Meanwhile, newly created members of your collective continue to incarnate as a means of adding further experiences of life to your whole. You are an individual but also a part of this larger expanding self. The so-called past lives you experience are not yours as an individual but memories from other collective members.

It's an idea I am presently pondering. :o)

[Morality Games]

MG, would you care to qualify your accusation?! The context missing from your quote is that we were talking about the tendency of the scientific community to ignore or worse suppress evidence which is contrary to the commonly held perceptions of what is correct. This very tendency is most often ascribed to religious beliefs, particularly among, as I said, the 'blind faith' types. If you are really denying that this behaviour exists in the world of science then I would suggest you consider your purpose in contributing a comment, because really all you have achieved is to make yourself look dishonest or foolish in denying something so readily accepted by both religious and scientific people alike. Additionally you appear to have thrown me into a box of your own design, labelled as you see fit. Proper examination of the other contents therein should prove you need to be more careful in your observations.

What are you babbling about? The only thing that matters to me is that you think science is acting like blind faith when it comes to NDE when it obviously isn't. I've had enough of responding to anything else. You put yourself in the box.

Science can't study first-person experience (inaccessible except brokenly through conversation), and if pressed for some kind of explanation, then because all mental functioning is reducible to the nervous system, they are likely to respond NDE's are probably chemicals in the nervous system going berserk. Popular culture conditions everyone to reflect on the possibility of an afterlife (it is never an unknown, even to atheists), and given the odd things the mind can think up during dreams, it is hardly unthinkable that people would imagine an afterlife as they fade out of existence, or that there would be commonalities in expectation, etc. After all, what else is there to do when you are dying?

That might not be the case, but it is still the most likely under current scientific knowledge.

[davedes]

Quote by: Morality Games 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.

We understand dreams to be purely subjective, yet the scientific community is interested in studying them.

As such, you may expect out-of-body experiences, which are reported as hundreds of times more lucid, more realistic and more profound than dreams, to be somewhat of a bustling topic in science.

However, what makes the topic far more interesting is the question of "veridical perception." Hundreds of reports, many of them well-documented, have surfaced that suggest that an out-of-body experience (sometimes induced by near-death experiences) is much more of an "objective" experience than originally thought. Veridical perception deals with the study of whether one can gain certain knowledge outside of their sensory perception, while out-of-body. It certainly can be studied by the scientific method, and in controlled conditions. With advances in drug-induced OBEs (ketamine) and refined techniques, we will soon have a much more consistent means of inducing OBEs, and therefore a much easier time studying them frequently.

Here is one interesting report that has always intrigued me:

In a paper published in the Journal of Near-Death Studies concerning veridical NDE evidence, Dr. Ken Ring included perhaps the most famous case of veridical observation in NDE research at that time. Kimberly Clark Sharp first documented the NDE of a woman named Maria in her book, After The Light. Maria was a migrant worker who, while visiting friends in Seattle, had a severe heart attack. She was rushed to Harborview Hospital and placed in the coronary care unit. A few days later, she had a cardiac arrest and an unusual out-of-body experience. At one point in this experience, she found herself outside the hospital and spotted a single tennis shoe on the ledge of the north side of the third floor of the building. Maria not only was able to indicate the whereabouts of this oddly situated object, but was able to provide precise details concerning its appearance, such as that its little toe area was worn and one of its laces was stuck underneath its heel. Upon hearing Maria's story, Clark, with some considerable degree of skepticism and metaphysical misgiving, went to the location described to see whether any such shoe could be found. Indeed it was, just where and precisely as Maria had described it, except that from the window through which Clark was able to see it, the details of its appearance that Maria had specified could not be discerned. Clark concluded: "The only way she could have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it back to Maria; it was very concrete evidence for me." (Clark, 1984, p. 243)

That, and many more anecdotal reports, can be found on this page:
Out-of-body - near-death experiences

This is by no means "proof" or "scientific evidence" but it does raise an eyebrow. Are all these people lying? Are they all deluded? Or, is there perhaps something going on here?
The only way to be sure would be to study this claim objectively, which mainstream science currently chooses not to.

[Morality Games]

We understand dreams to be purely subjective, yet the scientific community is interested in studying them.

How do you mean, exactly? Anyway, the circumstances of dreaming are more controllable than near-death experiences. There is no telling when and where there will be a near-death experience or if it is appropriate to study it when doctors are trying to save a person (wouldn't scientists and their devices get in the way?), but everyone dreams peacefully and quietly in their sleep.

The best a scientist could do is, if by some chance they hit the jack pot and it was legal for them to be in the emergency room, is see what kind of chemicals are going off in the brain while a person is undergoing a near death experience (and they would only be able to confirm this experience if the person was brought back to life and remembered what happened during their episode).

The only way to be sure would be to study this claim objectively, which mainstream science currently chooses not to.

Correction: Can't do, no more than it can study or make predictions with Intelligent Design. The logic behind NDE is non-scientific in nature, in that there is no way it can be affirmed or denied positively. All scientists can do is conjecture, which they do: the most likely explanation is near-death experiences are fantasies induced by sporadic chemical processes (aka, people imagine afterlife's while they die).

[davedes]

How do you mean, exactly? Anyway, the circumstances of dreaming are more controllable than near-death experiences. There is no telling when and where there will be a near-death experience or if it is appropriate to study it when doctors are trying to save a person (wouldn't scientists and their devices get in the way?), but everyone dreams peacefully and quietly in their sleep. The best a scientist could do is, if by some chance they hit the jack pot and it was legal for them to be in the emergency room, is see what kind of chemicals are going off in the brain while a person is undergoing a near death experience (and they would only be able to confirm this experience if the person was brought back to life and remembered what happened during their episode).

Have you heard of technology? Technology that records things? Like an EEG? Scientists do not need to stand next to an EEG to realize that it's recording zero brain activity.

You say that since one cannot stand in the presence of an NDE, it cannot be studied? That's ridiculous.

Although you seem to be missing the point completely. An out-of-body experience does not need to be triggered by a near-death experience. They have been induced by certain drugs, such as ketamine, and are commonly induced by a form of meditation. Experienced OBErs can "project" on a near daily basis.

Correction: Can't do, no more than it can study or make predictions with Intelligent Design. The logic behind NDE is non-scientific in nature, in that there is no way it can be affirmed or denied positively. All scientists can do is conjecture, which they do: the most likely explanation is near-death experiences are fantasies induced by sporadic chemical processes (aka, people imagine afterlife's while they die).

What part of "veridical perception" do you not understand?

Veridical perception is a testable, reproducible and verifiable means of determining whether OBEs and NDEs are "objective" (as opposed to purely subjective).

[Radarlove]

Morality Games,

"Science doesn't care about NDE because there is nothing to study..."

This typifies the extraordinary arrogance and narrow-mindedness of certain science fundamentalists like yourself.

What you are suggesting is that around 100 million humans, who have had similar NDE experiences, often backed up by strong veridical evidence which suggests other realities, other dimensions in time and space beyond the physical, are delusional.

Certainly, reading some of your posts, I would suggest you are far more deluded than they are. :o)

[Morality Games]

Have you heard of technology? Technology that records things? Like an EEG? Scientists do not need to stand next to an EEG to realize that it's flat. You say that since one cannot stand in the presence of an NDE, it cannot be studied? That's ridiculous.

.......... the kind of technology you would use to study chemical changes in the brain is nothing like an EEG, and how do you propose a scientist (a) know when a near death experience is about to occur (b) conduct an orderly study under the circumstances surrounding a near death.

If you can't do that, then there is no call for you to call what I say 'ridiculous'.

This typifies the extraordinary arrogance and narrow-mindedness of certain science fundamentalists like yourself.

I'm going to start call you 'super-flake' if you don't drop the (false) commentaries. I'm not a proponet of scientism, I just recognize the domains of science and disapprove of trespasses.

Have you heard of technology? Technology that records things? Like an EEG? Scientists do not need to stand next to an EEG to realize that it's flat. You say that since one cannot stand in the presence of an NDE, it cannot be studied? That's ridiculous. Although you seem to be missing the point completely. An out-of-body experience does not need to be triggered by a near-death experience. They have been induced by certain drugs, such as ketamine, and are commonly induced by a form of meditation. Experienced OBErs can "project" on a near daily basis.

... from study, drugs and meditation are both known to alter brain chemistry, but that does not equate with other planes of existence.

Now, I thought we were talking about NDE in particular? How did I miss the point?

[davedes]

Quote by: Morality Games We understand dreams to be purely subjective, yet the scientific community is interested in studying them. How do you mean, exactly?

I use the analogy of dreams because science understands them as purely subjective experiences. Random firings of neurons that create complex hallucinations, according to much of the current study.

Yet science is still very interested in this phenomenon, and they certainly do study it. What causes it? Do our experiences reflect our subconscious? How can the dream state be benefitial/detrimental to our psyche? Why must we dream? Since dreams are subjective, the experiences must be relayed through broken fragments and memories, rather than objective findings.

It would be an ignorant generalization to claim that such subjective experiences are of no interest to science. Have you ever heard that ringing in your ears, that only you can hear? It's a purely subjective experience, and it's rather difficult to study. Does that mean science has no interest in it? Hell no! Scientists have studied it publicly for decades, just like they study so many other subjective experiences.
Tinnitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One would imagine the scientific community would be very interested in topics such as OBEs and NDEs, even as purely subjective experiences. The hundreds of reports of veridical perception (ie. the claim of verifiable objective experiences) is further incentive to study such a topic. However, these topics continue to be seen as "taboos" in science, and much of the community avoids them like the plague.

[Radarlove]

Morality Games,

"I'm going to start call you 'super-flake' if you don't drop the (false) commentaries."

If those sexy ladies from the adverts eat me, here I am! Nosh, nosh... :o)

YouTube - Suggestive 1960's Flake Commercial

YouTube - cadburys flake advert

This one is for you:

The Chinese Got It Right About Closed Minded People

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Radarlove Morality Games, "I'm going to start call you 'super-flake' if you don't drop the (false) commentaries." If those sexy ladies from the adverts eat me, here I am! Nosh, nosh... :o) YouTube - Suggestive 1960's Flake Commercial YouTube - cadburys flake advert This one is for you: The Chinese Got It Right About Closed Minded People

Let's stick to the debate and less on anecdotes, okay?

[Frasier]

I don't see how the afterlife could possibly exist as it would mean the existence of an immortal soul which, for all intents and purposes would be incoherent of the idea of self - would this soul be "me" after I died? In which case, what was "me" before I died? As Kant suggested, the me that existed on Earth would be so different to any such soul, how could it really be "me"? In which case, how can my self be immortal?

[HelioPrime]

Seems science demands one of two things:

1) Find us evidence that you are even having brain activity while dead or in a state in which case NDE's are clearly BS.

2) Don't find any brain activity in which case all NDE people must be full of shit.

Either was NDE used as an example of an afterlife could never be scientifically accepted. Which means according to science we all rational people should ignore NDE's and not believe in an afterlife.

[davedes]

Quote by: Morality Games .......... the kind of technology you would use to study chemical changes in the brain is nothing like an EEG, and how do you propose a scientist (a) know when a near death experience is about to occur (b) conduct an orderly study under the circumstances surrounding a near death. If you can't do that, then there is no call for you to call what I say 'ridiculous'.

So you are saying that since human death is difficult to study, we should not study it? I think I'm fully justified in calling that ridiculous.

We can't wheel in an electron microscope to view synpases while somebody undergoes cardiac arrest. That's not what I'm suggesting. A more rational approach would be to first study veridical perception in regular OBEs, not near-death situations. It may also be wise to study chemical changes in other animals during near-death experiences.

Perhaps when technology catches up, we will be able to study NDEs without having to be physically present.

... from study, drugs and meditation are both known to alter brain chemistry, but that does not equate with other planes of existence.

This chemical change certainly does not equate to another plane of existence. I never said anything of the sort. The change may play a role in inducing an out-of-body experience, which in turn may, if veridical perception is true, suggest something more than our current understanding of reality.

Proving that an OBE is based on brain chemistry does not "debunk" claims of veridical perception. It may give a reason for why this perception is happening, but it does nothing to argue against the claim itself.

Now, I thought we were talking about NDE in particular? How did I miss the point?

I made it quite clear that I was discussing OBEs as well as NDEs. Almost all NDEs that we have discussed here are those that trigger an out-of-body experience. Most if not all claims of veridical NDE perception stem from an out-of-body experience. In this case, an NDE acts as a "trigger" to induce the out-of-body state.

[davedes]

Quote by: HelioPrime Seems science demands one of two things: 1) Find us evidence that you are even having brain activity while dead or in a state in which case NDE's are clearly BS. 2) Don't find any brain activity in which case all NDE people must be full of shit. Either was NDE used as an example of an afterlife could never be scientifically accepted. Which means according to science we all rational people should ignore NDE's and not believe in an afterlife.

NDEs are tightly linked with OBEs, and as such they should be studied by mainstream science. It would be absolutely ludicrous as rational people to inogre investigation into such an interesting and potentially benefitial topic.

Why are you lot so intent on "disproving" NDEs and removing them from mainstream science? Regardless of the truth in the claims of afterlife/veridical perception, we should still study these topics.

As for your points:
1) Brain activity while dead... That pretty much screams "afterlife." But using the EEG, we know this is not the case. In any case, brain activity during a OBE/NDE does not equate to "NDE is BS."

2) If it was verified that no brain activity exists during a conscious OBE/NDE, that would give a lot of support to the idea of NDE afterlife.

I don't see how either of your points relate to the NDE afterlife being bunk, much less "NDE being bullshit." Please provide some sort of factual and/or intelligent reasoning if you wish to get any further with this argument.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: davedes 2) If it was verified that no brain activity exists during a conscious OBE/NDE, that would give a lot of support to the idea of NDE afterlife. I don't see how either of your points relate to the NDE afterlife being bunk, much less "NDE being bullshit." Please provide some sort of factual and/or intelligent reasoning if you wish to get any further with this argument.

I'm not trying to say NDE's are bunk but I've been around this forum enough to know hows thats going to be attacked.

Scientific folk are never going to give credit to firsthand accounts. If you have someone claiming an experience after a near death event with zero brain activity I'd agree and say thats pretty affirmative afterlife evidence.

But science says you can't think without the brain and brain activity we can verify. So if we don't see any activity then according to science were supposed to doubt you. Ration people are only supposed to give credit to that which is scientifically verifiable.

It's kind of a wall for science really. An experience in the afterlife during such an event could leave no traceable forms of evidence. So because of this according to science we should always reject and ideas of the afterlife. Science hits the wall because it can't consider unknown beyond measure events.

[davedes]

Ah, I see what you're saying. :)

The thing is, though, this can be studied scientifically, using veridical perception.

For example, say I was in a controlled lab experiment. I go "out-of-body" and into the room next to me, where a completely random animation is playing on a computer. I then return and the animation that I saw is verified by the scientists, thus giving support to "objective" OBEs. Repeat that many times over to ensure there is no statistical chance of mere coincidence.

That is the claim for veridical perception. I'm skeptical, but I'd love to see some serious study into it.

If veridical percepetion holds true, the next logical step would be to test it at the time of a flat EEG. It's tricky, but it certainly is doable. And scientists do not need to be present at the time of the NDE in order to study it.

[Jack]

The thing is, though, this can be studied scientifically, using veridical perception.

My attitude is best summed up in the following citation;
parapsychological phenomenon -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

[Piscean]

As long as it still remains in the catagory of unexplained, those who don't want to believe won't have to.