A Neuroscientist Describes His Near-Death Visit To Another Realm

Picture: Jesse Krauß (PD)

Proof of an afterlife, or simply that we really have no idea how the mind works? Via the Daily Beast, Dr. Eben Alexander recounts his trip to a higher plane of existence whilst his brain was shut down in a coma:

As a neurosurgeon, I did not believe in the phenomenon of near-death experiences. I understand what happens to the brain when people are near death, and I had always believed there were good scientific explanations for the heavenly out-of-body journeys described by those who narrowly escaped death.

In the fall of 2008, however, after seven days in a coma during which the human part of my brain, the neocortex, was inactivated, I experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death.

All the chief arguments against near-death experiences suggest that these experiences are the results of minimal, transient, or partial malfunctioning of the cortex. My near-death experience, however, took place not while my cortex was malfunctioning, but while it was simply off. According to current medical understanding of the brain and mind, there is absolutely no way that I could have experienced even a dim and limited consciousness during my time in the coma, much less the hyper-vivid and completely coherent odyssey I underwent.

While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension I’d never dreamed existed.

Toward the beginning of my adventure, I was in a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up sharply against the deep blue-black sky. Higher than the clouds—immeasurably higher—flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamerlike lines behind them. Higher forms.

It gets stranger still. For most of my journey, someone else was with me. A woman. She was young, and I remember what she looked like in complete detail. She had high cheekbones and deep-blue eyes. Golden brown tresses framed her lovely face. When first I saw her, we were riding along together on an intricately patterned surface, which after a moment I recognized as the wing of a butterfly. In fact, millions of butterflies were all around us—vast fluttering waves of them, dipping down into the woods and coming back up around us again.

Without using any words, she spoke to me. The message went through me like a wind, and I instantly understood that it was true. I knew so in the same way that I knew that the world around us was real—was not some fantasy, passing and insubstantial.

The message had three parts, and if I had to translate them into earthly language, I’d say they ran something like this:

“You are loved and cherished, dearly, forever.”

“You have nothing to fear.”

“There is nothing you can do wrong.”

The message flooded me with a vast and crazy sensation of relief. It was like being handed the rules to a game I’d been playing all my life without ever fully understanding it.

I continued moving forward and found myself entering an immense void, completely dark, infinite in size, yet also infinitely comforting. Pitch-black as it was, it was also brimming over with light: a light that seemed to come from a brilliant orb that I now sensed near me. The orb was a kind of “interpreter” between me and this vast presence surrounding me. It was as if I were being born into a larger world, and the universe itself was like a giant cosmic womb.

I’ve spent decades as a neurosurgeon at some of the most prestigious medical institutions in our country. I know that many of my peers hold—as I myself did—to the theory that the brain, and in particular the cortex, generates consciousness and that we live in a universe devoid of any kind of emotion, much less the unconditional love that I now know God and the universe have toward us. But that belief, that theory, now lies broken at our feet. What happened to me destroyed it, and I intend to spend the rest of my life investigating the true nature of consciousness and making the fact that we are more, much more, than our physical brains as clear as I can, both to my fellow scientists and to people at large.

, , , , , , ,

  • Ted Heistman

    Looks like his paradigm was completely turned on its head. Consciousness is primary and then from that springs everything else. The materialist paradigm is that our brains produce consciousness similar to how our mouths produce saliva or our pancreas produced insulin.  

  • Ted Heistman

    Looks like his paradigm was completely turned on its head. Consciousness is primary and then from that springs everything else. The materialist paradigm is that our brains produce consciousness similar to how our mouths produce saliva or our pancreas produced insulin.  

    • Andrew

      Tell that to Phineas Gage.

    • Andrew

      Tell that to Phineas Gage.

      • Nunzio X

        I have a problem with Phineas. After his accident, he developed a “hole-ier than thou” attitude.

        “HOLE-ier.” Get it? See, because that metal rod went up through his skull, and…

        …ah, fuck it.

      • Nunzio X

        I have a problem with Phineas. After his accident, he developed a “hole-ier than thou” attitude.

        “HOLE-ier.” Get it? See, because that metal rod went up through his skull, and…

        …ah, fuck it.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      Or you could look at consciousness as the point where perception of independent but not mutually exclusive planes of existence intersect, and that coventional scientific approaches are incapable of detecting activity outside the intersection of the dimensions of height, length, width and time, and therefore make the understandable attribution error of ascribing ALL consciousness to materialistic factors.

      The materialists may be correct that there is a critical correlation between speech and healthy activity within certain areas of the brain–but not necessarily in their conviction that a person is not “conscious” simply because he does not speak.

      • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

         hear here!

      • David Howe

         science is incapable of detecting things that do not exist.

        • Kevin Leonard

          science used to be incapable of detecting ultraviolet radiation. does that mean that it didn’t exist before science developed the measuring devices?

          • David Howe

            the answer is obviously no. ultraviolet radiaion existed long before we had instruments to measure it.  I said that science cannot detect things that don’t exist.  the afterlife doesn’t exist. science cannot detect it. I might add that you can’t claim to have evidence if you reject rationality.  You can’t have it both ways.

          • Mr Grimsby

             Err no, _you_ can’t have it both ways. ;-)

            Assuming for a moment that both you and this site had existed prior to the first detection of ultraviolet rays, your stance now is the equivalent to declaring over and over back then that ultraviolet radiation definitely does not exist, because science hasn’t measured it, and science can’t detect things that don’t exist…

            On a broader note, why do you feel the need to constantly reiterate that something we cannot know for sure (either way!) at this point, definitively does not exist?

            Just because we haven’t developed the tools to measure it?

            Who are you to say that we won’t, someday?

            Is your faith in your beloved god Science so shallow,, so lacking, that you can’t even begin entertain the notion of something outside your own experience?

            What is it that you are so scared of?

          • FuzzyCodgitator

             You’re proselytizing all over these comments trying your damnedest to convince everyone that what you believe is the truth. And yet if you’re so certain, you wouldn’t need to convince anyone because the truth is true regardless of who believes it. So more than anything you come off as someone desperately trying to avoid admitting that what you’re so sure of, may not really be true. Much like the cult members that have more intense convictions after their predictions don’t come true than before, you’ve chose your side and you’re consistent. Kudos. Now relax. No one cares.

          • FuzzyCodgitator

             You’re proselytizing all over these comments trying your damnedest to convince everyone that what you believe is the truth. And yet if you’re so certain, you wouldn’t need to convince anyone because the truth is true regardless of who believes it. So more than anything you come off as someone desperately trying to avoid admitting that what you’re so sure of, may not really be true. Much like the cult members that have more intense convictions after their predictions don’t come true than before, you’ve chose your side and you’re consistent. Kudos. Now relax. No one cares.

          • Kate

             I don’t understand how you can argue this. Is it not possible that we simply do not yet have the instruments to detect the afterlife? And I don’t think that the ability to detect something is really what causes it to exist. In fact, I’m pretty sure science would embrace all possibilities, including the idea that some things may exist which we are incapable of detecting. In addition, if the afterlife exists, it would be detectable, though perhaps not so from earth. (Indeed, if this story is true, the afterlife HAS been detected; it simply was not possible for him to record his detection except in his memories.)

          • Kate

             I don’t understand how you can argue this. Is it not possible that we simply do not yet have the instruments to detect the afterlife? And I don’t think that the ability to detect something is really what causes it to exist. In fact, I’m pretty sure science would embrace all possibilities, including the idea that some things may exist which we are incapable of detecting. In addition, if the afterlife exists, it would be detectable, though perhaps not so from earth. (Indeed, if this story is true, the afterlife HAS been detected; it simply was not possible for him to record his detection except in his memories.)

          • Kate

             I would also like to add that I did not mean to be rude by saying “I don’t understand how you can argue this,” etc. I just  meant it literally and politely, if that is at all possible. :)

          • Guest

            what if afterlife exists but science cannot detect it yet?

          • Calypso_1

            Yes you can. 

          • Calypso_1

            Yes you can. 

  • Andrew

    There are some things I don’t want to be in unity with.

    • M-theory

      Yeah – like, people who watch X-Factor… 

  • Kevin Leonard

    Had to almost kill a scientist to get them to accept non-material reality.,,

    • http://www.facebook.com/joey.tedeschi.1 Joey Tedeschi

      could it be any other way to a true scientist?

    • http://www.facebook.com/joey.tedeschi.1 Joey Tedeschi

      could it be any other way to a true scientist?

    • David Howe

      There’s no such thing as non-material reality.  We materialists call that “imagination” and it’s fabulous but it’s not reality.

    • David Howe

      There’s no such thing as non-material reality.  We materialists call that “imagination” and it’s fabulous but it’s not reality.

      • Kevin Leonard

        If only you had an imagination.. and didn’t patently dismiss the possibility of anything that can’t be measured, we might actually be able to have a discussion, but you are irrational in your rationality.

        • David Howe

           so…….what makes you so sure I don’t have an imagination?

          • Rush Stopper

            Imagination shows itself in the originality of thoughts or actions. Can you invent something never been invented before? Or do you think that people have already discovered all the musical genres, scientific theories, technological advancements and so on. Or do you perhaps rely on other people to invent and use their imagination because you think it’s their job. Or is it that you can only use your brains in the span of learned patterns of your society, culture or history of your family. What makes a lot of people think you might not have imagination is truly your attitude that doesn’t portray humility – after all even the everyday perception of reality is just an interpretation of our own brains. We don’t perceive and detect infrared radiation through our peripheral nervous system, though we use it’s existence in our everyday life when flipping the channels on our TV. People before 1800 didn’t know of the existence of this and were as narrow-minded about things they can’t see as you are regarding the possibility of a consciousness after the dissolution of our physical body.

          • Rush Stopper

            Imagination shows itself in the originality of thoughts or actions. Can you invent something never been invented before? Or do you think that people have already discovered all the musical genres, scientific theories, technological advancements and so on. Or do you perhaps rely on other people to invent and use their imagination because you think it’s their job. Or is it that you can only use your brains in the span of learned patterns of your society, culture or history of your family. What makes a lot of people think you might not have imagination is truly your attitude that doesn’t portray humility – after all even the everyday perception of reality is just an interpretation of our own brains. We don’t perceive and detect infrared radiation through our peripheral nervous system, though we use it’s existence in our everyday life when flipping the channels on our TV. People before 1800 didn’t know of the existence of this and were as narrow-minded about things they can’t see as you are regarding the possibility of a consciousness after the dissolution of our physical body.

          • bobbiethejean

            You can have an imagination and still not believe in nonsense like the idea that humans have souls that extent their personalities beyond death. 

          • bobbiethejean

            You can have an imagination and still not believe in nonsense like the idea that humans have souls that extent their personalities beyond death. 

          • Shy Hoi

            You said you have an open mind so I would appreciate if you could consider this scenario. Imagine you by some elaborate means “find God”, I’m sure you said earlier you’d be “singing it from the rooftops instead of cashing in”, but the real question is, in such a hypothetical scenario, why should you attempt to prove that God exists to someone who fails to simply believe what you say? Much more interesting is the question of how can you prove that God exists when all “evidence” of “god” is held in the so called supernatural” to the average person by yourself. If you put yourself in those shoes you would understand the difficulty caused by this such a discussion. If you put yourself in those shoes you would realise that its up to the person to believe you or not, and only by faith (taking your word for it) can someone believe the words you say as they themselves have not seen. We as human beings are quite understandably so more willing to believe in that which we can sense than that which we cannot. Thus it is written, blessed are those that do not see and yet believe. Finally I believe everyone has a fair and equal chance to find the truth if the truth is what they seek. And as a note I believe the world our present consciousness and life and everything around us is the evidence we seek as proof of “God” as it is written somewhere, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork”. What more evidence of an artist do you need than his work!? Food for thought?

          • bobbiethejean

            You look at a tree and see god. I look at a tree and see a tree that came from another tree which came from another tree and so on all the way back to the first days when self-replicating molecules were beginning to acquire lipid bi-layers and form the precursors to what we now call life. I’m not being obtuse, I simply can’t believe in magical, supernatural things unless I experience them for myself KNOWING that there is absolutely no other possible explanation. I can’t make myself believe something I find inherently ridiculous. The idea that there’s a magical man who created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE yet somehow cares about the intimate goings on in the life of an utterly insignificant, nose-picking primate…. let alone an entire species of utterly insignificant, nose-picking primates…. it sounds absurd to me.

            Now of course, that doesn’t mean god is not real. He could be. But I see absolutely no reason to believe. We have scientific explanations for how we, the world, the solar system, and possibly even the universe came to be that DO NOT require magic or the interference of any magical beings.

            I am a hardcore skeptic with an open mind but I cannot believe in something like this until it proves itself to me. I am not capable. I have no faith. If that means I burn in hell for eternity, how is that fair? That’s like punishing a blind person because he can’t see.

          • Shy Hoi

            I don’t believe you’re being obtuse, I also understand your perspective as it is in many ways logical and undeniably somewhat intelligent..

            I caution you about logic however, you should try to realise if you don’t already know that this same logic by which we defend our beliefs is in no way absolute. It is subjective and is created by the environment in which we are nurtured. For example, you might know about time dilation and how time has a different “pace” depending on the frame.in which it is measured in. This is in NO way logical to non physicist. To highlight this point I will further add that despite this scientific observation being completely illogical to non physicist AND physicist alike, whether we experience the infinitesimally small changes in time as we move between frames or not they still exist.

            About God I want you to quickly try this.

            First, consider your existence,

            Secondly, Quickly retrace the steps in your mind that must’ve taken place for you to exist.

            Thirdly consider your consciousness and determine if you are alive or not.

            Finally consider that if in fact you do exist and have life and consciousness that you yourself are “a magical” phenomena. The irony is that we have so much difficulty believing that a being superior to us can exist from nothing when we have no difficulty believing that we can exist from nothing. Consider further that you yourself are a superior being and how you in actuality have a tremendous amount of power by the breath you wield, over all things which we can interact with in this universe.

            As SUPERIOR BEINGS with open minds we should then embrace the real POSSIBILITY of lower and higher life forms as we witness lower life forms daily.

            Finally if we are indeed the highest life forms existing, then we are undoubtedly the Gods of the universe and the lower life forms which are too small for us to communicate with might be wondering if we really exist. Either way in my mind there is no doubt that there is a God or gods existing in this universe. To me this is the first step to finding out who or what God is or where he is. Who know’s we might be too small to communicate with such a vastly large and superior being, we might even be flying planes and trains around inside his pores and wondering, where the hell is God.

            About your last comment about punishing a blind person because he can’t see, its actually quite not like that. To see this, consider this “thought experiment”. A guy you don’t know calls your home phone or cell or whatever you use giving you intel that there’s a bomb placed somewhere in your home or place of abode. Now whether you see this or not you have a choice to excercise FAITH that he might be right and hence caution by checking or leaving the area or FAITH that it’s a prank call and you can continue doing whatever you like to do at home. You could be right or you could be wrong, and both of your actions are justified. After all you can’t just call of school evertime there’s a bombscare when a huh? And still you can’t excercise “too much caution” when dealing with issues of life and death also huh? Either way, the point im making is that the result of the situation cannot be counted a punishment if it turns out badly and a reward if it turns out good. Do you begin to get my point?
            Now the reason why I outlined areas where you use faith is because faith is an important issue. You said you are not capable, you have no faith. This however is impossible. Every man is given a measure of faith, one cannot exist normally without faith or without making assumptions. Both you and I have assumed and have had faith that everything we wrote or said made at least a modicum of sense. These are as intrinsic quantities in every human and as they must be for the underlying logic of your last statement is also in many ways irrevocable. It would only be “FAIR” to punish your “ignorance” if you are CapablE of having faith, of believing in something that you had not seen. They’re a thousand things i’ve said right and thousands more I have said wrong but I hope you get my point like I did yours for I myself have great difficulty believing in many “supernatural events”, yet I choose based on my upbringing and my subjective “logic” to believe by faith that a gracious God exists and that I myself nor our flawed humanity are that God. I’m not sure how familiar you are with psychology but I’ve recently been watching the effects of subliminal messages and advertising, etc and how the choices we make though we believe them to be ours are really influenced by external factors. I find such discussions incredibly interesting and I’m always most willing to have an interactive and respectful discussion on humanity and the possibility of God and various questions we have no defining answer for. Enjoy your day.

          • Shy Hoi

            I don’t believe you’re being obtuse, I also understand your perspective as it is in many ways logical and undeniably somewhat intelligent..

            I caution you about logic however, you should try to realise if you don’t already know that this same logic by which we defend our beliefs is in no way absolute. It is subjective and is created by the environment in which we are nurtured. For example, you might know about time dilation and how time has a different “pace” depending on the frame.in which it is measured in. This is in NO way logical to non physicist. To highlight this point I will further add that despite this scientific observation being completely illogical to non physicist AND physicist alike, whether we experience the infinitesimally small changes in time as we move between frames or not they still exist.

            About God I want you to quickly try this.

            First, consider your existence,

            Secondly, Quickly retrace the steps in your mind that must’ve taken place for you to exist.

            Thirdly consider your consciousness and determine if you are alive or not.

            Finally consider that if in fact you do exist and have life and consciousness that you yourself are “a magical” phenomena. The irony is that we have so much difficulty believing that a being superior to us can exist from nothing when we have no difficulty believing that we can exist from nothing. Consider further that you yourself are a superior being and how you in actuality have a tremendous amount of power by the breath you wield, over all things which we can interact with in this universe.

            As SUPERIOR BEINGS with open minds we should then embrace the real POSSIBILITY of lower and higher life forms as we witness lower life forms daily.

            Finally if we are indeed the highest life forms existing, then we are undoubtedly the Gods of the universe and the lower life forms which are too small for us to communicate with might be wondering if we really exist. Either way in my mind there is no doubt that there is a God or gods existing in this universe. To me this is the first step to finding out who or what God is or where he is. Who know’s we might be too small to communicate with such a vastly large and superior being, we might even be flying planes and trains around inside his pores and wondering, where the hell is God.

            About your last comment about punishing a blind person because he can’t see, its actually quite not like that. To see this, consider this “thought experiment”. A guy you don’t know calls your home phone or cell or whatever you use giving you intel that there’s a bomb placed somewhere in your home or place of abode. Now whether you see this or not you have a choice to excercise FAITH that he might be right and hence caution by checking or leaving the area or FAITH that it’s a prank call and you can continue doing whatever you like to do at home. You could be right or you could be wrong, and both of your actions are justified. After all you can’t just call of school evertime there’s a bombscare when a huh? And still you can’t excercise “too much caution” when dealing with issues of life and death also huh? Either way, the point im making is that the result of the situation cannot be counted a punishment if it turns out badly and a reward if it turns out good. Do you begin to get my point?
            Now the reason why I outlined areas where you use faith is because faith is an important issue. You said you are not capable, you have no faith. This however is impossible. Every man is given a measure of faith, one cannot exist normally without faith or without making assumptions. Both you and I have assumed and have had faith that everything we wrote or said made at least a modicum of sense. These are as intrinsic quantities in every human and as they must be for the underlying logic of your last statement is also in many ways irrevocable. It would only be “FAIR” to punish your “ignorance” if you are CapablE of having faith, of believing in something that you had not seen. They’re a thousand things i’ve said right and thousands more I have said wrong but I hope you get my point like I did yours for I myself have great difficulty believing in many “supernatural events”, yet I choose based on my upbringing and my subjective “logic” to believe by faith that a gracious God exists and that I myself nor our flawed humanity are that God. I’m not sure how familiar you are with psychology but I’ve recently been watching the effects of subliminal messages and advertising, etc and how the choices we make though we believe them to be ours are really influenced by external factors. I find such discussions incredibly interesting and I’m always most willing to have an interactive and respectful discussion on humanity and the possibility of God and various questions we have no defining answer for. Enjoy your day.

          • David Howe

            all these words are necessary? do you really need all this so that you can have palm readers?

          • Shy Hoi

            you have lost me…

          • David Howe

            huh?

          • StephenOfEden

             your innate inability to believe that it plays a fundamental role in who what where how and why you even EXIST.

          • David Howe

            you need a dictionary. look up the word “innate”. Also, you are using a logical fallacy as a method to insult me. Not very sporting.

      • Kevin Leonard

        “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” -Albert Einstein

        • Soruh Frake

           Nice one! :D

        • Soruh Frake

           Nice one! :D

        • Soruh Frake

           Nice one! :D

        • Soruh Frake

           Nice one! :D

          • David Howe

             I agree that’s a lovely sentiment indeed, despite the appeal to authority.  Einstein, however, would never mistake a crazy dream for an experience of the afterlife.

          • David Howe

             I agree that’s a lovely sentiment indeed, despite the appeal to authority.  Einstein, however, would never mistake a crazy dream for an experience of the afterlife.

          • David Howe

             I agree that’s a lovely sentiment indeed, despite the appeal to authority.  Einstein, however, would never mistake a crazy dream for an experience of the afterlife.

          • StephenOfEden

             because the man who said “God does not play dice with the universe” in observation of quantum mechanics could never believe in the law of thermodynamics which states energy is neither created nor destroyed when applied to conscious energies.

          • StephenOfEden

             because the man who said “God does not play dice with the universe” in observation of quantum mechanics could never believe in the law of thermodynamics which states energy is neither created nor destroyed when applied to conscious energies.

          • bobbiethejean

            There is no such thing as “conscious energy.” You’re talking about the electrical impulses fired between neurons which dissipates when we die. Our brain is essentially an organic machine, like a computer. When you pull out your motherboard, would you computer have a NDE? Or would it just stop working?

            Incidentally, Einstein was a pantheist. He believed the universe was god in a very naturalistic sense. He famously did not have much patience for the kind of nonsense you’re proposing. He rejected prayer, did not believe in a personal god, he rejected the idea of life after death, and he clearly denied the existence of personality extending beyond death. Yes, the atoms that made you up will always exist but guess what, YOU won’t. Your thoughts won’t. Your personality won’t. Einstein’s thoughts.  

            Why don’t you try making actual arguments for yourself instead of copy-pasta quotes from other people?

          • bobbiethejean

            There is no such thing as “conscious energy.” You’re talking about the electrical impulses fired between neurons which dissipates when we die. Our brain is essentially an organic machine, like a computer. When you pull out your motherboard, would you computer have a NDE? Or would it just stop working?

            Incidentally, Einstein was a pantheist. He believed the universe was god in a very naturalistic sense. He famously did not have much patience for the kind of nonsense you’re proposing. He rejected prayer, did not believe in a personal god, he rejected the idea of life after death, and he clearly denied the existence of personality extending beyond death. Yes, the atoms that made you up will always exist but guess what, YOU won’t. Your thoughts won’t. Your personality won’t. Einstein’s thoughts.  

            Why don’t you try making actual arguments for yourself instead of copy-pasta quotes from other people?

          • StephenOfEden

             and i suppose throwing a couple hundred names out there and quoting wikipedia isnt exactly that?

            to say your brain is a computer is hysterical. you realize that light itself surrounds the structure of dna in a vaccum and remains in place even when the matter of dna is destroyed … computers do that to though i suppose. you realize conciousness is vibration, and vibration doesnt DISSIPATE you scientist you. you know vibration never ceases to effect its surroundings. and also considering youre not really into paranormal things, its confusing you know my thoughts. because coincidentally you have no idea how i define god.

          • bobbiethejean

            I was merely countering with your own tactic and additionally, I DID make an argument, unlike you. Now you’re actually making an argument… oh, goodie, let’s see here….

            [to say your brain is a computer is hysterical.]

            No it isn’t. In fact, the brain is factually an organic computer by definition.

            [conciousness is vibration]

            That is absurd and untrue.

            I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. There is nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation.

          • bobbiethejean

            I was merely countering with your own tactic and additionally, I DID make an argument, unlike you. Now you’re actually making an argument… oh, goodie, let’s see here….

            [to say your brain is a computer is hysterical.]

            No it isn’t. In fact, the brain is factually an organic computer by definition.

            [conciousness is vibration]

            That is absurd and untrue.

            I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. There is nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation.

          • http://www.facebook.com/luke.mctaggart.77 Luke McTaggart

            Just so you know, DNA torsion fields are in no way facts…I tried to find something solid, to no avail.

          • http://www.facebook.com/luke.mctaggart.77 Luke McTaggart

            Just so you know, DNA torsion fields are in no way facts…I tried to find something solid, to no avail.

          • StephenOfEden

             and i suppose throwing a couple hundred names out there and quoting wikipedia isnt exactly that?

            to say your brain is a computer is hysterical. you realize that light itself surrounds the structure of dna in a vaccum and remains in place even when the matter of dna is destroyed … computers do that to though i suppose. you realize conciousness is vibration, and vibration doesnt DISSIPATE you scientist you. you know vibration never ceases to effect its surroundings. and also considering youre not really into paranormal things, its confusing you know my thoughts. because coincidentally you have no idea how i define god.

          • Richelle Witbrodt

            If you mean you as in your personal earth identity as of 2012, sure. I don’t think anyone is talking about, for example, John Smith, dying and being John Smith the earth-ghost forever and ever.  Personal identity will always be temporary. 
            Remember when people dismissed the theory that the earth was not round? This working scientific theory of consciousness is the challenge for our age, and it faces the same scrutiny and dismissal largely because the means of measurement cannot be formatted for our current structures.

          • Richelle Witbrodt

            If you mean you as in your personal earth identity as of 2012, sure. I don’t think anyone is talking about, for example, John Smith, dying and being John Smith the earth-ghost forever and ever.  Personal identity will always be temporary. 
            Remember when people dismissed the theory that the earth was not round? This working scientific theory of consciousness is the challenge for our age, and it faces the same scrutiny and dismissal largely because the means of measurement cannot be formatted for our current structures.

          • bobbiethejean

            There are ways of testing that the earth is round. Presently, there is no room for a soul nor is there any way to test it. Everything a human needs to function can be described by natural causes. Incidentally, some people knew the Earth was round 2000 years ago. Not only is the existence of souls presently untestable, unnecessary, and unproven, I don’t think it ever can be.

          • bobbiethejean

            There are ways of testing that the earth is round. Presently, there is no room for a soul nor is there any way to test it. Everything a human needs to function can be described by natural causes. Incidentally, some people knew the Earth was round 2000 years ago. Not only is the existence of souls presently untestable, unnecessary, and unproven, I don’t think it ever can be.

          • David Howe

            wha?

          • David Howe

            wha?

          • Chris MacDonald

            How the hell can you possibly say what Einstein would or wouldn’t do? Oh…..you must be talking to him on the other side.
            So you *DO* believe in the afterlife! Ah-ha! Busted!

        • Soruh Frake

           Nice one! :D

        • Soruh Frake

           Nice one! :D

        • bobbiethejean

          Einstein’s opinion, however lovely and romantic it may be, is still an opinion, not fact.

          • StephenOfEden

             which you know doubt dupe yourself into believing you have all thereof and cannot possibly be wrong because of. you have never even observed true fact, because you cannot understand the fractal nature of truth. what albert einstein said in that quote was Not an opinion, but an irrefutable and lawful observation of the nature of consciousness itself. without imagination, there would never have been such thing as a supposed fact. observing the quote, knowledge is limited to what we hold true, which any scientist such as yourself would know, changes CONSTANTLY … so your facts are only facts until proven wrong. youve shut more doors than you can ever imagine with this mode of thought.

          • Chris MacDonald

            There can be no denying the results Einstein acheived using his imagination. That is fact.
            Barring accidental discoveries (and I’ll leave the “there are no accidents” argument for another post), nothing created by man just happened…imagination came first. Always.
            If you can’t see that, then frankly, there is no hope for you. Stick to your five senses and have a nice life lol

      • Oddysey_41

        the marerial world you refer too is not material at all every single thing including our bodies are made of condensed energy your mind just persieve’s it to be material or tangible.

      • Tony Wildcock

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9pR0gfil_0
        there is a non-material reality, it´s a information one. :)

      • Tony Wildcock

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9pR0gfil_0
        there is a non-material reality, it´s a information one. :)

      • StephenOfEden

         makes perfect sense. we see less than a tenth of a percent of electromagnetic radiation as color, but something outside of that 300 nanowave span form 400 to 700 nanowaves, simply cannot and does not exist. structures cannot possible be formed out of light, and we already completely understand what light is, so nothing shapes us but us. even though we know matter technically is only impermiable due to vibration at a molecular level, it is impossible to percieve that the governing vibrations shaping the matter around you, nonetheless shape your conscious as a whole. fractal nature is a fact, but that in no way humanly concievable means that the rule that life always contains less complex life within itself could extend past our cells, us, and mother earth. oh wait but earth cant be alive  …. because its made of dirt… other matter … like us. or is it because she never bothered to learn english. and the rule couldnt extend past her even if you accepted that as fact. the galaxies couldnt be the governing entity over the stars as you are to your cells because it doesnt have feet or a mouth, and it hasnt told me its name. and past that, galaxies to the universe comparatively could not possibly mean that your being is as that of a cells cells cell to the concious being that is the universe that some have so illaudably and reprehensibly called God.

      • StephenOfEden

         makes perfect sense. we see less than a tenth of a percent of electromagnetic radiation as color, but something outside of that 300 nanowave span form 400 to 700 nanowaves, simply cannot and does not exist. structures cannot possible be formed out of light, and we already completely understand what light is, so nothing shapes us but us. even though we know matter technically is only impermiable due to vibration at a molecular level, it is impossible to percieve that the governing vibrations shaping the matter around you, nonetheless shape your conscious as a whole. fractal nature is a fact, but that in no way humanly concievable means that the rule that life always contains less complex life within itself could extend past our cells, us, and mother earth. oh wait but earth cant be alive  …. because its made of dirt… other matter … like us. or is it because she never bothered to learn english. and the rule couldnt extend past her even if you accepted that as fact. the galaxies couldnt be the governing entity over the stars as you are to your cells because it doesnt have feet or a mouth, and it hasnt told me its name. and past that, galaxies to the universe comparatively could not possibly mean that your being is as that of a cells cells cell to the concious being that is the universe that some have so illaudably and reprehensibly called God.

        • http://twitter.com/Zordabo ZordaboM

          I’m glad you exist.

        • http://twitter.com/Zordabo ZordaboM

          I’m glad you exist.

      • Chris MacDonald

        Just posted in another disinformation article:
        “Critics need to recognize that those standing on the side of parapsychology are often those making a difference in the sciences, whereas biased skepticism fills the ranks of career debunkers and media pundits, not those at the forefront of research. Scientific inquiry is moved forward by open-minded investigations of the available data, which should never be skewed by dogma to fit anyone’s point of view. Nor should the data be treated as a nuclear spill that needs to be cleaned up post haste.”
        LOL love it.

      • Chris MacDonald

        Just posted in another disinformation article:
        “Critics need to recognize that those standing on the side of parapsychology are often those making a difference in the sciences, whereas biased skepticism fills the ranks of career debunkers and media pundits, not those at the forefront of research. Scientific inquiry is moved forward by open-minded investigations of the available data, which should never be skewed by dogma to fit anyone’s point of view. Nor should the data be treated as a nuclear spill that needs to be cleaned up post haste.”
        LOL love it.

        • David Howe

          you are confusing rationality for dogmatism. do you really think that the laws of physics are designed as an enforcement tool? If so, you need to upgrade your understanding of science. you can’t have it both ways. you can’t claim to have proof of something and then reject the rational criteria that proves you wrong.

    • bobbiethejean

       Just because someone thinks something or has “an experience” doesn’t make it reality.

      • StephenOfEden

         youre right .. youre so much smarter than descartes. for eons to come generations will remember and teach your insight bobbiethejean. because “i think therefore i am” involves too much thinking for the hipster-philosopher on the go. and in the future, your mindset could be all that exists. i hope your happy.

      • StephenOfEden

         youre right .. youre so much smarter than descartes. for eons to come generations will remember and teach your insight bobbiethejean. because “i think therefore i am” involves too much thinking for the hipster-philosopher on the go. and in the future, your mindset could be all that exists. i hope your happy.

        • bobbiethejean

          The fact that Descartes was the famously intelligent and practically fathered modern philosophy, impressive as that is, still does not constitute proof for the supernatural. 

          I’ll pose to you the same challenge I pose to everyone here: prove it. Put up or shut up. Show me ONE thing we know about the supernatural for sure. Go ahead. Name one thing we KNOW about “souls” with the same certainty we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid revolving around the Sun in space. So far, the only thing we know for sure is that supernatural claims have failed time and time again to stand up to even the most delicate scientific scrutiny.  

          Also, you want to start throwing around big names in place of making an actual argument? Bill Gates, Niel Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Chomsky, Friedrich Nietzshe, Jeremy Bentham, Democritus, Clarence Darrow, Daniel Dennet, David Hume, Bertrand Russel….. and well holy fucking shit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology BAM.

          I can keep going. And we can do this dance all day. Or you can try to make an actual argument.

        • bobbiethejean

          The fact that Descartes was the famously intelligent and practically fathered modern philosophy, impressive as that is, still does not constitute proof for the supernatural. 

          I’ll pose to you the same challenge I pose to everyone here: prove it. Put up or shut up. Show me ONE thing we know about the supernatural for sure. Go ahead. Name one thing we KNOW about “souls” with the same certainty we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid revolving around the Sun in space. So far, the only thing we know for sure is that supernatural claims have failed time and time again to stand up to even the most delicate scientific scrutiny.  

          Also, you want to start throwing around big names in place of making an actual argument? Bill Gates, Niel Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Chomsky, Friedrich Nietzshe, Jeremy Bentham, Democritus, Clarence Darrow, Daniel Dennet, David Hume, Bertrand Russel….. and well holy fucking shit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology BAM.

          I can keep going. And we can do this dance all day. Or you can try to make an actual argument.

          • StephenOfEden

             argument 1,
            the universe is infinite due to a fractal nature.
            in an infinity, no matter what the odds are, it exists.

            argument 2,
            big names? bill gates isnt really smart … read up on him. hes a business man who had an idea, wrote it on a napkin, and put it into action for profit.
            neil tyson is a scientist who has massive peer pressure not to look like a wierdo for the sake of his reputation. he believes that God is the answer for people who dont have scientific evidence. hes spinning a paradigm to gain traction. the point being that if you just attribute it fo a god you dont seek any further because thats good enough. the problem with that is hes ignoring the other option. learning the way God does his work is plenty of motivation to observe reality to the most minute detail. the fact being that you cannot argue that you could be observing god in all that you see. all that is and was. you could be looking for proof of his existence the same way a cell in your body seeks to see if you exist. think about it this way, if a cell in you no longer believes you exist and starts to grow and replicate as its own entity, its called cancer. youre cancer.

            chris hitchens is another unfounded yet firm believer in atheism. contrary to your argument that you dont know, he thinks he did, and now hes dead. from CANCER. ironic.

            Chomsky … and i quote. “noam, how do you define god?” “I DONT”
            how can you possibly go about saying something doesnt exist if you have never even defined that something, this fundamental error nullifies the ensuing thoughts about the subject.

            nietzshe said “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” first, in order for him to be dead, he must have been alive. second and foremost, he claims WE have killed him. specs of sand on a thousand beaches killed god. no, our ignorance has lost us sight of him, you dont know where he is, or how to see him, so like a grief stricken person does, you claim he is dead and move on. what you dont understand is that the laws that govern conciousness dictate that you are actually telling yourself that youre dead. coincidentally, he died, absurdly young, from syphilis related paralysis. a rough way to go for someone who believes there is no god.

            ill stop there, the point being that the assertion that there is no such thing as god placed under the scrutiny of one who has observed such a god, can never remain withstanding. and again experience trumps the knowledge of the experience. without the experience, you have no ground to argue amongst believers. to us, unless you have seen him, and still say he doesn’t exist, your argument is void of sincerity and meaning. and since when you see him, the way so many of us have to varying degrees, you no longer say he doesnt exist, and that is where this neuroscientist is coming from.

          • StephenOfEden

             argument 1,
            the universe is infinite due to a fractal nature.
            in an infinity, no matter what the odds are, it exists.

            argument 2,
            big names? bill gates isnt really smart … read up on him. hes a business man who had an idea, wrote it on a napkin, and put it into action for profit.
            neil tyson is a scientist who has massive peer pressure not to look like a wierdo for the sake of his reputation. he believes that God is the answer for people who dont have scientific evidence. hes spinning a paradigm to gain traction. the point being that if you just attribute it fo a god you dont seek any further because thats good enough. the problem with that is hes ignoring the other option. learning the way God does his work is plenty of motivation to observe reality to the most minute detail. the fact being that you cannot argue that you could be observing god in all that you see. all that is and was. you could be looking for proof of his existence the same way a cell in your body seeks to see if you exist. think about it this way, if a cell in you no longer believes you exist and starts to grow and replicate as its own entity, its called cancer. youre cancer.

            chris hitchens is another unfounded yet firm believer in atheism. contrary to your argument that you dont know, he thinks he did, and now hes dead. from CANCER. ironic.

            Chomsky … and i quote. “noam, how do you define god?” “I DONT”
            how can you possibly go about saying something doesnt exist if you have never even defined that something, this fundamental error nullifies the ensuing thoughts about the subject.

            nietzshe said “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” first, in order for him to be dead, he must have been alive. second and foremost, he claims WE have killed him. specs of sand on a thousand beaches killed god. no, our ignorance has lost us sight of him, you dont know where he is, or how to see him, so like a grief stricken person does, you claim he is dead and move on. what you dont understand is that the laws that govern conciousness dictate that you are actually telling yourself that youre dead. coincidentally, he died, absurdly young, from syphilis related paralysis. a rough way to go for someone who believes there is no god.

            ill stop there, the point being that the assertion that there is no such thing as god placed under the scrutiny of one who has observed such a god, can never remain withstanding. and again experience trumps the knowledge of the experience. without the experience, you have no ground to argue amongst believers. to us, unless you have seen him, and still say he doesn’t exist, your argument is void of sincerity and meaning. and since when you see him, the way so many of us have to varying degrees, you no longer say he doesnt exist, and that is where this neuroscientist is coming from.

          • bobbiethejean

            [The universe is infinite due to a fractal nature.
            in an infinity, no matter what the odds are, it exists.]

            Prove both of those claims. If you can’t, then you shouldn’t be making arguments at that level.

            [big names] You can sit and impugn, demean, and deride every single one of the names I put down or you can accept the fact that throwing around names of believers v atheists is fucking stupid which was the point I was attempting to make. I don’t care who’s a believer and who is an atheist- that has NO bearing on the lack of evidence for the supernatural.

            [the point being that the assertion that there is no such thing as god]

            I never said there is no such thing as god. There may be. But since you believers are making the assertion that there is a god, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. There is no more an obligation for me to accept your claims about the supernatural when the supernatural remains as of yet utterly unproven.

            [you have no ground to argue amongst believers]

            Wrong. My ground is this: You can’t prove it. Maybe it does exist. Maybe you did experience something. Or maybe you’re delusional or crazy or hallucinating. I don’t know. Therefore I cannot accept your claims of the supernatural.

            [and that is where this neuroscientist is coming from.]

            To me, it looks like the neurosurgeon is coming from either a place of confusion or cashing in. I find it awfully funny that he’s selling his story for a price. If I “found god” I’d be singing it from the rooftops for everyone to hear, I wouldn’t be trying to cash in on it. Otherwise, he could simply be mistaken. It would need to be tested and as I have pointed out, these kinds of claims consistently fail real scientific scrutiny.

          • bobbiethejean

            [The universe is infinite due to a fractal nature.
            in an infinity, no matter what the odds are, it exists.]

            Prove both of those claims. If you can’t, then you shouldn’t be making arguments at that level.

            [big names] You can sit and impugn, demean, and deride every single one of the names I put down or you can accept the fact that throwing around names of believers v atheists is fucking stupid which was the point I was attempting to make. I don’t care who’s a believer and who is an atheist- that has NO bearing on the lack of evidence for the supernatural.

            [the point being that the assertion that there is no such thing as god]

            I never said there is no such thing as god. There may be. But since you believers are making the assertion that there is a god, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. There is no more an obligation for me to accept your claims about the supernatural when the supernatural remains as of yet utterly unproven.

            [you have no ground to argue amongst believers]

            Wrong. My ground is this: You can’t prove it. Maybe it does exist. Maybe you did experience something. Or maybe you’re delusional or crazy or hallucinating. I don’t know. Therefore I cannot accept your claims of the supernatural.

            [and that is where this neuroscientist is coming from.]

            To me, it looks like the neurosurgeon is coming from either a place of confusion or cashing in. I find it awfully funny that he’s selling his story for a price. If I “found god” I’d be singing it from the rooftops for everyone to hear, I wouldn’t be trying to cash in on it. Otherwise, he could simply be mistaken. It would need to be tested and as I have pointed out, these kinds of claims consistently fail real scientific scrutiny.

          • 7HPS

            Prove that all there is to the universe is what we can measure as “matter”. You can’t!

          • bobbiethejean

            I never once made that claim because if I did, I’d have to prove it. Kinda like how if you claim you can speak to the dead, you should have prove it, even if not scientifically.

          • Aphugel

            This is BS. One of the first lessons in logical thinking is: You can not prove a negative. So while your statement is logically correct, your thrust is not.
            You can not prove it, yes, but this inability proves nothing.

          • B. Johnson

            ” I find it awfully funny that he’s selling his story for a price. If I
            “found god” I’d be singing it from the rooftops for everyone to hear, I
            wouldn’t be trying to cash in on it.”

            And you my friend have just won the cigar! I absolutely agree.

          • HearMeOrLetMeBe

            Notice: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone at this time.

            For some odd reason I stumbled upon this site, this post and these comments. Apparently, even though I have better things to do rather than arguing -which I believe in most cases is pointless; as long as I know the truth, I do not care if others refuse to acknowledge the truth- I thought to myself, “Why Not?” which is one of the same things which leads to “curiosity killed the cat” and even though I, myself and many usually think, “Who cares?” Almost everyone has cared some what at least once to even discuss truth/facts/fictions at all. Why would you talk so passionately/poorly/etc about that which you do not/no longer care about? -Because you once did, simply interested, simply thrown on you, either way, you cared some-what.

            I do not care to change the opinions of others, for an opinion is simply that.
            Truth or not, an opinion is nothing more with out proof others can see or others of those who believe.

            I could go on about the truth, though, it would be pointless.

            If you must know…

            The supernatural can not be proven to all simply because it is not the norm which people know and acknowledge these days, or even as far back as factual/proven history goes with out it being turned into legged. I do not care to prove such things, just a most of such things existence rely upon being known or unknown.

            Cancer?~
            If one who is cancer or has cancer with in refuses to believe one’s self to be cancer or have cancer with in, may become nonexistent or even exist even more or become to exist.

            One who acknowledges the cancer can choose to rise against/give in/ or simply except that idea that it is there and move on doing absolutely nothing.

            Every individual is different yet completely indifferent.
            Just because five people saw the same thing does not mean they will all interpret it the same way. They saw it as ‘they’ saw it. There is nothing more, yet countless perceptions.

            For all those who think have the right to an opinion. For all those who think nothing, still, they feel, thus, an opinion can be formed. For those who feel nothing, knowing you feel nothing, to acknowledge the feeling of nothing is a feeling its self. To feel nothing, you must have felt something in the past or are going to feel something in the future. —I could ramble on more about these things, though pointless it would be.

            I no longer feel like rambling on for I have decided to move on and get back to projects. If someone replies to this, I do not know if I will reply back or even know if someone has ever replied at all. There for, I say it now.

            *Have An Excellent Eternity, See Ya!~

            …apparently I made an account with Disqus.com after realizing this site was a sub site and felt the need to keep it so that no one else has this name here. Though, it truly does not matter for many have the same name and a name is nothing more than a title, not who or what you truly are. Oh Joy!~

          • http://twitter.com/CarlineBenois Carline Benois

            You’ve got a good point..
            I think for the “supernatural” things that may or may not be in our world…just because we can’t prove them, doesn’t mean we should completely throw them out of the window and say that it doesn’t exist.
            There are many things we don’t know about our world and we are constantly learning about it. Just because we don’t have proof now, doesn’t mean we won’t have proof later.

          • bobbiethejean

            I never said I completely throw the idea of the supernatural out the window but until it is proven, it is silly to believe unless you’ve experienced something personally. Even then, it is still wrong to expect other people to believe your subjective, personal experience without evidence.

            If you witness a ghost, I have no way of knowing whether or not you’re lying, deluded, hallucinating, or actually experiencing a ghost. And if you’re making the positive assertion “the supernatural is real,” the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Anyone can make up any claim and we do not just believe them by default do we?

            My main contention here is that if the supernatural actually existed, you’d think we’d know SOMETHING about it.

          • bobbiethejean

            I never said I completely throw the idea of the supernatural out the window but until it is proven, it is silly to believe unless you’ve experienced something personally. Even then, it is still wrong to expect other people to believe your subjective, personal experience without evidence.

            If you witness a ghost, I have no way of knowing whether or not you’re lying, deluded, hallucinating, or actually experiencing a ghost. And if you’re making the positive assertion “the supernatural is real,” the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Anyone can make up any claim and we do not just believe them by default do we?

            My main contention here is that if the supernatural actually existed, you’d think we’d know SOMETHING about it.

          • Kevin Leonard

            This is the most diplomatic statement I have seen you make. And I largely agree with you.

            A major factor at play, here, is whether the nature of reality is entirely objective, or whether there exists a certain subjectivity within that nature. I contend that when someone has an other-worldly experience, that it *is* a part of that person’s reality. I completely agree with you that one shouldn’t expect another to accept that as part of their reality. In fact, I think that person should deeply question their own interpretation of that experience, especially if they have only had the experience once.

            We get into the realm of belief vs knowing. When it comes down to it, the only thing we can really know is our own experience. Even in science, we ultimately have to trust, or believe, that what others have said is reality. I have no way of knowing if those scientific studies are lying, or if they are deluded, or if they are actually conspiring against humanity in manipulating the data to keep people on expensive pharmaceutical drugs for the rest of their life. Or… unless you have made the measurements yourself and done the math, you simply have to believe that the earth is round and orbits the sun. It may be a fact, but you do not have the direct experience, so you just have to believe it.

            How about more realistic examples? We believe that gravity is a function of an object’s mass and rotation. We believe the Universe started with a Big Bang. We believe proteins and DNA to be the basic building blocks of life.

            These things are not proven, but they fit within models that have been formed by people’s experience. Likewise, people have had experiences of what you call the supernatural, that fit within models other people have formed. We do know SOMETHING about it. We just don’t have measurements.

            I have been vehemently opposed to allowing the label of “believer” to be applied to myself because I know that beliefs can be shattered. But I, and others, have had experiences that cannot be completely explained by scientific measurement. If I am trying to uncover the Truth, capital “T” about my experiences, I have to look to other models of reality. Like a scientist, I operate under a hypothesis, an assumption, that something might be true and proceed with my investigations. Those investigations just happen to lead away from “hard science.”

            Is there REALLY a burden of proof? Is what we are trying to prove even provable within your model of reality? what would it take? This is a serious question I am posing to you. What would convince you that we have an existence beyond our physical bodies?

          • Kevin Leonard

            This is the most diplomatic statement I have seen you make. And I largely agree with you.

            A major factor at play, here, is whether the nature of reality is entirely objective, or whether there exists a certain subjectivity within that nature. I contend that when someone has an other-worldly experience, that it *is* a part of that person’s reality. I completely agree with you that one shouldn’t expect another to accept that as part of their reality. In fact, I think that person should deeply question their own interpretation of that experience, especially if they have only had the experience once.

            We get into the realm of belief vs knowing. When it comes down to it, the only thing we can really know is our own experience. Even in science, we ultimately have to trust, or believe, that what others have said is reality. I have no way of knowing if those scientific studies are lying, or if they are deluded, or if they are actually conspiring against humanity in manipulating the data to keep people on expensive pharmaceutical drugs for the rest of their life. Or… unless you have made the measurements yourself and done the math, you simply have to believe that the earth is round and orbits the sun. It may be a fact, but you do not have the direct experience, so you just have to believe it.

            How about more realistic examples? We believe that gravity is a function of an object’s mass and rotation. We believe the Universe started with a Big Bang. We believe proteins and DNA to be the basic building blocks of life.

            These things are not proven, but they fit within models that have been formed by people’s experience. Likewise, people have had experiences of what you call the supernatural, that fit within models other people have formed. We do know SOMETHING about it. We just don’t have measurements.

            I have been vehemently opposed to allowing the label of “believer” to be applied to myself because I know that beliefs can be shattered. But I, and others, have had experiences that cannot be completely explained by scientific measurement. If I am trying to uncover the Truth, capital “T” about my experiences, I have to look to other models of reality. Like a scientist, I operate under a hypothesis, an assumption, that something might be true and proceed with my investigations. Those investigations just happen to lead away from “hard science.”

            Is there REALLY a burden of proof? Is what we are trying to prove even provable within your model of reality? what would it take? This is a serious question I am posing to you. What would convince you that we have an existence beyond our physical bodies?

          • bobbiethejean

            [This is the most diplomatic statement I have seen you make. And I largely agree with you.]

            Well thanks? ^__^; That largely depends on how things are presented to me and what kind of a mood I’m in. I have very little patience for people asserting something as true without proof or even any evidence and telling me I’m stupid/ignorant/closeminded because I don’t believe them. I do not actually deny the existence of the supernatural- I simply don’t ~believe~ it for myself. It may exist out there but I don’t know that and until the supernatural produces some actual results in some kind of verifiable way, I won’t believe it.

            [believe that the earth is round and orbits the sun]

            I am not going to dismiss this point of your offhand, not at all. In fact this is a good point except I disagree with the examples. There are simple ways most any human can verify that the earth is round. I think we can also look to the heavens and verify that the Earth goes around the sun. Now when it comes to thinks like big bang cosmology and theoretical physics, in those cases, yes, we have to hope the scientists aren’t just jerking us around as badly as a lot of clergymen do.

            However, I’d also contend that while we can’t always verify certain aspects of science for ourselves, A LOT of our daily lives depend on scientists knowing what they’re doing. We have modern science to thank for the entirety of modern society. I find it fairly easy to trust and believe in the people who gave me air conditioning, internet, clean, running water, and medical science which granted my mother a liver transplant that saved her life. The big difference between the two worlds is that one is not something I can sense or make use of in any way- the other gives me very real things that I can see and touch like my computer screen and wacom tablet.

            [I know that beliefs can be shattered]

            This is the core principle I operate on. I assume that at any given point in time, almost anything I believe could be proven false. When I say I “Know” something, I mean I know it with in the limited, changeable human context. To truly “know something,” in my mind, means to tentatively accept it in the understanding that it could be turned on its head someday. I will defend evolution like a bitchcunt but the day it is proven false, I will spin on a dime. My beliefs do not make me who I am so I have no problem discarding them when need be.

            [Is there REALLY a burden of proof?]

            This is the real crux of the dilemma. Supernatural events (whether they exist or not) resist scientific testing. They are never repeatable, never predictive, never testable, and not falsifiable. Therefore, I don’t think science can ever even really say anything about the supernatural. For something supernatural to be “known” we would need to know it through some other means than science- that is unless something supernatural manifested which could meet the rigors of scientific testing and peer review. I don’t think that will happen and I’m not even sure it is possible by science’s standards.

            For me to fully and truly accept the supernatural, I would need to see something happen that does not and could not have ANY naturalistic explanation. Other people would have to witness it as well, many, the more the better. It would have to be on every news station all over the planet. Probably after a year of scientists being stumped, I would begin to believe it (depending on what the event was).

            Make sense?

          • Kevin Leonard

            It does make sense. And I certainly understand your attitude toward “believers.” I have to admit that there are few rational thinkers among them posting on the web (excluding this site, of course;-).

            But you are wrong in stating that “supernatural events” are never repeatable and never predictive. Indeed, within certain authentic systems of meditation, experiences are very repeatable and to a large extent, predictive. However, discernment should be a large part of any legitimate spiritual inquiry, and I admit that this is often lacking – which is why I can be an apologist for the materialist’s belief system, as well.

            What I don’t understand, though, is why, if you agree that “supernatural” events (I don’t really like that term) are non falsifiable, why bother arguing in scientific terms? If it doesn’t conform to scientific standards, it is non-arguable from scientific standards. That is essentially begging the question the same way that Bible thumpers say that God wrote the Bible because it says so in the Bible.

            I see the argument as a false dichotomy, anyway. It is common for me to be called a “believer” by materialists and a heretic or even an atheist by fundamentalists.

            One thing is certain. We will know when we are dead. Or we won’t.

          • http://twitter.com/CarlineBenois Carline Benois

            You’ve got a good point..
            I think for the “supernatural” things that may or may not be in our world…just because we can’t prove them, doesn’t mean we should completely throw them out of the window and say that it doesn’t exist.
            There are many things we don’t know about our world and we are constantly learning about it. Just because we don’t have proof now, doesn’t mean we won’t have proof later.

          • 7HPS

            Asking metaphysical proof to be shown in the physical seems rather silly. Just because something isn’t readily detectable by our 5 senses or the technological extension thereof, doesn’t mean that there isn’t more to reality than we normally come into contact with.

            In fact, science proves there is so much more to existence than the tiny sliver that we can detect. “Dark matter” makes up an estimated 85 to 95% of the “matter” of the universe. Quantum physics confirms what mystics have said for centuries about the nature of reality being essentially an illusion or a hologram. These are ideas worth exploring.

            It is unfortunate for you to be hopelessly locked into this left-brained 5 sense reality and ignore all other possibilities even though the evidence shows us that our realm of existence is quite narrow. Plenty of scientific experiments only lead to more questions instead of answers. Ever wondered why that is? What caused the Big Bang Theory? You need to dig a little deeper.

          • bobbiethejean

            [Asking metaphysical proof to be shown in the physical seems rather silly.]

            Why? If it actually exists, then it should have implications in the physical world. Besides, I already mentioned that science may not be able to say anything about the supernatural. That doesn’t mean people making magical claims are exempt from proving their claims. Just believing people’s ridiculous claims because they sound nice and make you feel good seems silly to me.

            [Just because something isn't readily detectable by our 5 senses]

            That’s true. But again, I require proof or at least some kind of empirical evidence.

            [Quantum physics confirms what mystics have said for centuries]

            I don’t know who told you that but it confirms absolutely no such thing. Talk to any quantum physicist and they will tell you that quantum mechanics describes the nature of the micro-world; subatomic particles and such. There is surprisingly little room for woo-woo in quantum mechanics.

            [It is unfortunate for you to be hopelessly locked into this left-brained 5 sense reality and ignore all other possibilities]

            It’s unfortunate for you to make assumptions about my mental processes. I am very open-minded. I am ready and willing to spin on a dime if confronted with evidence for the supernatural. However, I am not a credulous, gullible tool blundering through life in a cloud of willful ignorance, believing whatever idiocies happen to tickle my metaphysical fancies at the moment. I demand evidence and proof.

          • Kevin Leonard

            [Why? If it actually exists, then it should have implications in the physical world.]

            But it does. Brain activity in the form of thoughts and emotions, in a different model, represents the interface of the mind to the body, not the source of those thoughts. Plus, the people who have had deep spiritual experiences tend to go through profound changes in the way they manage their lives. There is also the host of experiences with esp that people report. Just because the resonance in the physical world isn’t tidy, doesn’t mean it is not there.

            [I already mentioned that science may not be able to say anything about the supernatural.]

            Yes. And I was hoping you might answer why you are not begging the question. Because you sound, now, like you are just begrudging others for having an experience outside of science

            [I require proof or at least some kind of empirical evidence.]

            em·pir·i·cal   [em-pir-i-kuhl]
            adjective
            1.derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

            I submit that you are not looking hard enough and are turning away from what empirical evidence exists and is available. As I mentioned before, there are numerous systems of meditation in which you can conduct a personal experiment, and will more than likely get an experience that will convince you there is far more than means the eye in this “supernatural” world.

            If you want empirical evidence, seek it out. The truth of it will not come knocking at your door.

          • HPS7

            “If it actually exists, then it should have implications in the physical
            world.” Really? Is that a physical law? Is that how it works?
            HAHAHA! The universe owes you no such explanation!

            Memory
            exists, but nobody can find where in the brain it is stored. Explain
            dark matter. Why is the spectrum of light energy so incredibly wide,
            yet our natural and technological perceptions of it remain so narrow?
            Why does our observation of electrons collapse the wave form? There is
            evidence in quantum physics that our reality is a hologram and nothing
            is solid. The math supports this and it explains more than trying to
            smash “matter” apart until we realize we can go no further, yet we know
            something is still there…but we cannot measure it. Look up the work
            of David Bohm, Dr. Pribram, Dr. Leonard Susskind.

            http://butterfliesfree.com/?page_id=10

          • Justin_Khase

            Doesn’t make it falsity either. BTW – the validity of your existence (for those of us who have read this article) wasn’t “proven” until your first comment. Absent scientific proof, how do we know YOU exist either ? Your arrogance, like most of those likeminded, rears its’ ugly head. Like the rest of us, everyday of your life is based in (dare I say the word) faith. Unless you can publish a minute-by-minute account of what you, with complete certainty, know what will happen in your life and can PROVE it using standard scientific methods; you’re no better than the rest of those blathering idiots with whom you apparently identify. And with those of us “religious idiots” whose sandals you’re not worthy to stoop and unloose, as it were.

          • bobbiethejean

            What a ridiculous argument chock full of ad hominems and empty, pointless tripe. You can do as much tapdacing and burden of proof-shifting as you like but the bottom line is, if you make a claim, it is on you to prove it. THE END. If you want to be a credulous, gullible git believing whatever nonsense happens sound “nicest” to you, go ahead but don’t expect those of us with actual brains in our heads to believe you.

          • Guest

            I’m somewhat of a fool so please bare with me.

            I do not believe in the soul as being some sort of spiritual force separate from our
            physical body. Never seen one. Never felt one. Never tasted one… and so on.
            I do believe that the Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting a
            star we call Sun. But god damn it, man… I have never seen it. I have
            never been in outer space at the precise distance for me to observe
            this. I believe it because an elite group of people (but not necessarily
            together) that had/have an extraordinary intelligence told me so. They
            came up with all kinds of mathematical equations that my primitive brain
            can’t understand so I instead memorize them and come to their
            conclusions. They also invented all kinds of technology, that I will
            probably never have access to, to send another very exclusive group of
            people so they could look down on Earth and say -yup, it’s an oblate
            spheroid alright- And they are usually geniuses so their word is law. So
            I met this chick and she was hot! I know I’ve seen her before but I
            can’t remember where… Anyway, I have no idea what point Im trying to
            make or where I am going.

            I also wanna throw in some names, but not big ones. I wanna throw in some long names.

            Alexander. Christophorus. Maximilliano. Christiannabel. Steffannia. Giantholeinthetorso.
            That last one is a name. LOOK IT UP!

            I’d like to end with a quote. ” it is silly to believe unless you’ve experienced something personally” by bobbiethejean

          • bobbiethejean

            [But god damn it, man... I have never seen it.] There is a GREAT deal of documentation and proof for the fact that the Earth is round. The same cannot be said for the soul.

            [that had/have an extraordinary intelligence told me so.] Actually, you can mathematically prove the Earth is round for yourself. Alexander the Great did it over 2 thousand years ago.

            [And they are usually geniuses so their word is law.] No their word is not law. However, if it turns out it’s not law, it won’t be us who figure it out, it will be one of them because we don’t know what they do.

            [it is silly to believe unless you've experienced something personally]

            When I said that I was specifically speaking to the supernatural seeing as how there is absolutely no proof for it. If you experience a ghost personally, then you have legitimate reasons to believe but you can’t expect other people to believe your personal, subjective experience unless you have some kind of proof. No on has proof, not even evidence. We have wishful thinking and hope.

      • StephenOfEden

         youre right .. youre so much smarter than descartes. for eons to come generations will remember and teach your insight bobbiethejean. because “i think therefore i am” involves too much thinking for the hipster-philosopher on the go. and in the future, your mindset could be all that exists. i hope your happy.

      • Jchris1421

        Soooooo your saying you choose to stay dumb?

      • Jchris1421

        Soooooo your saying you choose to stay dumb?

        • bobbiethejean

          I’m the one who’s dumb because I don’t believe in unproven, untestable, magical stupid bullshit? No. Have a look in the mirror, tard.

        • bobbiethejean

          I’m the one who’s dumb because I don’t believe in unproven, untestable, magical stupid bullshit? No. Have a look in the mirror, tard.

          • http://www.facebook.com/brian.l.miller1 Brian Lloyd Miller

            Don’t worry. You won’t have the “unproven. untestable, magical stupid bullshit” experience when you die. And your callous use of the word “‘tard” says more about your character than you probably should consciously expose.

          • bobbiethejean

            “My character” has very little tolerance for ignorant, stupid bullshit and even less tolerance for presumptive toolbags who think they know my character through a handful of comments on a website.

          • Kevin Leonard

            the irony is killing me

          • bobbiethejean

            Your failure to correctly identify irony isn’t killing me, it’s barely even making me chuckle. I think that was more of a snort. Yep. Definitely a snort.

          • Kevin Leonard

            ” incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play”

            I think the word is applicable for such a hypocritical, overstrung, overwrought, drama-thriviing stage troll such as yourself.

          • bobbiethejean

            The irony is killing me.

          • Kevin Leonard

            how original

          • GUEST LOL

            omg it’s actually HILARIOUS that you think you’ve won “Kevin Leonard”, I just stumbled across this now and you’re making yourself look like an IDIOT. Oh man, I could describe every little detail why I think that but you’d just insult my intelligence or say some other empty insult that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that you’re a remarkable imbecile

          • Kevin Leonard

            If you were really paying attention, you would see that my insults are only directed at those who avoid the issue and simply throw insults at me. So by all means, “GUEST LOL,” make yourself heard in an intelligent manner, stop being an insolent twit and join the discussion.

          • u mad?

            “If I paid attention”

            Really dude? I… I did pay attention… That’s why I said that, you unbelievably stupid being. You were attacking someone who WAS giving you arguments, you fucking idiot, and not only that, but they are GOOD arguments. “Stage troll” you called them; THAT was the main thing “LOL” was directed towards, because THAT PERSON WAS PRESENTING THE MOST SOUND ARGUMENTS ON HERE. Not that you know what a sound argument is. So why do you think I called myself “GUEST LOL”? Because I tailor my identity to my audience, and you, sir, are not worthy of a single fact about myself because you are not here to discourse, you’re here to find “proof” that your beliefs are correct. And guess what my response is? That’s right, LOL.

            Because why would I present myself in an “intelligent manner” to scum like you, when you are clearly too fucking retarded to even know what an argument is? This fucking planet is filled to this brim with imbeciles like you and I lost patience for them a looong time ago. And let me tell you, you know jackshit of what I’m talking about so don’t even try to respond to that. I have a slew of arguments but I’m not wasting my goddamned time on people like you, with attitudes like yours, who have already ruined countless lives over the course of human history. Just because you are so goddamned fucking convinced that YOU are right. The world would be a better place if intolerant, stubborn people like you were dead. And I don’t give a fuck what anyone says in response to me because most of the suffering in this world is due to human nature/ignorance/idiocy, and quite frankly most people don’t actually give a fuck about truth, they only care about proving themselves right.

            Also, are you one of those people who think replying last means you win? I know I’m repeating myself, I just can’t help it, but… well, lol, really. And because you clearly don’t actually know what “lol” stands for, it means “laughing out loud”, which is what I was doing at all your comments. So, criticizing me on using the term? Not really valid, bro.

          • Kevin Leonard

            You are funny, “u mad,” because, obviously, you are mad. My “stage troll” comment and the bit starting with “the irony is killing me” was really referring to an argument bobbiethejean and I were having on another thread. So, though you think you have the full story, you do not. Further, if you were really paying attention, you would also realize that I never insult someone’s intelligence simply because they present an opposing view to my own. And since your version of an argument is nothing more than a string of child-like ad hominems, I am done with you. “Winning” by commenting last is not part of my goal, so feel free to have the last word.

          • Guest

            All your arguments are excellent and anyone here who says they’re bad, or who just insults you, is actually a lower being and not worthy of your time and efforts. Seriously, there are so many idiots on this site (or rather, the internet… no, even more so, the world), so I wouldn’t even bother trying to convince them. Their conviction and beliefs are stronger proofs to them than any actual argumentation.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=549920197 Arthur Volts

        Try and experience things beyond your own backyard, live life and see what’s out there instead of being a repeater from what you read in books and you MAY be one of those people who push the boundaries of thought and understanding.

        Be a discoverer.

        And just because someone says “this is reality, we have proof”, doesn’t make it true. Science is ALWAYS proving itself wrong changing what bits of reality are accepted and what is metaphysical non sense.

        • bobbiethejean

          That sounds nice but it’s just a euphemism for “I want an excuse to play make-believe even though I’m an adult.” I don’t see any problem with demanding hard proof. I am very open-minded but no so much so that my brains fall out. ;)

  • guest

    Life after death spirituality is bullshit, There is a finite line between life and death that you cannot cross and return from. No one living no mater how close to death they came have only gone into the recesses of their mind not a afterlife. 

  • guest

    Life after death spirituality is bullshit, There is a finite line between life and death that you cannot cross and return from. No one living no mater how close to death they came have only gone into the recesses of their mind not a afterlife. 

    • Kevin Leonard

      Oh, life after death is bullshit?

      http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/300x/407332.jpg
      You must have tried both already.

    • Kevin Leonard

      Oh, life after death is bullshit?

      http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/300x/407332.jpg
      You must have tried both already.

      • David Howe

        yes.  yes it is.

      • David Howe

        but I heard that there is sex after death. we just won’t be able to feel it.

        • Calypso_1

          …I suppose, if one’s corporeal remains have attracted the affections of a necrophiliac.

    • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

       prove it for us will ya

    • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

       prove it for us will ya

      • StephenOfEden

         a proof,

        lets say the odds are astronomical that you pull a red marble out of a bag with a googleplex of marbles. lets say there are both an infinite amount of drawings, and an infinite amount of marbles. you know, because we exist in INFINITY.

        now apply the same math to the possibility of the existence of god.

      • StephenOfEden

         a proof,

        lets say the odds are astronomical that you pull a red marble out of a bag with a googleplex of marbles. lets say there are both an infinite amount of drawings, and an infinite amount of marbles. you know, because we exist in INFINITY.

        now apply the same math to the possibility of the existence of god.

        • David Howe

          however, a red marble is a predetermined fact. the existence of god is not.

    • Ghost

      *sigh*

      “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”– Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943″Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”– Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.”Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”– Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.”Everything that can be invented has been invented.”– Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
      “Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction”.– Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
      “$100 million dollars is way too much to pay for Microsoft.”– IBM, 1982While the quotes above do not necessarily pertain to *an* ‘afterlife’ (emphasis on the word “an” to point out the grammatical error in your original post), I think they do highlight the need for caution when making assumptions.

      I can understand how a person who lacks personal experience with something can have misgivings or doubts, but to emphatically declare that something does not exist simply because it falls outside of ones own paradigm is, well, lazy at best and harmful at worst.

      I would respectfully suggest curtailing any declarations as to the intracacies of human conciousness, at least in writing, lest you end up sharing the same fate as the people quoted above; blissfully ignorant and completely, utterly, publicly, wrong.

    • Ghost

      *sigh*

      “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”– Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943″Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”– Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.”Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”– Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.”Everything that can be invented has been invented.”– Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
      “Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction”.– Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
      “$100 million dollars is way too much to pay for Microsoft.”– IBM, 1982While the quotes above do not necessarily pertain to *an* ‘afterlife’ (emphasis on the word “an” to point out the grammatical error in your original post), I think they do highlight the need for caution when making assumptions.

      I can understand how a person who lacks personal experience with something can have misgivings or doubts, but to emphatically declare that something does not exist simply because it falls outside of ones own paradigm is, well, lazy at best and harmful at worst.

      I would respectfully suggest curtailing any declarations as to the intracacies of human conciousness, at least in writing, lest you end up sharing the same fate as the people quoted above; blissfully ignorant and completely, utterly, publicly, wrong.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/WOZCPE3Z3TUQ22CYQ5G5IZSNGE John

         Ghost I think the fake skeptics are sincerely terrified of the idea of an afterlife.  Understandably, they were terrified by horrid stories foisted from Islam and Christianity about how terrible it would be, if you do not join their cult.  But the terrified fake skeptics use the tactics of arguing to be right, as a substitute for true research and inquiry.  This is a process of ignorance.  And for us who are caught in the middle, it is indeed frustrating.   I am fine as long as the Abrahamic Religions and the Fake Skeptics do not start dictating what gets published in our media, and what I am to believe.

        Science has NO opinion so far on an afterlife, so faker skeptics who make extraordinary claims that an afterlife does not exist (and yes, since plurality exists on this issue, they DO have to prove such a claim under Occam’s Razor – just as afterlife proponents must also prove theirs) as well as religious terrorists who claim that it is a structure of their own gods’ making…they are BOTH wrong.

        The reality of an afterlife pre-existed the arrival of both the Abrahamic and Skeptic Religions.  And remains the same despite their crying and screaming.

        • Marco

           If only they would pay attention to the most important part of his message:
          “You are loved and cherished, dearly, forever.”
          “You have nothing to fear.”
          “There is nothing you can do wrong.”

          • http://twitter.com/GoodEatsGuru Lucas Knapp

             For serious, Marco.  Hear, hear.

          • StephenOfEden

             I REALLY love you …

        • David Howe

           Absent evidence, there is no afterlife, regardless of how insulting and personal your remarks.

          • Haystack

            I think the idea here is that Eben Alexander’s experience could constitute evidence, if it’s really true that the operations of his cortex could be eliminated as an explanation for what happened to him. 

          • Haystack

            I think the idea here is that Eben Alexander’s experience could constitute evidence, if it’s really true that the operations of his cortex could be eliminated as an explanation for what happened to him. 

          • josh

            How does he know this experience didn’t happen before his cortex shut down? And all of this information that he’s recalling is simply the last thing he remembers BEFORE the cortex completely shut down? It just seems to me that he went through the typical NDE as the brain was dying and this is the last thing he remembers.

          • Haystack

            He doesn’t. I agree that he can’t rule out brain activity as the cause of his experience…but then, can you ever? If someone is reporting an NDE, then their brain was active at some point. It seems that both the materialist and non-materialist interpretations of NDEs are essentially non-falsifiable. 

          • Haystack

            He doesn’t. I agree that he can’t rule out brain activity as the cause of his experience…but then, can you ever? If someone is reporting an NDE, then their brain was active at some point. It seems that both the materialist and non-materialist interpretations of NDEs are essentially non-falsifiable. 

          • David Howe

            the only thing that “happened” to him was entirely in his imagination.

          • Haystack

            He had a meaningful experience that was as real for him as his waking life. I happen to think that it was probably caused by brain activity, but I wouldn’t minimize or ridicule it for that reason. 

            You’re not really making an argument here; you’re just kind of scoffing. 

          • David Howe

            The burden of proof is not on me

          • Ghost

            Lets try a different slant….
            What would it take to convince you that an afterlife exists? What kind of ‘proof’ (be specific now) would you require?

            You see, this is the impression I have of you: You’re smart, you’re stubborn, and most likely you’ve been spoon fed your entire life and are used to receiving things with immediacy, so you’re a tad lazy.
            Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their role to play, and I for one can certainly understand the desire for concrete evidence, upfront.

            But to me, you’re like the skinny kid who walks into a gym and says to the biggest guy in the place, “prove to me I can get muscles like yours”
            And the big guy says, “Well, I can show you the exercises I did to get this way”
            And you say, “No, that won’t prove anything. I need to *know* that I’ll end up looking like you before I begin.”

            Without experience, you demand proof, yet when someone explains to you that the only way to obtain proof is through personal experience, you become petulant. Man, that’s one hell of a trap you’ve put yourself into.
            Maybe you’re happy there. Good for you then :)

            I stand by my original arguement – that you miss the point entirely – when you take a hardliner “it can’t possibly happen because there is no absolute proof” stance.
            That point is this (and it is the way out of your trap, should you be inclined to pay attention): most worthwhile things in this world have to be believed before they can be experienced.

            Best of luck to you.

          • http://twitter.com/Zordabo ZordaboM

            His capacity to use his imagination at that given time was supposedly non existent. Didn’t you read it all?

          • David Howe

            no, it’s not. you really need to learn all the facts here.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Schrodinger’s Afterlife

          • Kevin Leonard

            Schrodinger’s Afterlife

          • David Howe

            is that code?

          • Kevin Leonard

            Do you really mean to tell me that you don’t understand this? If you cannot comprehend the reference and how it applies to the discussion, you really have no business in the discussion, regardless of your position, especially with your “I’m-smarter-than-you” attitude.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Do you really mean to tell me that you don’t understand this? If you cannot comprehend the reference and how it applies to the discussion, you really have no business in the discussion, regardless of your position, especially with your “I’m-smarter-than-you” attitude.

          • David Howe

            more code? Are we speaking English here?

          • Kevin Leonard

            playing dumb suits you

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Sacred Geometry International

            Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Sacred Geometry International

            Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

          • Omahakangen

            Very good post

          • bobbiethejean

             It’s been investigated and amazingly enough, we’ve found nothing, probably because there is nothing to find.

          • bobbiethejean

             It’s been investigated and amazingly enough, we’ve found nothing, probably because there is nothing to find.

          • Ghost

            Entirely false.
            I would suggest looking into what physicists (some of the world’s *top* physicists in their day) discovered during their exploration and development of remote viewing or remote influencing (loose translation) in the soviet union.
            Actually, if you really look hard enough on the internet, you can find how to contact some of the people that were involved in the program, so don’t take my word for it. Call them and ask them yourself.
            Or…..keep posting falsehoods. Your choice.

          • Ghost

            Entirely false.
            I would suggest looking into what physicists (some of the world’s *top* physicists in their day) discovered during their exploration and development of remote viewing or remote influencing (loose translation) in the soviet union.
            Actually, if you really look hard enough on the internet, you can find how to contact some of the people that were involved in the program, so don’t take my word for it. Call them and ask them yourself.
            Or…..keep posting falsehoods. Your choice.

          • bobbiethejean

            You’re the one posting falsehoods. Name one thing we know for sure about the supernatural, aside from the fact that it does not stand up to actual scientific scrutiny. Name one thing we know for sure about souls or ghosts or the afterlife. Just one, one thing that we know with the same certainty we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid revolving around the Sun. One thing.

          • bobbiethejean

            You’re the one posting falsehoods. Name one thing we know for sure about the supernatural, aside from the fact that it does not stand up to actual scientific scrutiny. Name one thing we know for sure about souls or ghosts or the afterlife. Just one, one thing that we know with the same certainty we know the Earth is an oblate spheroid revolving around the Sun. One thing.

          • Chris MacDonald

            In order to embrace the possibility of something so ‘out there’ as an afterlife, or the supernatural, one definitely has to step outside of his/her comfort zone. Some people just won’t, even if you push, pull or drag them, or simply offer them a way. Don’t be that person. If you want to learn how to explore other worlds, I suggest opening up — just a little. Going along with what I have stated before (posted as “Ghost”), most discoveries in life HAVE TO be believed before they can be seen. I didn’t write that rule, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
            And I will tell you, as solemnly as I can, remote viewing (and a host of other ‘psychic’ phenomena) are still in use and studied by many governments (including the U.S.), for many different reasons.
            Taken from the Ions Institute of Noetic Science:
            There are presently four classes of published and carefully examined ESP experiments that are independently significant, with a probability of chance occurrence of less than one time in a million.
            1. Remote Viewing. Princeton University Professor Robert Jahn (Dean of Engineering) and his associate Brenda Dunn oversaw two decades of remote-viewing experiments with Princeton students as subjects. Students in the laboratory were asked to describe their mental impressions of what they saw at a site where someone was hiding at a randomly chosen distant location. “These remote-viewing students had to fill out a thirty-item questionnaire to quantify their perceptions in this game of psychic hide-and-go-seek. Their findings—spanning several years and comprising a series of 411 trials—showed that it is no harder to remote view hundreds of miles in the distance than it is to describe a person around the corner. Furthermore, it is no harder to describe a randomly chosen hiding place to be selected in the next hour, day, or week than it is to describe a hidden event underway at the same moment. Modern physics would describe these phenomena as nonlocal, in that they are experimentally found to be independent of space and time. Nonlocality and entanglement, which were first described by Erwin Schrödinger in the late 1920s, are now hot research topics in modern physics. This intriguing phenomenon is explained very clearly and amusingly by Anton Zeilinger, one of the world’s leading experimentalists in quantum optics, in his 2010 book Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Teleportation. Zeilinger writes:
            Entanglement describes the phenomenon that two particles may be so intimately connected to each other that the measurement of one instantly changes the quantum state of the other, no matter how far away it may be . . . this nonlocality is exactly what Albert Einstein called “spooky”; it seems eerie that the act of measuring one particle could instantly influence the other one.2
            Robert Jahn’s highly significant results were published in the Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in 1982 as a replication of our original SRI remote-viewing experiments published in the same journal six years earlier.3 These data show odds greater than a billion to one (1.8 x 10-11) against chance expectation—strong evidence for the existence of nonlocal mind.
            2. Distant Mental Influence. In the 1970s and 1980s, William Braud and Marilyn Schlitz carried out nineteen successful experiments in what they called Distant Mental Influence on Living Systems (DMILS).4 In these experiments, a precursor to other distant-healing experiments supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the researchers showed convincingly that the thoughts of one person can affect the physiology (heart rate, skin resistance, etc.) of a distant person in another laboratory. Braud was able psychically to calm or excite the physiology of a person hundreds of feet away. Marilyn Schlitz is now the president of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California. Braud, who is now teaching at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology (ITP) in Palo Alto, California, has published twelve of his highly significant formal experiments in an excellent book called Distant Mental Influence.5
            3. The Ganzfeld. Over a span of thirty years, several researchers at five different laboratories here and abroad carried out telepathy experiments in which one person was in a situation of sensory isolation called ganzfeld, which is German for “whole field isolation.” This person was asked to describe his or her ongoing mental impressions of an interesting video clip being watched by a friend in a separate part of the lab. In a published meta-analysis of seventy-nine studies comprising hundreds of individual trials, the probability that the results of the experiments were chance was almost one in a billion (2 x 10-8), meaning that the isolated receiver was extraordinarily successful in describing what his distant friend was seeing.6
            4. Feeling the Future. Recently, Professor Daryl Bem at Cornell University carried out a series of nine precognition experiments. In this remarkable five-year study, he showed that the future can affect the past in surprising ways. That is, the elephant you see on television in the morning can be the cause of your having dreamed about elephants the previous night: Saturday morning’s elephant caused Friday’s dream. We call that phenomenon retrocausality. For example, students in Bem’s experiments reliably favor and choose one of four possible pictures of people, even though they are shown that one only after they have made their conscious choice and even though the one shown has been randomly selected only after the students have chosen.
            In 2010, Bem’s sixty-page paper presenting his meta-analysis of these retrocausal experiments was accepted for publication.7 This meta-analysis [which generated a firestorm of debate as reported by IONS’ Dean Radin and Cassandra Vieten] shows a statistical significance of more than six standard deviations from chance expectation (1.3 x 10-11), which equals odds of more than a billion to one against chance. I am entirely convinced by this analysis—and so is distinguished statistics professor Jessica Utts from the University of California–Davis. In all his experiments, Bem’s one thousand Cornell-student participants find themselves making free choices, guided again and again by the material they will see or experience in the future—but only after they have made their selection. Many people believe that precognition is the dominant phenomenon in all psychic functioning. All of Bem’s experiments have been carried out and published since the 1962 publication of the annoying Human Behavior: Inventory of Scientific Findings that I mentioned earlier. From his recent precognition experiments at Cornell and my own successful forecasting of silver commodity markets, it appears that we have the ability to expand our perceived “now” to include as much of the future as we choose to accommodate.

          • Chris MacDonald

            In order to embrace the possibility of something so ‘out there’ as an afterlife, or the supernatural, one definitely has to step outside of his/her comfort zone. Some people just won’t, even if you push, pull or drag them, or simply offer them a way. Don’t be that person. If you want to learn how to explore other worlds, I suggest opening up — just a little. Going along with what I have stated before (posted as “Ghost”), most discoveries in life HAVE TO be believed before they can be seen. I didn’t write that rule, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
            And I will tell you, as solemnly as I can, remote viewing (and a host of other ‘psychic’ phenomena) are still in use and studied by many governments (including the U.S.), for many different reasons.
            Taken from the Ions Institute of Noetic Science:
            There are presently four classes of published and carefully examined ESP experiments that are independently significant, with a probability of chance occurrence of less than one time in a million.
            1. Remote Viewing. Princeton University Professor Robert Jahn (Dean of Engineering) and his associate Brenda Dunn oversaw two decades of remote-viewing experiments with Princeton students as subjects. Students in the laboratory were asked to describe their mental impressions of what they saw at a site where someone was hiding at a randomly chosen distant location. “These remote-viewing students had to fill out a thirty-item questionnaire to quantify their perceptions in this game of psychic hide-and-go-seek. Their findings—spanning several years and comprising a series of 411 trials—showed that it is no harder to remote view hundreds of miles in the distance than it is to describe a person around the corner. Furthermore, it is no harder to describe a randomly chosen hiding place to be selected in the next hour, day, or week than it is to describe a hidden event underway at the same moment. Modern physics would describe these phenomena as nonlocal, in that they are experimentally found to be independent of space and time. Nonlocality and entanglement, which were first described by Erwin Schrödinger in the late 1920s, are now hot research topics in modern physics. This intriguing phenomenon is explained very clearly and amusingly by Anton Zeilinger, one of the world’s leading experimentalists in quantum optics, in his 2010 book Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Teleportation. Zeilinger writes:
            Entanglement describes the phenomenon that two particles may be so intimately connected to each other that the measurement of one instantly changes the quantum state of the other, no matter how far away it may be . . . this nonlocality is exactly what Albert Einstein called “spooky”; it seems eerie that the act of measuring one particle could instantly influence the other one.2
            Robert Jahn’s highly significant results were published in the Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in 1982 as a replication of our original SRI remote-viewing experiments published in the same journal six years earlier.3 These data show odds greater than a billion to one (1.8 x 10-11) against chance expectation—strong evidence for the existence of nonlocal mind.
            2. Distant Mental Influence. In the 1970s and 1980s, William Braud and Marilyn Schlitz carried out nineteen successful experiments in what they called Distant Mental Influence on Living Systems (DMILS).4 In these experiments, a precursor to other distant-healing experiments supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the researchers showed convincingly that the thoughts of one person can affect the physiology (heart rate, skin resistance, etc.) of a distant person in another laboratory. Braud was able psychically to calm or excite the physiology of a person hundreds of feet away. Marilyn Schlitz is now the president of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California. Braud, who is now teaching at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology (ITP) in Palo Alto, California, has published twelve of his highly significant formal experiments in an excellent book called Distant Mental Influence.5
            3. The Ganzfeld. Over a span of thirty years, several researchers at five different laboratories here and abroad carried out telepathy experiments in which one person was in a situation of sensory isolation called ganzfeld, which is German for “whole field isolation.” This person was asked to describe his or her ongoing mental impressions of an interesting video clip being watched by a friend in a separate part of the lab. In a published meta-analysis of seventy-nine studies comprising hundreds of individual trials, the probability that the results of the experiments were chance was almost one in a billion (2 x 10-8), meaning that the isolated receiver was extraordinarily successful in describing what his distant friend was seeing.6
            4. Feeling the Future. Recently, Professor Daryl Bem at Cornell University carried out a series of nine precognition experiments. In this remarkable five-year study, he showed that the future can affect the past in surprising ways. That is, the elephant you see on television in the morning can be the cause of your having dreamed about elephants the previous night: Saturday morning’s elephant caused Friday’s dream. We call that phenomenon retrocausality. For example, students in Bem’s experiments reliably favor and choose one of four possible pictures of people, even though they are shown that one only after they have made their conscious choice and even though the one shown has been randomly selected only after the students have chosen.
            In 2010, Bem’s sixty-page paper presenting his meta-analysis of these retrocausal experiments was accepted for publication.7 This meta-analysis [which generated a firestorm of debate as reported by IONS’ Dean Radin and Cassandra Vieten] shows a statistical significance of more than six standard deviations from chance expectation (1.3 x 10-11), which equals odds of more than a billion to one against chance. I am entirely convinced by this analysis—and so is distinguished statistics professor Jessica Utts from the University of California–Davis. In all his experiments, Bem’s one thousand Cornell-student participants find themselves making free choices, guided again and again by the material they will see or experience in the future—but only after they have made their selection. Many people believe that precognition is the dominant phenomenon in all psychic functioning. All of Bem’s experiments have been carried out and published since the 1962 publication of the annoying Human Behavior: Inventory of Scientific Findings that I mentioned earlier. From his recent precognition experiments at Cornell and my own successful forecasting of silver commodity markets, it appears that we have the ability to expand our perceived “now” to include as much of the future as we choose to accommodate.

          • bobbiethejean

            You list a lot of singular incidences that are extraordinary, yes, but have not stood up to the rigors of peer review. These things ALWAYS break down at the peer review process. That doesn’t necessarily mean supernatural phenomena doesn’t exist, but it does mean science can’t ever prove it. At best, we will develop a method of understanding, separate from science (which requires falsifiability, testability, and predictiveness) probably something spiritual.

            For people like me (empiricists/logicians/realists/materialists etc) to accept the supernatural as real, however, there would have to be some kind of consensus. You know how like 99.99999999999999999% of the world’s biologists accept evolution? Consensus like that, where there is very little, almost no doubt that supernatural thing X is real and functions a certain way. My problem is that these “experiments” are all extremely dubious, have not been repeated, and most of them were actually discontinued because they were NOT successful.

          • Chris MacDonald

            Temporarily ignoring my post where I, AS REQUESTED, provide scientific, mathematical data that you blatantly dismiss out of hand…this does not mean that science cannot prove anything pertaining to the supernatural. It means that science cannot prove it *right now*.
            For example, awhile back I was able to look at some reports (the actual, not-for-the-public data) where at Princeton a Qi Gong master held up a roast skewered with a metal rod. Using only the power of his mind/body/chi/whatever you want to call it, he was able to cook (completely) the roast. The problem is, the scientists who examined him have no idea how he was able to do it, and in truth have no idea how to even test this guy accurately. They WERE able to rule out some kind of trickery, but aside from that, all their electrodes, monitors, multimeters etc. provided them with zero tangible ‘evidence’, with one exception: they were able to eat the cooked meat afterwards.
            I think when people talk of paranormal or supernatural experiences, they are, metaphorically, discussing the consumption of that cooked meat that those scientists ate. They may not understand it entirely, or know how to reproduce or replicate the results, but they do know that they’ve been given a taste of something extraordinary.
            Then people like you and David Howe come along and say, “Ah-ha! That cooked meat proves nothing! It’s not real! It didn’t happen!” As an aside, one of the scientists in that study is built like a linebacker. He stands about 6’5 and weighs something like 270 and has studied the martial arts most of his life. I triple-dog-dare you to tell him to his face that the supernatural event he witnessed was ‘imaginary’, or didn’t happen lol. You won’t do it.
            In any case, there is a vast distinction between not being able to prove something and not proving being able to prove it right now, and if you paid attention was the premise of my very first post in here (the one about people who were infamous for their horribly wrong predictions). In that post I cautioned about the foolishness of ‘drawing a line in the sand’ and making declarations. If you can’t see your line of thinking for what it is, I can’t help you, and again, best of luck to you.
            Speaking as someone who works in a controlled lab and performes testing on a daily basis (for over two decades now), you obviously have no idea how data can is interpretted in the real world. Things *often* break down at the ‘peer-reviewed level’ for reasons other than the proper discernement of truth vs fiction or benefit vs hindrance.
            Ego, resentment, politics, money, pre-existing belief systems all play their role in the interpretation of scientific findings, often as much or more as the objective analysis and application of data does.
            Do you think the infamous naysayers in my original post popped off without their own “data”?

          • bobbiethejean

            We don’t have any data BECAUSE THERE IS NO DATA. And I did not ignore your post, I pointed out that you are using poor examples that have all broken down during the peer review process. (You also really need to learn the art of succinctness and differentiating paragraphs.) If you’re a scientist, you seem absolutely oblivious to the scientific method which states that you begin from a state of disbelief and work your way towards the evidence, NOT the other way around.

            By the standards of science, this shit IS NOT REAL!…..yet. And we may need to square with the possibility that science can’t ever prove it- that such experiences may forever lay in the “personal-subjective” realm. But even if that’s the case, even if supernatural things are real and science can’t say anything about it, you’d STILL think we’d have come to some kind of consensus on the supernatural. Yet we haven’t. You’d think it would influence our lives in some big, EASILY IDENTIFIABLE ways but it doesn’t. If it existed, you’d think there’d be SOME kind of real, widely agreed upon, documentable PROOF but there isn’t.

            I am a rationalist and a skeptic. I do not accept claims without supporting evidence and I find the evidence here extremely lacking. Might it still exist? Certainly. But I can’t believe it until I see some convincing evidence.

          • Chris MacDonald

            And you set yourself up for failure in holding tight to the ‘seeing is believing’ mindset. I’ll say it again, as you’ve missed it completely: generally, most discoveries have to be believed before they can be seen. This is as true of scientific discovery as it is of investigation into the supernatural (which has, is, and will continue to be carried out by governments and corporations all over this planet). If you sit on your ass and wait for concrete proof for every little thing that may or may not be, you’re spinning your wheels, and you’re missing out.

            Truthfully, I don’t care. I’m not going to convince you that the scientific examples I provided were indeed peer reviewed, or that in many instances the studies took place over the course of years, or that there are many many more studies out there. If it is your perogotive to latch on to the first nay sayer as it satisfies your own personal world view, nobody will ever convince you.
            I’ve challenged you to seek out the people involved in the studies for yourself. Obviously their scientific methodolgies, doctorates or security clearances are not worth your time.
            You must be a highly educated person and have tons of personal experience with the subject matter in order to discredit it so…succinctly (was that last paragraph differentiated enough for you? lol)

            In any case, I’m done here. It’s been fun, I’ve spoken my peace, and though I’ve not discussed my own personal experiences for obvious reasons, you will never be able to convince me that what I’ve experienced simply happened somewhere in the neurons between my ears.
            Again, best of luck to you.
            You too David Howe, you gigantic ass-clown.

          • David Howe

            I would not. I’ve already done this and the “evidence” simply does not exist. Remote viewing and such is as false as any other form of ESP. The research showed that it doesn’t exist. I’m sorry you didn’t arrive at that obvious conclusion.

          • Chris MacDonald

            A complete lie. I’ve had conversations with the physicists (you know…scientists?) who were involved in one of the original programs.
            If it didn’t work, it wouldn’t still be in operation to this day – which it is. I’m not talking about the ‘at home’ courses you can purchase off the internet. I am talking about within the government. But, don’t believe me. Keep on trolling.

          • Chris MacDonald

            A complete lie. I’ve had conversations with the physicists (you know…scientists?) who were involved in one of the original programs.
            If it didn’t work, it wouldn’t still be in operation to this day – which it is. I’m not talking about the ‘at home’ courses you can purchase off the internet. I am talking about within the government. But, don’t believe me. Keep on trolling.

          • Chris MacDonald

            Simply not true. And I am sorry you haven’t had the opportunity to converse with many of the members of the original (and once higher-than-top-secret) rv programs as I have.
            I’d doubt you’d believe them anyway, but whatever. Keep on trolling.
            Chris aka Ghost

          • StephenOfEden

             so we talked to a duck … and it didnt respond… soooo … its not conscious.

            so we talked to the creator of all things ….

            well you see where i’m going anyway

          • Andrew

            > so we talked to the creator of all things ….

            And it said, “Quack, quack, quack!”

          • Andrew

            > so we talked to the creator of all things ….

            And it said, “Quack, quack, quack!”

          • Andrew

            > so we talked to the creator of all things ….

            And it said, “Quack, quack, quack!”

          • David Howe

            I know that I’ve completed my investigation into imagination and superstition. I wouldn’t call illustrating a reasonable conclusion based on facts a “condemnation”. Aren’t you being a bit hyperbolic?

        • StephenOfEden

           i love you too :)

      • David Howe

         ^Name those logical fallacies!

        • Ghost

          Um….you?

      • Omahakangen

        I listened to an interview regarding the afterlife with Dr. Steven Hawkins “There is no God”…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y (sigh)
        “Then there is no heaven”, he continues…so we are supposed to enjoy the “design of the universe”, according to Dr. Hawkins, but have no imagination whatsoever that it has a designer? I understand having “misgivings and doubts” as much as the next person, but it makes NO sense for this man to firmly discount a higher dimension to his own brain. Dr. Hawkins comments seem to fit right in with your theme here. Thanks so much for posting.

      • Omahakangen

        I listened to an interview regarding the afterlife with Dr. Steven Hawkins “There is no God”…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y (sigh)
        “Then there is no heaven”, he continues…so we are supposed to enjoy the “design of the universe”, according to Dr. Hawkins, but have no imagination whatsoever that it has a designer? I understand having “misgivings and doubts” as much as the next person, but it makes NO sense for this man to firmly discount a higher dimension to his own brain. Dr. Hawkins comments seem to fit right in with your theme here. Thanks so much for posting.

        • Kevin Leonard

          Another problem with Dr. Hawkins’ assertion is in the statement, “There was no time before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the Universe in.” This presupposes a conception of God that exists solely within our space-time continuum. It may be a good argument against believers in the Judeo-Christian religions, but not so for followers of Vedic philosophy, especially those who have had the experience, or strive for the experience, of oneness with brahman. In that model, All That Is in this universe, all that is measurable and knowable, will end. And then it will all begin again. It is the in-breath and out-breath of brahman, and brahman exists outside of time.

          The conception is not unlike the implicate order and explicate order in Talbot’s “The Holographic Universe”

        • Kevin Leonard

          Another problem with Dr. Hawkins’ assertion is in the statement, “There was no time before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the Universe in.” This presupposes a conception of God that exists solely within our space-time continuum. It may be a good argument against believers in the Judeo-Christian religions, but not so for followers of Vedic philosophy, especially those who have had the experience, or strive for the experience, of oneness with brahman. In that model, All That Is in this universe, all that is measurable and knowable, will end. And then it will all begin again. It is the in-breath and out-breath of brahman, and brahman exists outside of time.

          The conception is not unlike the implicate order and explicate order in Talbot’s “The Holographic Universe”

          • http://twitter.com/Zordabo ZordaboM

            Its an interesting book (The Holographic Universe)

        • Ghost

          If you enjoy physics, you might like this:
          http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/zpf_haisch.htm

      • StephenOfEden

         I love you.

    • Crjazzman

      Did you miss the part about his brain being dead?  Explain the vivid experiences that he is able to remember despite a non functioning brain.  You dismiss a giant in neuroscience because his experience, which defies medical explaination, doesn’t fit into your world view. 

    • Crjazzman

      Did you miss the part about his brain being dead?  Explain the vivid experiences that he is able to remember despite a non functioning brain.  You dismiss a giant in neuroscience because his experience, which defies medical explaination, doesn’t fit into your world view. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/alkwerte Alkwerte Alk

        dead brain = dead people, or the brain is not really dead.

      • http://www.facebook.com/alkwerte Alkwerte Alk

        dead brain = dead people, or the brain is not really dead.

      • http://www.facebook.com/alkwerte Alkwerte Alk

        dead brain = dead people, or the brain is not really dead.

      • Calypso_1

        He did not state that he experienced brain death. He said his neocortex was inactivated. That is a higher functioning part of the
        brain. There are many lower functioning
        regions were consciousness is assumed by many models not to
        reside.

        Brain death as a medical criterion is not as clear cut as
        you might think. Activity may
        fall below detectable levels by standard instruments such as EEG and then be
        resumed.

        There are conditions, particular drug induced and various
        stages of coma and that will appear to be brain death but that does not
        indicate there is an absence of cerebral blood flow or actual death of neural
        tissue.

      • Calypso_1

        He did not state that he experienced brain death. He said his neocortex was inactivated. That is a higher functioning part of the
        brain. There are many lower functioning
        regions were consciousness is assumed by many models not to
        reside.

        Brain death as a medical criterion is not as clear cut as
        you might think. Activity may
        fall below detectable levels by standard instruments such as EEG and then be
        resumed.

        There are conditions, particular drug induced and various
        stages of coma and that will appear to be brain death but that does not
        indicate there is an absence of cerebral blood flow or actual death of neural
        tissue.

    • StephenOfEden

       thermodynamics, out of the window. the energy that is you, the brainwaves and emotional vibrations that define WHO YOU ARE, simply vanish all. perfect logical sense. and yet …

      its almost like you guys are authorities on things you have no recollection of experiencing.

      conciousness undulates in cyclical rythym, like EVERYTHING the frick else.
      conciousness inevitably MEANS and thereby MANIFESTS through POTENTIAL unconsciousness.
      and vice versa.
      unconsciousness invariably DETERMINES that the next happening IS CONSCIOUSNESS.
      just like in a sine wave, the trough manifests the saddle.
      just as black manifests white, and white, black.
      the abundance manifests the lack.
      Good-evil
      right-wrong

      what will it take for people to get it …
      theyre all two sides of the same coin, youre assuredly on every single one you notice, and when you run long enough in one direction, which time has a knack of doing for you, you will undoubtedly run into BOTH, repeatedly.

    • StephenOfEden

       thermodynamics, out of the window. the energy that is you, the brainwaves and emotional vibrations that define WHO YOU ARE, simply vanish all. perfect logical sense. and yet …

      its almost like you guys are authorities on things you have no recollection of experiencing.

      conciousness undulates in cyclical rythym, like EVERYTHING the frick else.
      conciousness inevitably MEANS and thereby MANIFESTS through POTENTIAL unconsciousness.
      and vice versa.
      unconsciousness invariably DETERMINES that the next happening IS CONSCIOUSNESS.
      just like in a sine wave, the trough manifests the saddle.
      just as black manifests white, and white, black.
      the abundance manifests the lack.
      Good-evil
      right-wrong

      what will it take for people to get it …
      theyre all two sides of the same coin, youre assuredly on every single one you notice, and when you run long enough in one direction, which time has a knack of doing for you, you will undoubtedly run into BOTH, repeatedly.

  • Nunzio X

    I smoked a bunch of weed once (or possibly more than once) and experienced these phenomena. 

    • citizen_watch

      Damn, I gots to get me some of the weed you’re smokin’ X.  The THC% must be off the charts!

    • Horus Freak

      I’ve smoked a bunch of weed nearly every day the past 2 years and this kind of phenomena doesn’t even occur on a normal level shroom trip or lsd, so please stop lying ;) If you had said you had smoked a bunch of DMT and experienced this it could have made more sense but if you had done that you would be less likely to discredit as merely brain phenomena ;)

    • Horus Freak

      I’ve smoked a bunch of weed nearly every day the past 2 years and this kind of phenomena doesn’t even occur on a normal level shroom trip or lsd, so please stop lying ;) If you had said you had smoked a bunch of DMT and experienced this it could have made more sense but if you had done that you would be less likely to discredit as merely brain phenomena ;)

      • DeepCough

        Smoke an eighth of some really dank weed, and yeah, you’ll trip balls a little bit.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Did TSA rough up his junk on re-entry?

  • Dogen

     What a load of drivel.

    The “afterlife” sounds like a Thomas Kinkaid painting. Yuck.

  • Dogen

     What a load of drivel.

    The “afterlife” sounds like a Thomas Kinkaid painting. Yuck.

    • WankstonHughes

      “Pitch-black as it was, it was also brimming over with light”

      If he could pull that painting off, I would be sincerely impressed.

    • WankstonHughes

      “Pitch-black as it was, it was also brimming over with light”

      If he could pull that painting off, I would be sincerely impressed.

      • Omahakangen

        The point is…this is beyond our ability to “pull off”.

      • Omahakangen

        The point is…this is beyond our ability to “pull off”.

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    we’ll see, won’t we?

    • David Howe

      or not

  • http://www.frompatricksperspective.blogspot.com/ Patrick Ptomey

    What
    this comment to be most ironic: “Toward the beginning of my adventure, I
    was in a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up
    sharply against the deep blue-black sky. Higher than the
    clouds—immeasurably higher—flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamerlike lines behind them. Higher forms.” Why?
    Well it’s suspicious that his description of “heaven” could be
    understood by man. I would suspect that heaven, if it were real, would
    be unlike anything we have ever witnessed here on Earth. Not only is his
    description of Heaven well within the creativity of man, but it mirrors
    REALITY. “Clouds”? Earth has them. “Deep blue-black sky”? Oh, you mean
    outer space! Transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky with
    streamerlike lines.” Those are called stars… How limited is his
    creativity?!

  • http://www.frompatricksperspective.blogspot.com/ Patrick Ptomey

    What
    this comment to be most ironic: “Toward the beginning of my adventure, I
    was in a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up
    sharply against the deep blue-black sky. Higher than the
    clouds—immeasurably higher—flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamerlike lines behind them. Higher forms.” Why?
    Well it’s suspicious that his description of “heaven” could be
    understood by man. I would suspect that heaven, if it were real, would
    be unlike anything we have ever witnessed here on Earth. Not only is his
    description of Heaven well within the creativity of man, but it mirrors
    REALITY. “Clouds”? Earth has them. “Deep blue-black sky”? Oh, you mean
    outer space! Transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky with
    streamerlike lines.” Those are called stars… How limited is his
    creativity?!

    • emperorreagan

      There may be reasons to dismiss his account, but “it isn’t creative enough to be real” would not be among them.

    • Horus Freak

       Because if you had had a truly psychedelic experience  you would understand the impossibility to describe what one experiences in words to someone who hasn’t or even to define it for oneself. And I am talking psychedelics which already poses that problem, now you want to tell me merely from the few lines that he wrote you can conceive what his experience was and are better able to make sense of it than a educated neuroscientist ? Dream on my friend, instead of trying to hold on and impose your view on his experience, you need to understand that without personal experience you have nothing that offers you the ability to judge over it. Merely you learn from it for yourself or open you eyes to the possibility that it might be possible. But discrediting his experience is impossible to do for he had it it belongs to him, you only think to know what he saw ;) People are just so full of themselves…;

    • Horus Freak

       Because if you had had a truly psychedelic experience  you would understand the impossibility to describe what one experiences in words to someone who hasn’t or even to define it for oneself. And I am talking psychedelics which already poses that problem, now you want to tell me merely from the few lines that he wrote you can conceive what his experience was and are better able to make sense of it than a educated neuroscientist ? Dream on my friend, instead of trying to hold on and impose your view on his experience, you need to understand that without personal experience you have nothing that offers you the ability to judge over it. Merely you learn from it for yourself or open you eyes to the possibility that it might be possible. But discrediting his experience is impossible to do for he had it it belongs to him, you only think to know what he saw ;) People are just so full of themselves…;

      • David Howe

         yes, you certainly are full of yourself

        • Kevin Leonard

          Mr. Pot to the Kettle.

        • Horus Freak

          Me? :p Haha man I wish I could be disillusioned enough to be full of myself ;) I just hate it when people start tossing around their judgment on a topic they can not judge due to lack of experience. Specially when it implies someone-elses perception. I’m just honest with myself and accept only what I can experience myself, while aware that judging another persons experience, perception is false.

          • David Howe

            you are mistaken in your belief that a person needs direct experience in order to understand something.  it’s really this simple: you. are. wrong.  accept it and move on.

          • Horus Freak

             Sadly not, realizing the importance of direct experience is essential to understanding anything. I have nothing against using the materialistic belief system it has it’s uses even if it is merely to interact with people like you that fill our world ;) But I have tried a wide variety of belief systems and actually allowed myself to live them not just think them, I’d advise you to just give it a try, you can always go back to your original belief. But I can promise you things start getting trippy after 1-2 radical belief changes; then you will realize how perception is ultimately the most important thing to take into account. Try it out but your sanity is not my responsibility for you are too deep into the illusion I am afraid ;) Furthermore there is no belief that is correct; all of them are, it’s ultimately personal choice. 

            You see people that can not understand other peoples beliefs or try to prove others wrong; are the ones who end up destroying and fucking everything up, cause they go shizo if the world is not what they believe it to be :p So please Mr.Psychopath and All-Correct, don’t go too coocoo :D

          • David Howe

             perhaps you are over-invested in this

          • Mr E

             Pot. Kettle. Black.

          • Dr.Teeth

             You’ve used that same line more than one here. And yet, you’re the only one forcing your beliefs on nearly every thread…hour after hour.

          • Dr.Teeth

             You’ve used that same line more than one here. And yet, you’re the only one forcing your beliefs on nearly every thread…hour after hour.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JR6QMHI5D3L6Z4JJBSAKO4KJBE brock

    My theory, for what it’s worth, is that our perception of time is in lockstep with our physical bodies in such a way to optimize for survival but consciousness does not necessarily need to be bound to that particular frequency. If consciousness is happening on some sort of quantum level that we just haven’t discovered yet and our brain is just a sensory apparatus delivering input then all sorts of crazy shit could be happening, with regards to time, when our brain is ‘disconnected’. Kind of like dreaming. I’ve woken up from a dream and slipped back into the dream for what seemed like hours but was only seconds/minutes.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JR6QMHI5D3L6Z4JJBSAKO4KJBE brock

    My theory, for what it’s worth, is that our perception of time is in lockstep with our physical bodies in such a way to optimize for survival but consciousness does not necessarily need to be bound to that particular frequency. If consciousness is happening on some sort of quantum level that we just haven’t discovered yet and our brain is just a sensory apparatus delivering input then all sorts of crazy shit could be happening, with regards to time, when our brain is ‘disconnected’. Kind of like dreaming. I’ve woken up from a dream and slipped back into the dream for what seemed like hours but was only seconds/minutes.

  • http://twitter.com/DanielReasor Daniel Reasor

    Funny how it’s always people whose brains were oxygen deprived who reports these dreams of the afterlife, and never people who were clinically dead and resuscitated.

  • http://twitter.com/DanielReasor Daniel Reasor

    Funny how it’s always people whose brains were oxygen deprived who reports these dreams of the afterlife, and never people who were clinically dead and resuscitated.

    • Daryl

      Do your homework and you’ll discover otherwise. It happens. And just because you haven’t experienced something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    • Daryl

      Do your homework and you’ll discover otherwise. It happens. And just because you haven’t experienced something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

      • David Howe

         but what these people experienced was entirely imaginary.

        • Kevin Leonard

          but how you perceive their stories is entirely imaginary.

          • David Howe

            incorrect.  you need to realize just because you type something and it appears on the internet, doesn’t make it so.  you can’t will an irrational thought into the plane of reality.  certainly NOT with me.

          • Kate

             Neither does stating that something is imaginary make it so. While you may believe that, you could still be incorrect.

          • Soruh Frake

             Sadly my friend, rationality goes so far and then leads nowhere, it takes a lot more courage to test the deeps of irrationality and realize that it is the source of inspiration for everything new. A few hundred years ago telling a society of some of our technological advances would have been blasphemy and irrational to them then. Rationality is a tool just like logic, it is not the end. It’s a shame that you let your mind enslave itself so badly and now you cant even communicate with others in a mentally stable way,

            You sound absolutely shizo in how it seems to bother you that people believe something absolutely different than you. Not even talking about the existence of an after-life or the validity of the article.
            No-one else is trying to convince anyone about their belief, just trying to make you understand that you don’t need to convince people of what you think. Your opinion and you are worthless, the only person they matter something is yourself.

            You sound just like the damn Jehovah witnesses that come to my door, except I believe you’d be the one with a prospect on how rationality is your only god and that anyone even slightly experiencing something other than what is normal should be brainwashed and normalized. 

            With your current attitude you will just cause conflict, not cause of what you say, but cause it seems you either believe that you are some type of genius, in which case I feel very sorry for you and I wish you the best, or you are someone who is desperate to have his view confirmed and hoping that his arguments will destroy other peoples beliefs, in that case I wish you hell.
            Not that you would succeed I doubt it, cause for those who have learned from experience that imagination and the mind are not what you think it is, the words you speak are just a little joke ;) While we are all raised like you and spoon fed rationality until we tell everyone that everything is reasonable and rational, it is not easy to go back to your type of belief once one has had a couple of personal experiences that prove the value of the mind over that of materialism’s perceived notion that consciousness is a accident of biology.
            Well my friend the world is an irrational place and always has been. Rationality is an amazing tool, but it is not the entire truth, it’s a helpful construct, just like fear isn’t entirely useless, but too much of it is paralyzing. The same goes for your rationality :)

          • Soruh Frake

             Sadly my friend, rationality goes so far and then leads nowhere, it takes a lot more courage to test the deeps of irrationality and realize that it is the source of inspiration for everything new. A few hundred years ago telling a society of some of our technological advances would have been blasphemy and irrational to them then. Rationality is a tool just like logic, it is not the end. It’s a shame that you let your mind enslave itself so badly and now you cant even communicate with others in a mentally stable way,

            You sound absolutely shizo in how it seems to bother you that people believe something absolutely different than you. Not even talking about the existence of an after-life or the validity of the article.
            No-one else is trying to convince anyone about their belief, just trying to make you understand that you don’t need to convince people of what you think. Your opinion and you are worthless, the only person they matter something is yourself.

            You sound just like the damn Jehovah witnesses that come to my door, except I believe you’d be the one with a prospect on how rationality is your only god and that anyone even slightly experiencing something other than what is normal should be brainwashed and normalized. 

            With your current attitude you will just cause conflict, not cause of what you say, but cause it seems you either believe that you are some type of genius, in which case I feel very sorry for you and I wish you the best, or you are someone who is desperate to have his view confirmed and hoping that his arguments will destroy other peoples beliefs, in that case I wish you hell.
            Not that you would succeed I doubt it, cause for those who have learned from experience that imagination and the mind are not what you think it is, the words you speak are just a little joke ;) While we are all raised like you and spoon fed rationality until we tell everyone that everything is reasonable and rational, it is not easy to go back to your type of belief once one has had a couple of personal experiences that prove the value of the mind over that of materialism’s perceived notion that consciousness is a accident of biology.
            Well my friend the world is an irrational place and always has been. Rationality is an amazing tool, but it is not the entire truth, it’s a helpful construct, just like fear isn’t entirely useless, but too much of it is paralyzing. The same goes for your rationality :)

      • Daniel Reasor

        You’ve asked me to do my homework.  Maybe you can steer me in the right direction by citing sources.  In fact, I dare you to.

      • Daniel Reasor

        You’ve asked me to do my homework.  Maybe you can steer me in the right direction by citing sources.  In fact, I dare you to.

    • Marco

       Similar experiences with psychedelics as well.  That is, the brain is on, not oxygen deprived.  Go ask around for some shrooms or acid and take a journey that has the potential to change your life forever.

    • Marco

       Similar experiences with psychedelics as well.  That is, the brain is on, not oxygen deprived.  Go ask around for some shrooms or acid and take a journey that has the potential to change your life forever.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DWWRNN3HXZZGABBB52UR3PEY4Y Häagen-Dazs

    The mind is susceptible to hallucinations

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DWWRNN3HXZZGABBB52UR3PEY4Y Häagen-Dazs

    The mind is susceptible to hallucinations

    • Kevin Leonard

      … like the one that material reality is the only reality. 

      Well said.

    • Kevin Leonard

      … like the one that material reality is the only reality. 

      Well said.

      • David Howe

         I’ll give you that, but the “other” realities are imaginary.

        • Kevin Leonard

          In medicine, a psychosomatic condition does not mean that the condition does not exist, it simply means that it was created from the mind. Science doesn’t really know the mind. It knows the brain. Or rather, it has some observations of the mechanical functioning of the brain. Science is still in the very early hypothesis stage of defining the mind/ brain relationship. There are no scientific Laws governing the mind. 

          • David Howe

            you’ve misunderstood what the laws of science are. they don’t govern anything. it’s a different kind of law….

          • Omahakangen

            I am enjoying your “spin” on things here…

          • Omahakangen

            I am enjoying your “spin” on things here…

    • delphinus

       if the brain is dead and the mind is susceptible to hallucinations, so the mind is not the brain, or am i getting it wrong? :)

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/DWWRNN3HXZZGABBB52UR3PEY4Y Häagen-Dazs

        The Scientist was never dead too begin with so what is your point?

  • Kevin Leonard
  • Anomaly_of_Anomie

    No one knows for sure. 

  • Anomaly_of_Anomie

    No one knows for sure. 

    • David Howe

       i disagree.   It is a certainty that there is no afterlife.

      • Kevin Leonard

        You have no foundation for such a statement. It is a certainty that not everyone had a near-death experience. It is a certainty that many people have had near-death experiences. End of story.

        • David Howe

          ah…the ol’ moving goalpost.  I didn’t say anything about near-death experiences.  I’m sure NDE’s seem very real in the way that dreams and movies seem very real.  I said that there is no afterlife.  All I need is evidence.

          • Ggbargain

            Can you provide evidence that there is no afterlife?

          • Ggbargain

            Can you provide evidence that there is no afterlife?

      • 1plakat

        Materialist. This definitely looks like a temporary post, this life, Rather than the main event. Thats just obvious. 

      • 1plakat

        Materialist. This definitely looks like a temporary post, this life, Rather than the main event. Thats just obvious. 

      • Horus Freak

        How old are you? not that I am very old. But..seriously you are the one full of yourself :p Tossing around your certainty on everything. While you might believe in nothing but that mouse and keyboard that is touching your fingers as being real, well too bad for you :)

        Just people in general don’t care much about this kind of opinion, where the person feels they are the only definition of “correct” that exists.
        Learn to question yourself once in a while man, that’s some serious advice. Otherwise you’re nothing but an animal running on the same program all your life. In my eyes boring whether there is an afterlife or not :p

        If you really believe this is the only life you have go have fun instead of reading such articles and travel the world or something, death is never far from us living beings :p

        Ps. You believe more strongly in the afterlife than me by the way, cause you seem to be fighting the belief of it rather strongly ;) Can’t fight something you don’t believe in :D

      • Horus Freak

        How old are you? not that I am very old. But..seriously you are the one full of yourself :p Tossing around your certainty on everything. While you might believe in nothing but that mouse and keyboard that is touching your fingers as being real, well too bad for you :)

        Just people in general don’t care much about this kind of opinion, where the person feels they are the only definition of “correct” that exists.
        Learn to question yourself once in a while man, that’s some serious advice. Otherwise you’re nothing but an animal running on the same program all your life. In my eyes boring whether there is an afterlife or not :p

        If you really believe this is the only life you have go have fun instead of reading such articles and travel the world or something, death is never far from us living beings :p

        Ps. You believe more strongly in the afterlife than me by the way, cause you seem to be fighting the belief of it rather strongly ;) Can’t fight something you don’t believe in :D

        • David Howe

          you should quit while you’re ahead

          • Otherworldly1

            David Howe’s empirical proof that consciousness dies with the death of the brain:

            It is a certainty. Q.E.D. 

            You are an example of all that is wrong in the physical sciences today. While it may be true that all NDE’s are simply ‘dreams’, there is certainly enough compelling information to the contrary that would seem to suggest this may not be so. This issue is far from a simple matter of opinion, and it, along with an actual understanding of the mechanism by which consciousness is produced will no doubt one day be thoroughly explained through the sciences. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, expressing it as though it were absolute truth is plainly ignorant.

          • Otherworldly1

            David Howe’s empirical proof that consciousness dies with the death of the brain:

            It is a certainty. Q.E.D. 

            You are an example of all that is wrong in the physical sciences today. While it may be true that all NDE’s are simply ‘dreams’, there is certainly enough compelling information to the contrary that would seem to suggest this may not be so. This issue is far from a simple matter of opinion, and it, along with an actual understanding of the mechanism by which consciousness is produced will no doubt one day be thoroughly explained through the sciences. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, expressing it as though it were absolute truth is plainly ignorant.

          • Soruh Frake

            He’ll never get it, it’s amazing how hopeless it is to explain that to David :p I pity him

          • Soruh Frake

            He’ll never get it, it’s amazing how hopeless it is to explain that to David :p I pity him

      • Horus Freak

        How old are you? not that I am very old. But..seriously you are the one full of yourself :p Tossing around your certainty on everything. While you might believe in nothing but that mouse and keyboard that is touching your fingers as being real, well too bad for you :)

        Just people in general don’t care much about this kind of opinion, where the person feels they are the only definition of “correct” that exists.
        Learn to question yourself once in a while man, that’s some serious advice. Otherwise you’re nothing but an animal running on the same program all your life. In my eyes boring whether there is an afterlife or not :p

        If you really believe this is the only life you have go have fun instead of reading such articles and travel the world or something, death is never far from us living beings :p

        Ps. You believe more strongly in the afterlife than me by the way, cause you seem to be fighting the belief of it rather strongly ;) Can’t fight something you don’t believe in :D

      • Anomaly_of_Anomie

        Hey everybody- David says it is a certainty, so I guess that’s proof there will be no afterlife after all. I apologize for my ignorance in this matter. Have a nice day!

      • Anomaly_of_Anomie

        Hey everybody- David says it is a certainty, so I guess that’s proof there will be no afterlife after all. I apologize for my ignorance in this matter. Have a nice day!

  • Robin Pen

    I would give this a lot more credibility if he experienced this as an athiest but he already had a prior christian belief system which his brain used to enhance the stress relief system his animal brain was putting in place.

    • Andrew

      But he didn’t meet Jesus at any point.  That’s what’s interesting to me.

    • Andrew

      But he didn’t meet Jesus at any point.  That’s what’s interesting to me.

      • Calypso_1

        He was hanging out on a loaf of bread.

      • Calypso_1

        He was hanging out on a loaf of bread.

    • Anderss

      He never says he had a christian belief.  Just the opposite.  He says he always believed there was scientific evidence for the heavenly episodes people have while encountering NDEs.

  • philip d


    My near-death experience, however, took place not while my cortex was malfunctioning, but while it was simply off. ” How does he know that. When he entered his coma I doubt his brain went from 100% function to 0% function instantaneously. Likewise when he came out of his coma.  It could have been any amount of time (
    a minute to minutes to hours ) from when he entered unconsciousness, where he would still have a functioning neocortex and could therefore dream, to  when his neocortex showed no activity at all. It’s not like they had him hooked up to a EEG anticipating that he would become unconscious and showed that he slipped instantaneously within seconds into a coma.  It doesn’t sound like his vision was any longer than an average dream which could easily be accommodated on either end of his coma while still unconscious . They way he describes it, it sounds like maybe an experience that lasted minutes not 7 days. If he was somewhere else for seven days I would expect a short novel describing this other place.  

  • philip d


    My near-death experience, however, took place not while my cortex was malfunctioning, but while it was simply off. ” How does he know that. When he entered his coma I doubt his brain went from 100% function to 0% function instantaneously. Likewise when he came out of his coma.  It could have been any amount of time (
    a minute to minutes to hours ) from when he entered unconsciousness, where he would still have a functioning neocortex and could therefore dream, to  when his neocortex showed no activity at all. It’s not like they had him hooked up to a EEG anticipating that he would become unconscious and showed that he slipped instantaneously within seconds into a coma.  It doesn’t sound like his vision was any longer than an average dream which could easily be accommodated on either end of his coma while still unconscious . They way he describes it, it sounds like maybe an experience that lasted minutes not 7 days. If he was somewhere else for seven days I would expect a short novel describing this other place.  

    • Cwconnorwhite

      they actually were monitoring his brain while this took place, soo ya he did know that it was off

    • Cwconnorwhite

      they actually were monitoring his brain while this took place, soo ya he did know that it was off

  • BURK

    Sounds somewhat like DMT to me – “Depending on the dose and method of administration, its subjective effects can range from short-lived milder psychedelic states
    to powerful immersive experiences; these are often described as a total
    loss of connection to conventional reality with the encounter of ineffable spiritual/alien realms.” But being naturally occurring in the pineal gland it is entirely possible a near death experience could have caused a release of it into the brain….

  • BURK

    Sounds somewhat like DMT to me – “Depending on the dose and method of administration, its subjective effects can range from short-lived milder psychedelic states
    to powerful immersive experiences; these are often described as a total
    loss of connection to conventional reality with the encounter of ineffable spiritual/alien realms.” But being naturally occurring in the pineal gland it is entirely possible a near death experience could have caused a release of it into the brain….

  • NewOrderGuy

    Why do we smart asses try to deny the only thing that cannot be denied; Consciousness.  We all have it, we all experience it.  Is the only thing we are certain we have and still some are stupid enough to believe it is just a chemical reaction in our brains.  If it is just a chemical reaction how is it that “you” are able to comprehend it as such?  WHO is comprehending that it is a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction comprehending it is a chemical reaction? Absurd.

  • NewOrderGuy

    Why do we smart asses try to deny the only thing that cannot be denied; Consciousness.  We all have it, we all experience it.  Is the only thing we are certain we have and still some are stupid enough to believe it is just a chemical reaction in our brains.  If it is just a chemical reaction how is it that “you” are able to comprehend it as such?  WHO is comprehending that it is a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction comprehending it is a chemical reaction? Absurd.

    • David Howe

       where is the evidence?

      • Kevin Leonard

        Though anecdotal, it is still evidence.

        • David Howe

          nope.  It’s an anecdote with a completely rational explanation: he imagined his experience.

          • Horus Freak

            honestly I doubt the brain needs to comfort a person that would anyway be technically passed out  in a coma where the brain is inactive or in case a person is dying. It just seems a waste in evolutionary power, since what does nature care if I die with some visions before it goes black or it goes black completely. There would be no difference, if death was death and final then nature would surely not have to think of some last minute fantasy for those in these kind of situations.

            Just a possibility to ponder on slightly, there are countless explanations for that, whether they tend towards materialistic or spiritual or whatever else sort of belief that exists. The end of the matter is that up to now it hasn’t been possible to offer solid proof either way, which every intelligent being on this planet is capable to accept, except you ;)

          • David Howe

            False equivalence.  The spiritual and materialist perspectives are not equally valid.  Materialism has evidence.  The other has none.

          • David Howe

            False equivalence.  The spiritual and materialist perspectives are not equally valid.  Materialism has evidence.  The other has none.

          • Horus Freak

             Mate honestly, I am doing a bachelor of science and have been a believer of myself alone all my life. Not taking for granted what an idiot like you would write in a book nor what some new age bastard would write. I have personally tried out many types of exercices that involve the spiritual from many beliefs and while some have been unsucessful, the greater part has been successful and the best part is, while you go cry for your next car, the perfect wife, the best house, the highest paying job. I would gladly refuse all that, I am just glad I can make this experience, whether it will be a dead end at my death, I don’t care but at least I can work to be a better more understanding human and help others, rather than someone who thinks they know everything and have solved the great puzzle.

            You have forgotten that other people are just as complex and intelligent as you are, yet you probably think most people just walk around empty in the head all day. Sorry man that is dangerous thinking, but it is you who is wrong :) But I am not saying I’m right either ;)

          • David Howe

             that’s a big pile…aren’t you a little over-invested?

          • David Howe

             that’s a big pile…aren’t you a little over-invested?

          • Horus Freak

             My best advice to you stop eating all the dogma poop that they spoon fed you, start at 0 and go find some of your own answers. Rebel a bit, get out of the house; go smoke a joint; raise a dog, go experience poverty and see the extreme of materialism. Just do something yourself, and my top advice is book a trip to south america and try DMT in the guidance of a shaman. Once you have gone through those things with your own eyes and you think that the evidence for materialism still speaks fir itself and that these are meaningless experiences then I will have a lot more sympathy with you’re attitude than someone who sounds like Der Perfekte Musterschueler. The perfect student basically translated but like referring to primary school the teachers favorite ;)

          • David Howe

             ….and an even bigger pile….so if I take drugs, I’ll abandon rationality?  I can’t wait!

          • Chriskellyco

            Also, if our evolution served us well, shouldn’t death be a TERRIFYING experience, with every cell in our body screaming in fear and agony to keep us alive?  The ultimate defense mechanism in the throes of the body shutting down.  Why would our evolution provide, from NDE anecdotes, a peaceful, loving sensation as we pass?

          • Chriskellyco

            Also, if our evolution served us well, shouldn’t death be a TERRIFYING experience, with every cell in our body screaming in fear and agony to keep us alive?  The ultimate defense mechanism in the throes of the body shutting down.  Why would our evolution provide, from NDE anecdotes, a peaceful, loving sensation as we pass?

          • Chriskellyco

            Also, if our evolution served us well, shouldn’t death be a TERRIFYING experience, with every cell in our body screaming in fear and agony to keep us alive?  The ultimate defense mechanism in the throes of the body shutting down.  Why would our evolution provide, from NDE anecdotes, a peaceful, loving sensation as we pass?

          • Haystack

            How do you know he imagined it? 

          • Haystack

            How do you know he imagined it? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/johnny.onthespot.503 Wingo Shackleford

      That’s a really interesting question that philosophers,
      and now neuroscienctists are constantly trying to answer.  The main school of thought these days is that it is a survival mechanism that was triggered in our early development that is what is referred to as a ‘strange loop’. Sort of a feedback situation – think a neverending Escher staircase. A more science-y version of ‘I think, therefore I am’. I exist and therefore think I exist and that is me thinking I exist therefore I exist so I am thinking, etc.  It’s actually very trippy if you ponder it a lot.

      I think the salient point here is that the guy that experienced this knows WAY more about the brain than anyone here (likely).  To dispute his experience or claim to know it was only his imagination is a little silly.  He may very well have a little bit more to base his assumptions on than anyone commenting here.  ‘I know there is no afterlife or higher realms because I know” is really kind of obnoxious.  Nobody ‘knows’, but *maybe* we should listen to what Dr. Alexander has to say with a little bit less skepticism? He may be the best resource we have to try to explain this stuff yet.

    • http://www.facebook.com/johnny.onthespot.503 Wingo Shackleford

      That’s a really interesting question that philosophers,
      and now neuroscienctists are constantly trying to answer.  The main school of thought these days is that it is a survival mechanism that was triggered in our early development that is what is referred to as a ‘strange loop’. Sort of a feedback situation – think a neverending Escher staircase. A more science-y version of ‘I think, therefore I am’. I exist and therefore think I exist and that is me thinking I exist therefore I exist so I am thinking, etc.  It’s actually very trippy if you ponder it a lot.

      I think the salient point here is that the guy that experienced this knows WAY more about the brain than anyone here (likely).  To dispute his experience or claim to know it was only his imagination is a little silly.  He may very well have a little bit more to base his assumptions on than anyone commenting here.  ‘I know there is no afterlife or higher realms because I know” is really kind of obnoxious.  Nobody ‘knows’, but *maybe* we should listen to what Dr. Alexander has to say with a little bit less skepticism? He may be the best resource we have to try to explain this stuff yet.

      • http://twitter.com/GoodEatsGuru Lucas Knapp

         Too much thought, not enough meditation.

      • http://twitter.com/GoodEatsGuru Lucas Knapp

         Too much thought, not enough meditation.

  • Haystack

    I wonder if he had his experience as he was entering or coming out of the coma, rather than during the period that his cortex was actually shut off. It might be like a DMT experience, where one experiences a very long episode in just a second of real time. There would have to have been a period of time, however small, between when his cortex was inoperative and when it was functioning…so that doesn’t seem to perfectly eliminate the cortex as an explanation. 

  • Thad McKraken

    It’s kind of pointless to argue about whether inner states of consciousness are real or unreal with materialists who are hell bent on subscribing to binary modes of thought. You might as well be telling a christian that the Bible might not be literally true. It’s maybe better to point out a few things: 

    One, the human mind (if you must insist that that’s what’s causing it) can do a bunch of weird exotic shit. It’s a fact that’s inarguable. The materialist scientific position (and the religious position for the most part) is that these things have no value and there’s no point in studying them or exploring them because they “don’t exist”. It’s a pretty retarded position that’s actually quite difficult to argue in favor of.  Two, whereas it’s difficult to “prove” that these states are “real” it’s not remotely difficult to demonstrate that the behavior and attitudes of those who experience them change after the fact, often radically. Behavior is a physical thing that can be studied quite easily. So, it should be fairly easy to prove that experiences like these turn people into more compassionate, empathetic people. One might argue that there’s value in that, especially with the current state of our society. Of course, this research is barely even being done. 

  • Thad McKraken

    It’s kind of pointless to argue about whether inner states of consciousness are real or unreal with materialists who are hell bent on subscribing to binary modes of thought. You might as well be telling a christian that the Bible might not be literally true. It’s maybe better to point out a few things: 

    One, the human mind (if you must insist that that’s what’s causing it) can do a bunch of weird exotic shit. It’s a fact that’s inarguable. The materialist scientific position (and the religious position for the most part) is that these things have no value and there’s no point in studying them or exploring them because they “don’t exist”. It’s a pretty retarded position that’s actually quite difficult to argue in favor of.  Two, whereas it’s difficult to “prove” that these states are “real” it’s not remotely difficult to demonstrate that the behavior and attitudes of those who experience them change after the fact, often radically. Behavior is a physical thing that can be studied quite easily. So, it should be fairly easy to prove that experiences like these turn people into more compassionate, empathetic people. One might argue that there’s value in that, especially with the current state of our society. Of course, this research is barely even being done. 

  • Thad McKraken

    It’s kind of pointless to argue about whether inner states of consciousness are real or unreal with materialists who are hell bent on subscribing to binary modes of thought. You might as well be telling a christian that the Bible might not be literally true. It’s maybe better to point out a few things: 

    One, the human mind (if you must insist that that’s what’s causing it) can do a bunch of weird exotic shit. It’s a fact that’s inarguable. The materialist scientific position (and the religious position for the most part) is that these things have no value and there’s no point in studying them or exploring them because they “don’t exist”. It’s a pretty retarded position that’s actually quite difficult to argue in favor of.  Two, whereas it’s difficult to “prove” that these states are “real” it’s not remotely difficult to demonstrate that the behavior and attitudes of those who experience them change after the fact, often radically. Behavior is a physical thing that can be studied quite easily. So, it should be fairly easy to prove that experiences like these turn people into more compassionate, empathetic people. One might argue that there’s value in that, especially with the current state of our society. Of course, this research is barely even being done. 

    • Soruh Frake

       Nicely written ;)

  • Frankthetank

    sounds to me like your due for a dmt experience…

  • Frankthetank

    sounds to me like your due for a dmt experience…

  • guest1

    I’am so happy to read about your experience! people will oneday realize they have to let go of this reality… once they do other things will open up to them slowly. people are afraid of the unknown. Those messages she had told your are so true and make so much sense to me.

  • guest1

    I’am so happy to read about your experience! people will oneday realize they have to let go of this reality… once they do other things will open up to them slowly. people are afraid of the unknown. Those messages she had told your are so true and make so much sense to me.

  • Aphrodite

    Regardless of what we believe, or what can or can’t be proven…I’m certain this man’s life has changed for the better. It only matters what he will do with his experience moving forward. And I’m not sure why people must absolutely convince others that something exists or not. I can’t be certain that the way I perceive my reality isn’t unique to every other human being. So…given this…I am ok with others not believing as I do. End of story.

  • guest

    read all these comments….that david howe kid is a very thick headed troll

  • Nirvanasteve

    God… this reminds me of the one I had years ago. Never have I experienced anything as beautiful or life-changing since, but just that once was enough. 

  • Nirvanasteve

    God… this reminds me of the one I had years ago. Never have I experienced anything as beautiful or life-changing since, but just that once was enough. 

  • Tgravenmier

    the answer is aliens…

  • Tgravenmier

    the answer is aliens…

  • William Andrews

    Yep,very true.
    I guess more folks will listen to him than a minister or a priest.
    Strange world.
    I love this site,and the open mindedness that it takes to be different.
     http://navoices.com/
    I have taken a few stories from here and posted them there.This is an awesome spot.

  • William Andrews

    Yep,very true.
    I guess more folks will listen to him than a minister or a priest.
    Strange world.
    I love this site,and the open mindedness that it takes to be different.
     http://navoices.com/
    I have taken a few stories from here and posted them there.This is an awesome spot.

  • David Howe

    well, Mr. Hawkins has science…..and the rest of your thoughts are just that: thoughts.  You are also inflating religion with philosophy.  The bottom line is that you can’t have both rationality and these crazy flights of imagination.  You can breathe in and breathe out all you want, but it won’t change the speed of light or the weight of matter.  Are you next going to talk about the soul weighing 21 grams?

  • David Howe

    well, Mr. Hawkins has science…..and the rest of your thoughts are just that: thoughts.  You are also inflating religion with philosophy.  The bottom line is that you can’t have both rationality and these crazy flights of imagination.  You can breathe in and breathe out all you want, but it won’t change the speed of light or the weight of matter.  Are you next going to talk about the soul weighing 21 grams?

    • Ghost

      Anti-matter has no weight, zippy. It’s existence was debated hotly in scientific circles for decades before scientific advances granted us the ability to prove it was real.
      I guess there is no need to tell us where you would have stood in that debate if you were a physicist in the 1950’s lol
      You speak of “crazy flights of imagination” with such disdain….that saddens me. Einstein used “crazy flights of imagination” (both visualization and lucid dreaming techniques) to advance the world.
      But that’s ok. Keep trolling. Keep avoiding the hard questions people ask you. Keep playing the devil’s advocate. It is fun watching you get swatted repeatedly.

    • Ghost

      Anti-matter has no weight, zippy. It’s existence was debated hotly in scientific circles for decades before scientific advances granted us the ability to prove it was real.
      I guess there is no need to tell us where you would have stood in that debate if you were a physicist in the 1950’s lol
      You speak of “crazy flights of imagination” with such disdain….that saddens me. Einstein used “crazy flights of imagination” (both visualization and lucid dreaming techniques) to advance the world.
      But that’s ok. Keep trolling. Keep avoiding the hard questions people ask you. Keep playing the devil’s advocate. It is fun watching you get swatted repeatedly.

      • Soruh Frake

         I’m honestly hoping he’ll turn shizo soon like most people who can’t handle others not adhering to their belief and understanding of the world :p People like him are truly dangerous people, just way too unstable that they can’t even accept that no belief is 100% provable.

        • Ghost

          I think the only danger people like David pose are to themselves. To be perfectly honest, I like it when people poke, antagonize (to a degree) and stand stubbornly in their beliefs. I get it, and I respect it. In the end, when I take the time and bother to confront them, it helps me learn more about *me*, and where *I* stand…a type of introspection that I may or may not have utilized under other conditions. So, strangely enough, I am grateful for the dialogue with him.
          In any case, people like David are like the people I quoted in my first post. They shut their eyes tightly (metaphorically speaking), they make some noise, but eventually fade away into obscurity, remembered only for how ‘off the mark’ they really were. Such is the way of things I suppose.

        • Ghost

          I think the only danger people like David pose are to themselves. To be perfectly honest, I like it when people poke, antagonize (to a degree) and stand stubbornly in their beliefs. I get it, and I respect it. In the end, when I take the time and bother to confront them, it helps me learn more about *me*, and where *I* stand…a type of introspection that I may or may not have utilized under other conditions. So, strangely enough, I am grateful for the dialogue with him.
          In any case, people like David are like the people I quoted in my first post. They shut their eyes tightly (metaphorically speaking), they make some noise, but eventually fade away into obscurity, remembered only for how ‘off the mark’ they really were. Such is the way of things I suppose.

    • Soruh Frake

      Actually you can have rationality and crazy flights of imagination. Just it takes a bit of an intelligence to figure out that it works :p At least it takes a mind slightly less in the embrace of it’s ego than yours. To dismiss certain states of mind as meaningless and fantasy is plain stupid. All that we know and all that we have invented so far comes from that realm.
      Now you never see the world as it is, you only see the translation of each sense by the brain of the information those senses receive and you get a meaningful picture. Based on that all that we do know about the world is not really entirely proof that it is about the world, but much rather we are explaining the mind. We know nothing more than consciousness. Which is why, personal experience is so important.

    • Soruh Frake

      Actually you can have rationality and crazy flights of imagination. Just it takes a bit of an intelligence to figure out that it works :p At least it takes a mind slightly less in the embrace of it’s ego than yours. To dismiss certain states of mind as meaningless and fantasy is plain stupid. All that we know and all that we have invented so far comes from that realm.
      Now you never see the world as it is, you only see the translation of each sense by the brain of the information those senses receive and you get a meaningful picture. Based on that all that we do know about the world is not really entirely proof that it is about the world, but much rather we are explaining the mind. We know nothing more than consciousness. Which is why, personal experience is so important.

  • Reydogable

    love this

  • Reydogable

    love this

  • bobbiethejean

    Anyone who believes this nonsense:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00&feature=plcp
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc&feature=plcp

    Game, set, match. Don’t even try because you just can’t. There’s nowhere else to go after that.

  • bobbiethejean

    Anyone who believes this nonsense:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00&feature=plcp
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc&feature=plcp

    Game, set, match. Don’t even try because you just can’t. There’s nowhere else to go after that.

    • Kevin Leonard

      Sorry, I meant to hit “Reply”, I accidentally hit “Liked.” Please subtract one “like.” 

      The fundamental argument here is flawed. Substance, by it’s very definition is “that which has mass and occupies space; matter” so, non-physical substance is a misnomer. Further, I think most of us here, well, I can really only speak for myself, use the phrase “non-physical reality” to mean “that which cannot be measured,” specifically, by today’s devices. 

      QualiaSoup, himself, says “Increasingly sophisticated computers and state-of-the-art machines can now what our human ancestors might well have thought impossible.” Indeed. I look forward to the day when machines can measure what we are talking about. I will accede that the phrase “non-physical reality” is inadequate, but I would have to lay out an entire cosmology to use the terms I would otherwise use.

      QualiaSoup also states that “Whether what’s being proposed [the mind] is a thinking thing with literally no physical existence, or a kind of stuff declared to be beyond science, what’s striking about dualism from the outset is its reliance on a concept that defies investigation”

      I have major sources of contention with this statement (from the outset). I would never say that a mind is a thinking thing. In actuality, I would not say it is a thing, at all. But my definition would have to get metaphorical and analogical and QualiaSoup would find fault with that, though he uses analogies, himself.

      I would, however, say that a mind is beyond science (for now), but I would also never say that the mind is beyond investigation. To the contrary, there exists a plethora of meditative traditions that explore consciousness and the mind, often in very methodical and critical ways. Many authentic traditions even denounce imaginings and “flights of fancy” and rely, instead, on reproducible experiences. 

      A mind is not beyond investigation, it is just beyond measure.

      For the record, I do not identify with the term “dualist.” I have never heard of Swinburne and Plantinga and I also find their arguments to be weak.  So those whole segments should be considered strawman arguments.

      http://i.qkme.me/3odp9c.jpg

    • Kevin Leonard

      Sorry, I meant to hit “Reply”, I accidentally hit “Liked.” Please subtract one “like.” 

      The fundamental argument here is flawed. Substance, by it’s very definition is “that which has mass and occupies space; matter” so, non-physical substance is a misnomer. Further, I think most of us here, well, I can really only speak for myself, use the phrase “non-physical reality” to mean “that which cannot be measured,” specifically, by today’s devices. 

      QualiaSoup, himself, says “Increasingly sophisticated computers and state-of-the-art machines can now what our human ancestors might well have thought impossible.” Indeed. I look forward to the day when machines can measure what we are talking about. I will accede that the phrase “non-physical reality” is inadequate, but I would have to lay out an entire cosmology to use the terms I would otherwise use.

      QualiaSoup also states that “Whether what’s being proposed [the mind] is a thinking thing with literally no physical existence, or a kind of stuff declared to be beyond science, what’s striking about dualism from the outset is its reliance on a concept that defies investigation”

      I have major sources of contention with this statement (from the outset). I would never say that a mind is a thinking thing. In actuality, I would not say it is a thing, at all. But my definition would have to get metaphorical and analogical and QualiaSoup would find fault with that, though he uses analogies, himself.

      I would, however, say that a mind is beyond science (for now), but I would also never say that the mind is beyond investigation. To the contrary, there exists a plethora of meditative traditions that explore consciousness and the mind, often in very methodical and critical ways. Many authentic traditions even denounce imaginings and “flights of fancy” and rely, instead, on reproducible experiences. 

      A mind is not beyond investigation, it is just beyond measure.

      For the record, I do not identify with the term “dualist.” I have never heard of Swinburne and Plantinga and I also find their arguments to be weak.  So those whole segments should be considered strawman arguments.

      http://i.qkme.me/3odp9c.jpg

  • ThirdEyeOpen

    It was a DMT trip, I’m almost sure

  • ThirdEyeOpen

    It was a DMT trip, I’m almost sure

    • ebreezy14

      I agree with you thirdeyeopen its the pineal gland if i spelled that correctly 

    • ebreezy14

      I agree with you thirdeyeopen its the pineal gland if i spelled that correctly 

    • machineelf

      I was waiting for someone to just stop arguing and simply state the obvious. Anyone who has any knowledge of DMT or has experienced it can clearly identify this experience as a DMT trip. The similarities between so many recorded trips and this experience is uncanny.

      Dimethyltryptamine. The most unimaginable thing you can possibly experience.

  • guest

    after reading most of the comments, some of your opinions are very interesting. I’d hate to dismiss any of your “larger than life” claims, but I constantly thought of something that happens to me in cycles throughout my life. if I have a big issue or something big/stressful on my mind, I usually think about it and think about it until something comes of it. Maybe it’s a big decision I have to make. I will think about one choice over and over until I finally choose it. Maybe growing up in a religious family and being around church/God/the belief of afterlife so much and repeatedly that when you are near death it almost forces your mind into thinking it’s true. or, on the contrary, if you’ve done something really bad that you’ve constantly had to accept (murdering someone comes to mind) then you might “take that to the grave” so to speak so that in your final moments you think “I’m probly going to hell for that one” and then on your moment of death all you think about is the eternal suffering thats to come…

    …and maybe your final moment before you die you either experience heaven (an overall good reflection of your past life,) or hell (believing you deserve to be punished for what you did in your life) until your brain activity completely stops and that’s where it ends. you might think you’re in eternal heaven/hell because when your dreaming sometimes minutes seem like hours etc, but once all brain activity stops.. that’s it.

    Maybe the neurologist above who has probably wondered his whole career about an afterlife simply just had a crazy vivid imagination once he finally got to experience what he pondered during his whole professional career…

    I tend to think that crazy/complex things can be answered by a very simple logic. kind of like Einstein’s idea that If you can’t explain something in a very simple matter, you don’t understand it enough. 

  • guest

    after reading most of the comments, some of your opinions are very interesting. I’d hate to dismiss any of your “larger than life” claims, but I constantly thought of something that happens to me in cycles throughout my life. if I have a big issue or something big/stressful on my mind, I usually think about it and think about it until something comes of it. Maybe it’s a big decision I have to make. I will think about one choice over and over until I finally choose it. Maybe growing up in a religious family and being around church/God/the belief of afterlife so much and repeatedly that when you are near death it almost forces your mind into thinking it’s true. or, on the contrary, if you’ve done something really bad that you’ve constantly had to accept (murdering someone comes to mind) then you might “take that to the grave” so to speak so that in your final moments you think “I’m probly going to hell for that one” and then on your moment of death all you think about is the eternal suffering thats to come…

    …and maybe your final moment before you die you either experience heaven (an overall good reflection of your past life,) or hell (believing you deserve to be punished for what you did in your life) until your brain activity completely stops and that’s where it ends. you might think you’re in eternal heaven/hell because when your dreaming sometimes minutes seem like hours etc, but once all brain activity stops.. that’s it.

    Maybe the neurologist above who has probably wondered his whole career about an afterlife simply just had a crazy vivid imagination once he finally got to experience what he pondered during his whole professional career…

    I tend to think that crazy/complex things can be answered by a very simple logic. kind of like Einstein’s idea that If you can’t explain something in a very simple matter, you don’t understand it enough. 

  • Soruh Frake

    What I have trouble understanding with all these materialists, is the fact that matter is merely a scientific proven illusion, it is not a solid.

    The volume of an atom (roughly 1 angstrom, or 10^-10 m in diameter) is
    about 15 orders of magnitude larger than the volume of a nucleon
    (roughly 1 fm, or 10^-15 m in diameter). It seems rather silly to
    express that ratio in percentage, but it would be 99.9999999999999% empty space.

    David Howe when everything is merely solid to our perception, when the entire world is in constant movement, then adding quantum entanglement etc, we find ourselves far more in what seems a fluid or electromagnetic world in a sense, much rather than a world made up of rock hard solids.

    . In the end everything is energy, not matter. So honestly I can’t see how materialism is still so held on to nowadays….

  • Soruh Frake

    What I have trouble understanding with all these materialists, is the fact that matter is merely a scientific proven illusion, it is not a solid.

    The volume of an atom (roughly 1 angstrom, or 10^-10 m in diameter) is
    about 15 orders of magnitude larger than the volume of a nucleon
    (roughly 1 fm, or 10^-15 m in diameter). It seems rather silly to
    express that ratio in percentage, but it would be 99.9999999999999% empty space.

    David Howe when everything is merely solid to our perception, when the entire world is in constant movement, then adding quantum entanglement etc, we find ourselves far more in what seems a fluid or electromagnetic world in a sense, much rather than a world made up of rock hard solids.

    . In the end everything is energy, not matter. So honestly I can’t see how materialism is still so held on to nowadays….

    • Soruh Frake

      But i guess that for some people there is no better reality, no reality that is more genuine than that of money. It is the quick fix and the drug of desperation if it is the basis of your life . Just cause it balances our life’s so harshly; a lack of it, loss of property, lower rights, looked down upon etc. While the more there is the easier it goes and hence it gains such a momentum in terms of priority that it just seems rational that the world is a materialist world. But that is irrational rationality, it is based on your subjective experience and that of the other 90-99% of the world, whereas those 1% that own all the money, live a life where mostly all there luxuries come for free. There materialism doesn’t seem as prevalent, since these 1% have oddly way too many connections with the spiritual aspects of life.

    • Soruh Frake

      But i guess that for some people there is no better reality, no reality that is more genuine than that of money. It is the quick fix and the drug of desperation if it is the basis of your life . Just cause it balances our life’s so harshly; a lack of it, loss of property, lower rights, looked down upon etc. While the more there is the easier it goes and hence it gains such a momentum in terms of priority that it just seems rational that the world is a materialist world. But that is irrational rationality, it is based on your subjective experience and that of the other 90-99% of the world, whereas those 1% that own all the money, live a life where mostly all there luxuries come for free. There materialism doesn’t seem as prevalent, since these 1% have oddly way too many connections with the spiritual aspects of life.

  • http://twitter.com/GoodEatsGuru Lucas Knapp

    Truth cares not if you believe in it.  

  • Oddysey_41

    DMT

  • Oddysey_41

    DMT

  • DeepCough

    Personally, I found “The Myth of ER” far more interesting and enlightening..

  • DeepCough

    Personally, I found “The Myth of ER” far more interesting and enlightening..

  • Robbie_frazer

    Spirit science. Youtube it.

  • Robbie_frazer

    Spirit science. Youtube it.

  • Ugly Guy

    It’s as simple as this.  If you’ve seen it, you know.  If you haven’t, you can’t.  And the very thing that defines “this” life as something other than “that”, is limitation.  It’s the proverbial “new color” that you could not possibly have imagined before having seen it.  Or something like that.  But when you see it, the most remarkable thing about it, is that it feel like remembering.  It’s not at all unlike awakening from a dream.  Sometimes we wake up in stages.  Sometimes, all at once.  (Even though I think it’s always actually stages, even if it’s by a startling noise, for example).  Either way, eventually, we wake up.  Our state shifts, and the environment we never questioned the reality of, literally vanishes.  Just, like, that.

    Arguing about it is silly.  There’s literally no way at all to convince anybody of this stuff.  Can’t be done.  I used to make fun of the ‘believers’ once upon a time myself.  All it took was a few minutes to render everything I took as “reality”, utterly ephemeral.  And no, no drugs.  Sometimes, it just happens.  I won’t bother explaining why how, because it’s unimportant.  It can happen to people when they’re brushing their teeth.  Expecting rhyme or reason…. is to misunderstand how it works. 

    But that’s ok!  Because nobody doesn’t get there.  If you get a sneak peak, great.  If you don’t, great.  It’s all the same.  There’s no prize for first place.  It’s universally awesome. 

  • Ugly Guy

    It’s as simple as this.  If you’ve seen it, you know.  If you haven’t, you can’t.  And the very thing that defines “this” life as something other than “that”, is limitation.  It’s the proverbial “new color” that you could not possibly have imagined before having seen it.  Or something like that.  But when you see it, the most remarkable thing about it, is that it feel like remembering.  It’s not at all unlike awakening from a dream.  Sometimes we wake up in stages.  Sometimes, all at once.  (Even though I think it’s always actually stages, even if it’s by a startling noise, for example).  Either way, eventually, we wake up.  Our state shifts, and the environment we never questioned the reality of, literally vanishes.  Just, like, that.

    Arguing about it is silly.  There’s literally no way at all to convince anybody of this stuff.  Can’t be done.  I used to make fun of the ‘believers’ once upon a time myself.  All it took was a few minutes to render everything I took as “reality”, utterly ephemeral.  And no, no drugs.  Sometimes, it just happens.  I won’t bother explaining why how, because it’s unimportant.  It can happen to people when they’re brushing their teeth.  Expecting rhyme or reason…. is to misunderstand how it works. 

    But that’s ok!  Because nobody doesn’t get there.  If you get a sneak peak, great.  If you don’t, great.  It’s all the same.  There’s no prize for first place.  It’s universally awesome. 

  • http://www.purenergymeditation.com/ Meditator

    And now you know why people sit down and meditate. You don’t have to have a near death experience. That’s just the accidental way of getting past the mind…
    Oh and yep, I’m also a scientist but I happen to be much more akin to my scientific forefathers like Newton et al who wanted to know all the answers and explored as much philosophically and spiritually as they did scientifically. Even in the 70’s Nature was publishing papers on telekenesis (read Supernature by L Watson) and the military to this day are still researching chi energy, auras etc. Modern science is a very limited doctrine with narrow vision, which has been polarised into the purely material (base) view partly by the legal structure of patents and the avenues for commercialisation of their activity. I worked for 8 years in the pharma industry… I’ve seen enough to know first hand. True science is an unbiased exploration of the world around us without fear or prejudice…  I just think it’s great if even one person has their eye(s) opened by direct experience. The fact that he happens to be a scientist is just amusing. I also think it’s amusing that people get so polarised. I am scientific AND spiritual. I’m not so insecure in my own beliefs and realisations that I NEED other people to agree with me or believe me.
    I just respect people’s opinions and if they want to discover more then I’m happy to help them if I can.
    Otherwise all we get is more opposites, more arguments and more division. Doesn’t sound very loving to me… so everyone, here’s the challenge. Move beyond belief and actually start basing your actions on what you know to be true from your own direct experience and respect other people’s right to do the same…
    Peace

    • Alfie Noakes

       I clicked on your link after reading your interesting post to see what you are talking about but the link is broken. I think you meant to put pureenergymeditation.com and not purenergymeditation.com!! Great post though. :)

    • Alfie Noakes

       I clicked on your link after reading your interesting post to see what you are talking about but the link is broken. I think you meant to put pureenergymeditation.com and not purenergymeditation.com!! Great post though. :)

      • http://www.purenergymeditation.com/ Meditator

         Hey thanks for that Alfie, and thanks for checking out the site!

  • http://www.purenergymeditation.com/ Meditator

    And now you know why people sit down and meditate. You don’t have to have a near death experience. That’s just the accidental way of getting past the mind…
    Oh and yep, I’m also a scientist but I happen to be much more akin to my scientific forefathers like Newton et al who wanted to know all the answers and explored as much philosophically and spiritually as they did scientifically. Even in the 70’s Nature was publishing papers on telekenesis (read Supernature by L Watson) and the military to this day are still researching chi energy, auras etc. Modern science is a very limited doctrine with narrow vision, which has been polarised into the purely material (base) view partly by the legal structure of patents and the avenues for commercialisation of their activity. I worked for 8 years in the pharma industry… I’ve seen enough to know first hand. True science is an unbiased exploration of the world around us without fear or prejudice…  I just think it’s great if even one person has their eye(s) opened by direct experience. The fact that he happens to be a scientist is just amusing. I also think it’s amusing that people get so polarised. I am scientific AND spiritual. I’m not so insecure in my own beliefs and realisations that I NEED other people to agree with me or believe me.
    I just respect people’s opinions and if they want to discover more then I’m happy to help them if I can.
    Otherwise all we get is more opposites, more arguments and more division. Doesn’t sound very loving to me… so everyone, here’s the challenge. Move beyond belief and actually start basing your actions on what you know to be true from your own direct experience and respect other people’s right to do the same…
    Peace

  • Cone angle radius

    Sorry, but when I die, whatever force that’s out there isn’t going to be able to just buy me off with a, “there’s nothing you can do wrong.” Numeral uno, 0=nothing=2πr-2πx-ør — just saying that nothing can be placed in terms of an algebraic expression, and this yields a paradox — something that can be proven as both true and not true at the same time, which tells me that there is something “wrong” with the fabric of space-time. So, yeah, there is “nothing” you can do wrong, because zero is an algebraic expression that contains within it a fundamental paradox. This doesn’t make me feel relieved. But whatever floats your naive little boat, go and float.

  • Cone angle radius

    Sorry, but when I die, whatever force that’s out there isn’t going to be able to just buy me off with a, “there’s nothing you can do wrong.” Numeral uno, 0=nothing=2πr-2πx-ør — just saying that nothing can be placed in terms of an algebraic expression, and this yields a paradox — something that can be proven as both true and not true at the same time, which tells me that there is something “wrong” with the fabric of space-time. So, yeah, there is “nothing” you can do wrong, because zero is an algebraic expression that contains within it a fundamental paradox. This doesn’t make me feel relieved. But whatever floats your naive little boat, go and float.

  • danny.cr

     Dimethyltryptamine……

  • danny.cr

     Dimethyltryptamine……

  • JVally

    Meh. This guy is confused. First, if his brain was truly “inactive”, he would have been in a state of total brain death and come back–that is NOT a “coma” as we know it. This WOULD have been pretty miraculous news, but there would have been word of it outside this article. Even if he can verify total brain death, it still wouldn’t eliminate the possibility that his experience occurred during the time his brain was turning back “on” from total brain death (or while “turning off”). Second, anybody who has every taken drugs or had a lucid dream knows that it is entirely possibly to have hyper–real experiences of subjectively near infinite time in a short period of “real time.” They certainly hint at the possibility that there’s a non-material world of the mind out there, but they in no way prove it and there is nothing in this story that we can use to definitely say the poor guy was not tripping on his own brain chemicals. This is essentially the equivalent of a drug naive person taking LSD for the first time and seeing God. It makes a big impression and you usually annoy your friends with it for awhile or else find new friends who will just get high with you and nod as you rant. THIS guy just happens to be a neuroscientist so when HE has the experience, he can get it published in a main stream news publication that is struggling to maintain its readership. Cool story, but it doesn’t add anything new to what we know for certain.

  • http://twitter.com/mtotland Martin Totland

    He is a NEURO SURGEON, not a neuroscientist. There is a big fucking difference. I recommend you also post Sam Harris’ rebuttal of this fucking nonsense. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

  • GOD

    Life after death is real

  • ludusvan

    Sounds a lot like Huxley’s idea of the Mind At Large.

  • Roark

    There is life after death. Those who refuse to believe it will just find out later than sooner.

  • Sarcasmo

    Come on disinfo, you left out the part where he claims he’s a Christian

  • http://www.facebook.com/pahndeepah Keith Wayne Brown

    Well, the piece is an interesting testimony. Does not prove anything other than personal experiences can cause us to change our minds. But it is interesting. Unlike the comments which seemed to have turned into something fairly dubious.

  • http://twitter.com/Cannadude Cannadude

    Of course there’s life after death. The movie “Ghost” proved that years ago.

  • avise

    Vi veri vniversum vivus vici. You are on the path.

  • the northface

    I had a similar experience after smoking DMT, the pineal gland has a lot to answer for.

  • Aphugel

    A hallucination proves exactly nothing. The only lesson from all this crappola is: Being a scientist does not necessarily mean that you can think properly.
    Cheers

  • jj

    He is a neurosurgeon, not a neuroscientist. Quite different things.

  • typhon

    We’ll all find out some day, or none of us will. What’s for dinner?

  • nik

    There may be no evidence for a life after death. There are many arguments from atheists as well as those who believe in a god. But in the most simplest and unavoidable of things, such as before going to sleep, if one wonders whether they will awaken, does one not hope there is someone who can answer the question ‘so whats next?’.

  • http://damiendarby.wordpress.com/ Damien D

    I myself can vouch for two things:

    1) I was visited by one of those “higher beings” as a child. This thing, well, had no back if that makes any sense. There was absolutely nothing behind it.

    2) I have also been to this void, and it was truly wonderful.

    I believe this post to be 100% genuine, sincere, and real.

    Thank you for sharing your experience.

  • Dusk

    Physicist here. I believe most scientists make a big mistake on this matter: just because our brain runs on electrochemical signals this doesn’t say anything about their meaning, it’s just a measurable aspect of the whole phenomenon. Good ol Aleister comes to mind: “The application of any given force affects all the orders of being
    which exist in the object to which it is applied, whichever of
    of those orders is directly affected”. Different aspects of the same process, the operation in this case being that of “measure”.

    You can measure different qualities of the same phenomenon, for example you can measure the volume and/or the pressure of an inflating balloon, or its length, and try to work out how these measures are correlated. It should be no surprise that even the mystical and magickal experiences have their brain chemistry. However, this does not imply that this chemistry is the cause, or the only important aspect, of the totality of the experienced phenomenon.

  • xII

    Yeah, I expected comments to be pretty loaded… but it is still curious to see people who talk about skepticism practice so little of it. I have hardly ever seen people deal with things like Ganzfeld meta analyses or deal with the fact that most, if not all, conventional explanations for NDEs have been debunked.

  • disqus_5R199jWJ7w

    i believe that this man experienced a DMT trip. DiMethylTryptamine is naturally occuring in the brain and normally acts as a neurotransmitter. the release of a larger amount of this substance in the brain in response to severe physical/nervous trauma could well explain many near death “experiences” (NDE). almost every time i read of an NDE i’m amazed by the similarity of the description to my own experiences

  • disqus_kuvgmb5v6H

    I had a very similar experience except i was just praying and deep breathing..especially the vast beautiful blissful darkness and light/orb scenario..it stays with you,it’s real

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc
  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc
21