Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

bou · 24-02-2017 2:03am

King Mob wrote: »

No, we are fairly confident that consciousness is contained in the brain and that there is no external component. Can you point to any neuroscientists who claim otherwise?
And again, there is no plausible mechanism for how consciousness to survive the death of the brain or to exist without it or to transfer itself into a new brain. If you believe there is such a mechanism, please explain.

However, if you are suggesting that because we don't know everything about consciousness right now, therefore there could be something new etc. then you are simply wrong.

While we might not have the full story of how it works, we know that consciousness is formed by electrical and chemical interactions from the brain. These individual processes and the physics and chemistry behind them are well understood. We can state with confidence that electrical and chemical reactions need electrical conductors and paths and chemicals to happen. Without a physical thing there for them to happen, they don't happen.

If you are going to insist that there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness, then I'm going to need to see some evidence before I can conclude that all the neuroscience we have today is completely wrong.

I am no expert in any way. From what I have read, not all scientists are so confident that consciousness can be fully accounted for by neural processes of the brain. Or rather, the science is not yet very clear. See example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurophilosophy discussing interpretation of neural imaging.

In the field of AI, it is not yet known if current or near term technology can produce something like awareness/consciousness as we experience it in humans.

You say I need proof for my viewpoint. I say you don't have proof for you viewpoint.

I should point out that the scientific method, in it's best form, is open to possibilities and is able to dream of things unseen before. For example, the world as described by physics is weird and getting weirder as we proceed.

I wish I had a PhD degree in about 5 disciplines: AI, neurology, philosophy, physics, psychology, and was able to keep abreast of developments across all fields and had the leisure to theories and discuss.

I also wish I stopped participating in distractions such as this forum and instead got on with practicing the dharma.

Alas, my humdrum life has intervened. And my propensity for distractions.

I wish I was asleep.

Utter **** I'm afraid. ...

I might come back to this eloquent point another day but to say in short that you haven't followed what I was saying and instead liberally applied your own interpretation.

King Mob · 24-02-2017 2:32am

bou wrote: »

I am no expert in any way. From what I have read, not all scientists are so confident that consciousness can be fully accounted for by neural processes of the brain. Or rather, the science is not yet very clear.

Cool. Can you point to any current research in neurology that relies on the idea that the consciousness is wholly or partly external to the brain (or body)? Anything published in a decent journal will do.

bou wrote: »

You say I need proof for my viewpoint. I say you don't have proof for you viewpoint.

No, this is not how it works. You are making the same mistake as JC.
You are claiming that there is an afterlife. You cannot provide any actual evidence for such a thing.
I am not claiming anything, I'm just rejecting assertions that are made without evidence or support or sense.

bou wrote: »

I should point out that the scientific method, in it's best form, is open to possibilities and is able to dream of things unseen before. For example, the world as described by physics is weird and getting weirder as we proceed.

Lots of things are possible, we can discover new things all the time. But that doesn't mean that all things that are possible are then also true.

Again, there is nothing observed that indicates an afterlife. There is no physical indication that it exists or happens. There is no sensible proposed model by which it can work.
If religion didn't exist and invent the idea of an afterlife, why would anyone think that one exists?

Let's try another angle:

What is something you don't believe in? Do you believe in fairies or dragons or Bigfoot?
Why do you not believe in it?

bou wrote: »

I also wish I stopped participating in distractions such as this forum and instead got on with practicing the dharma.

Alas, my humdrum life has intervened. And my propensity for distractions.

I wish I was asleep.

I might come back to this eloquent point another day but to say in short that you haven't followed what I was saying and instead liberally applied your own interpretation.

You do seem to write a lot about how you don't want to answer questions or respond to points...

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-02-2017 8:34am

looksee wrote: »

I had my turn as the victim and I felt myself being lifted, but then I carried on going up high into the roof and hovered there for a moment till I was taken down again. I was totally spooked! I still clearly remember it and feel I could swear that I did float up to the ceiling.

There is a similar out of body style experience you can stimulate in yourself with similar ease. The trick is to get some kind of artificial hand, something that looks like a hand as much as possible. Off a manequinn or just a stuffed glove or something similar.

Place it near your real hand but obscure your view of your real hand somehow. Then get another person to stroke both hands with some kind of identical soft implements. Stare at your fake hand while this is happening.

Fast strokes work for some people, slow for others (oo-er), so have them vary it but be consistent for some time with each speed.

Eventually your brain should "switch" and you should become absolutely convinced that the sensations you are feeling are coming from the fake hand.

Actually here is the same experiment being done on QI.....

But if you get good at it you can do it with fake hands that are on the opposite side of the room to you, which gets really freaky. Or with other parts of the body, like someone elses Back or forehead or something on the other side of the room.

Peregrinus · 24-02-2017 9:53am

Somebody has to!

I'll get my coat.

bou · 24-02-2017 8:37pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Can you point to any current research in neurology that relies on the idea that the consciousness is wholly or partly external to the brain (or body)? Anything published in a decent journal will do.

No, this is not how it works. You are making the same mistake as JC.
You are claiming that there is an afterlife. You cannot provide any actual evidence for such a thing.
I am not claiming anything, I'm just rejecting assertions that are made without evidence or support or sense.

I'm not actually asking you to accept anything about reincarnation. And particularly so in the last few posts. I'm merely asking you to examine more closely the assertion that all aspects of consciousness can be explained by the workings of neurons as currently understood. You have stated before with certainty that this is the case. I was pointing out that it is unscientific to jump the gun on making these assertions. The jury is still out.
If you wish to be scientific, be fully scientific. Don't accept things without thorough investigation. Don't reject things without thorough investigation. At any time, science provides models of reality. The models are not reality itself so leave a little room for possibility. Who knows what the next advances will be? There is also fashion in science. So opinions can vary as to the ultimate philosophical understanding of things.

Lots of things are possible, we can discover new things all the time. But that doesn't mean that all things that are possible are then also true.

Again, there is nothing observed that indicates an afterlife. There is no physical indication that it exists or happens. There is no sensible proposed model by which it can work.
If religion didn't exist and invent the idea of an afterlife, why would anyone think that one exists?

Again, the last things I was talking about were assumptions about science rather than about airy-fairy buddhist notions.
As to those notions, I take them from what I see as good sources. But also, I have been investigating them, as recommended by those same sources. My investigations will conclude some time between now and the next 30 to 50 years, most likely when I die. To date, I have made some progress but have been poor at applying myself to thorough investigation. I have found the efficacy of buddhist views and practices in my life and look forward to delving deeper.

Let's try another angle:
What is something you don't believe in? Do you believe in fairies or dragons or Bigfoot?
Why do you not believe in it?

No, I don't believe in random stuff. I follow the teachings of the Buddha and of the many masters who have investigated the nature of being throughout their lives. Many of these masters have spent 30, 50 or more years learning from their teachers and often have spent 20 or 30 years in retreat, practicing mediation and contemplation. They follow lineages of teachings past down from master to student with extreme care. I do feel that these are worthy of some small degree of consideration.
Just as scientists are dedicated to the careful execution of their craft, these people have dedicated themselves to studying mind, perception and experience, albeit from a first person perspective.

You do seem to write a lot about how you don't want to answer questions or respond to points...

Not sure I said anything like that. I don't actually have much time available to respond thoughtfully. That is my circumstance. I don't like firing off replies without some care and will gladly forgo replies when I don't have time to make a reasonable attempt. Yes, this is not in keeping with modern communication.

I may not get back again for a few days, or a week, or two.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-02-2017 10:49pm

bou wrote: »

Just as scientists are dedicated to the careful execution of their craft, these people have dedicated themselves to studying mind, perception and experience, albeit from a first person perspective.

People study RC theology in great depth for decades too, doesn't make any of it more likely to have the slightest grain of truth in it.

The difference between science and any other method of 'finding out stuff' is the scientific method - an incremental, self-correcting, method of amassing actual, verifiable, testable knowledge. Yes scientists make hypotheses but the aim is to make testable hypotheses and then test them (and have others test them) and prove them correct. Einstein's theories of relativity were regarded by quite a lot of physicists as clever maths but rather fanciful at first, until experiments and observations proved them correct. Similarly with Maxwell's equations, the Higgs boson, gravitational waves, black holes, etc.

Whereas religions make hypotheses which are either tested and found lacking, or in the case of the more successful ones, have refined (or, evolved, if you prefer) their hypotheses so as to make them effectively untestable. e.g. RCC's claim that consecrated hosts are 'body and blood of Jesus Christ' in essence despite any test yet devised showing them to be physically and chemically just a wafer.

King Mob · 25-02-2017 2:32am

bou wrote: »

You have stated before with certainty that this is the case. I was pointing out that it is unscientific to jump the gun on making these assertions. The jury is still out.

I didn't say certainty, I said "with confidence".
Again, all of the research going on today focuses on the mind as if it is solely the product of the physical brain. There is nothing about the brain that indicates that there is something non-physical about the mind.

Hand-waving about not knowing everything does not really change this. It could be that everything about neuroscience could be completely wrong tomorrow.
But do you think that's likely?

bou wrote: »

No, I don't believe in random stuff.

The reason I need to clarify is that I have asked this question before and the person replied that they did genuinely believe in fairies.

But it's clear you don't. I asking you to explain why, as I think that the reason is pretty much the same as for why I don't believe in your afterlife.

bou wrote: »

I follow the teachings of the Buddha and of the many masters who have investigated the nature of being throughout their lives. Many of these masters have spent 30, 50 or more years learning from their teachers and often have spent 20 or 30 years in retreat, practicing mediation and contemplation. They follow lineages of teachings past down from master to student with extreme care. I do feel that these are worthy of some small degree of consideration.

Why?
There are hundreds of religions with their own dedicated wisemen. Do you not give them consideration? Why do you think they are all wrong where your wise men are right?
There are people who throw their lives into researching seriously things like the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, fairies, psychic powers, ghosts, UFOs...
Does their years of work suddenly make them more correct?

Are you saying that all of your masters cannot possibly be wrong, but we should not take neuroscience seriously because it can be upended at anytime?

Arguments from authority and antiquity don't hold much sway here.

bou wrote: »

Not sure I said anything like that. I don't actually have much time available to respond thoughtfully. That is my circumstance. I don't like firing off replies without some care and will gladly forgo replies when I don't have time to make a reasonable attempt. Yes, this is not in keeping with modern communication.

I may not get back again for a few days, or a week, or two.

Again, you are posting a lot of waffle without actually addressing much. Maybe if you cut down on explain how knowledge isn't absolute and just focus on points then maybe you'd have more time.

J C · 25-02-2017 11:28pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except we do investigate it all the time. Sam Parnia for example.... someone HEAVILY biased TOWARDS finding evidence of an after life, has very much investigated the claim that people, "even blind people" can see the room they are in during NDE.

And he came back with NOTHING to support it.

Not true ... Dr Parnia carried out a large-scale study involving 2060 patients from 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, United States and Austria. The study was sponsored by the University of Southampton in the UK.

Summary:-
"Results of the study have been published in the journal Resuscitation and are now available online. The study concludes:
The themes relating to the experience of death appear far broader than what has been understood so far, or what has been described as so called near-death experiences.
In some cases of cardiac arrest, memories of visual awareness compatible with so called out-of-body experiences may correspond with actual events.
A higher proportion of people may have vivid death experiences, but do not recall them due to the effects of brain injury or sedative drugs on memory circuits.
Widely used yet scientifically imprecise terms such as near-death and out-of-body experiences may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.
The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.

Quote:-
"One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest. Dr Parnia concluded: “This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating. In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.

“Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page

Brian? · 26-02-2017 12:33am

J C wrote: »

Not true ... Dr Parnia carried out a large-scale study involving 2060 patients from 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, United States and Austria. The study was sponsored by the University of Southampton in the UK.

Summary:-
"Results of the study have been published in the journal Resuscitation and are now available online. The study concludes:
The themes relating to the experience of death appear far broader than what has been understood so far, or what has been described as so called near-death experiences.
In some cases of cardiac arrest, memories of visual awareness compatible with so called out-of-body experiences may correspond with actual events.
A higher proportion of people may have vivid death experiences, but do not recall them due to the effects of brain injury or sedative drugs on memory circuits.
Widely used yet scientifically imprecise terms such as near-death and out-of-body experiences may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.
The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.

Quote:-
"One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest. Dr Parnia concluded: “This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating. In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.

“Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page

The brain is still active for minutes, not 20-30 seconds after the heart stops. I have posted that twice now with zero response.

King Mob · 26-02-2017 4:27am

J C wrote: »

Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.
The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.

I thought you were arguing that NDEs only occur after brain death?

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-02-2017 8:34am

J C wrote: »

Not true ...

Really? Then how come NOTHING You just wrote in your post counters what I just said? At all. Even a little bit?

What you quoted shows things I already know, and in fact expected before the study was even published. There is a lot more going on at the level of the brain during the process of death than we though. NO ONE here appears to have denied that least of all me.

But NONE of parnias studies have verified that people are actually leaving their body. As I said, in studies placing incongruous and unmissable objects in places where ONLY a person having an OBE could see them.......... there have not just been few but NO RESULTS AT ALL where anyone having an OBE has actually seen them.

J C wrote: »

Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.

Actually the procedure for calling "death" in a medical situation has been moved away from the heart for the very reason there ARE differences between the two.

You can find this discussed in many places, but as you are a complete lay man to science I can recommend this video here which discusses it somewhere in the middle about how doctors do not call death based on the heart any more, but attempt to establish brain response and activity instead.

But I certainly do not disagree with any statement of "more research needed".

J C wrote: »

The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.

It is quite comical to me that you started your post with "wrong" but appear to be focusing your response on rebutting claims I never made, or issues I have no problem with.

It IS genuinely interesting that patients experience their surroundings at times that we previously thought impossible. We are learning, and we need to study more, and it is all great stuff.

I have not doubted that AT ALL. What I doubt is the complete non-sequitur leaps you make from those observations to the kind of nonsense narratives you espouse. NOTHING about those new, valid and enlightening discoveries validates........ for example........ your claim that blind people have been going around viewing their surroundings.

IF YOUR CLAIM was simply that these people lying on the table are hearing and seeing things that we thought they shouldn't be...... you would not get a SINGLE rebuttal from me. At all. Even a little bit.

But that is not your claims. The claims you ARE making are not validated by any study so far. Much less Sam Parnia's one. Because YOU are talking about people seeing things from vantage points other than the one they occupy......... or seeing things they should not be able to see AT ALL EVER (such as blind people seeing objects)........ or the idea that the consciousness, complete with all the faculties of sight and hearing...... are lifting up off the brain and operating independently of it.

So you can start posts with "WRONG" all you like, but unless you formulate a response to what I am ACTUALLY saying....... you will be doing nothing but defining the content of YOUR OWN posts. Not mine.

J C wrote: »

This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted.

Even that is over simplified and misleading.

Firstly because we are RARELY talking about a simple "on/off" case of the heart stopping and starting again. In reality we are in that interim administering all kinds of manual and chemical and electrical solutions to compensate for the loss of heart function and so there is no simple "Heart goes off, brain goes off 20 seconds later" algorithm to apply here.

Secondly because the brain is not a simple on/off system either. After 20 or 30 seconds the brain might START into the process of shutting down. But that ITSELF takes time. It does not simply go off like a light switch being flicked. Brian? has pointed that out a number of times now, and it is quite telling that you have simply engaged in a campaign of entirely ignoring the point.

Thirdly because we are not JUST talking about the brain here either. During that period the eyes, ears and other senses can still be stimulated. Sound will still cause the hairs in the inner ear to vibrate, those vibrations will still be converted into electrical signals, and those signals will still be sent in the direction of the brain. Brain issues aside, the senses are a separate peripheral system that can continue to operate too. Your error, and the error of many a lay man, is to assume that when one stops the other stops identically. If you turn your computer off, or put it into a power saving stand by made, your keyboard and mouse can STILL keep trying to send inputs to it.

And fourth it should be noticed that all the experiences referred to in your quote happen DURING these minutes (not seconds as you think) process of brain death. Not AFTER it. And that too is an important distinction to be made in the context of what you are presenting AND the topic of this thread.

So I repeat. If you simply want to establish that patients experience real world events at points when we previously expected otherwise.......... then you will realize I am not rebutting a single thing you have said.

Problem is you are NOT just stopping there are you?

J C · 27-02-2017 12:13am

Brian? wrote: »

The brain is still active for minutes, not 20-30 seconds after the heart stops. I have posted that twice now with zero response.

The brain doesn't die for a number of minutes ... but its electrical activity stops within seconds of the the heart stopping.
Dr Sam Parnia is Assistant Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Director of Resuscitation Research at The State University of New York at Stony Brook ... and he is saying that NDEs "merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

J C · 27-02-2017 12:20am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I repeat. If you simply want to establish that patients experience real world events at points when we previously expected otherwise.......... then you will realize I am not rebutting a single thing you have said.

Problem is you are NOT just stopping there are you?

The reason that patients experience real world events at points when you previously expected otherwise ... is because they are experiencing these things and recalling them when the brain has shut down electrically ... and materialists argue that our minds and senses only communicate electrically.

Equally, it is not only real world events occurring around NDE patients, that they recall ... they also recall out of this world experiences as well.

If people's minds/spirits do live on beyond death ... then you would expect exactly what we find with NDEs ... initial recall of activity around patients when their brain has flatlined electrically and has begun to die ... followed by OBEs and visits to out of this world locations as death proceeds ... only to be recalled to their bodies ... when they are resuscitated.

King Mob · 27-02-2017 12:54am

J C wrote: »

The reason that patients experience real world events at points when you previously expected otherwise ... is because they are experiencing these things and recalling them when the brain has shut down electrically ... and materialists argue that our minds and senses only communicate electrically.

The study you posted did not show any of the patients brains had completely and totally shut down.

J C wrote: »

Equally, it is not only real world events occurring around NDE patients, that they recall ... they also recall out of this world experiences as well.
.

What real world events specifically do they we report?
How come they do not report the planted objects for them to notice?

Brian? · 27-02-2017 1:46am

J C wrote: »

The brain doesn't die for a number of minutes ... but its electrical activity stops within seconds of the the heart stopping.
Dr Sam Parnia is Assistant Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Director of Resuscitation Research at The State University of New York at Stony Brook ... and he is saying that NDEs "merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

The electrical activity in the brain does not stop seconds after the heart stops. Why would it? Messages are sent electrically, independent of blood flow.

Dr Sam Parnia is right, NDEs do merit investigation. You are presupposing the answer is that there is a spiritual component to conscientiousness. I am saying I don't know what causes them. If there is any prejudice here it's on your side.

J C · 27-02-2017 10:13pm

King Mob wrote: »

The study you posted did not show any of the patients brains had completely and totally shut down.

Quote:-
"Dr Parnia said: 'We know the brain can't function when the heart has stopped beating.
'But in this case conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn't beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
'This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating.
'Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.' "

King Mob wrote: »

What real world events specifically do they we report?
How come they do not report the planted objects for them to notice?

Here is an account of one such experiment:-
Quote:-
"Parnia is not the first person attempting to prove that consciousness survives when the brain is offline. The search for proof has a history, and it is fraught. In 2004 and 2005, for instance, University of North Texas counseling professor Janice Miner Holden studied a series of patients undergoing implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator, a pacemaker-like device. During the procedure, their hearts were shocked to a halt to test whether the device would kick in as intended. While their hearts were stopped, their brains were inactive; they were temporarily dead.

A computer then played a loop of 60 cartoons on a monitor taped to the wall well above the eye level of the medical team but theoretically visible to anyone near the ceiling and looking down—in other words, visible to anyone having a true (and not hallucinatory) OBE. Holden hypothesized that a temporarily dead individual whose consciousness actually separated from his or her body would see a cartoon, along with a time stamp on the monitor, and report it after the procedure. A few recalled a sense of profound peace or seeing a deceased loved one, but no one reported an OBE or full-blown NDE.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201409/seeing-the-light

Quote:-
Dr Sam Parnia, said: 'The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated.
'Whether it fades away afterwards, we do not know, but right after death, consciousness is not lost.'
The scientists heard one man recall leaving his body entirely, watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
The 57-year-old social worker from Southampton was 'dead' for three minutes yet managed to recount detailed actions of the nursing staff and the sound of the machines.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2783030/Research-near-death-experiences-reveals-awareness-continue-brain-shut-down.html

looksee · 27-02-2017 11:06pm

If there is anything to NDEs, I doubt it is spiritual. I have not had a NDE (though I know someone who claims to have had one) but I did have a cardioversion which is an electric shock passed through the chest to briefly stop the heart to return it to sinus rhythm during arrhythmia. I was very briefly anaesthetised and the shock applied. When I awoke my heart was beating normally - and I felt very well, almost euphoric. Very nice, sadly it only lasted a few hours. (I did have a couple of minor burns, but that was a detail

)

J C · 27-02-2017 11:16pm

looksee wrote: »

If there is anything to NDEs, I doubt it is spiritual. I have not had a NDE (though I know someone who claims to have had one) but I did have a cardioversion which is an electric shock passed through the chest to briefly stop the heart to return it to sinus rhythm during arrhythmia. I was very briefly anaesthetised and the shock applied. When I awoke my heart was beating normally - and I felt very well, almost euphoric. Very nice, sadly it only lasted a few hours. (I did have a couple of minor burns, but that was a detail )

We simply don't know (from a scientific perspective) what NDEs are, at present ... and the researchers say that we need more research ... and an open mind.
I have no argument with this ... and I'd have thought that many Atheists (who pride themselves on going where the evidence goes) would also have no argument with this ... but they aparently do ... because they have a bias which excludes, even the possibility, of any supernatural explantions.

looksee · 27-02-2017 11:49pm

J C wrote: »

We simply don't know (from a scientific perspective) what NDEs are, at present ... and the researchers say that we need more research ... and an open mind.
I have no argument with this ... and I'd have thought that many Atheists (who pride themselves on going where the evidence goes) would also have no argument with this ... but they aparently do ... because they have a bias which excludes, even the possibility, of any supernatural explantions.

I go where the evidence goes, but I have yet to see any evidence for supernatural anything, whereas there is lots of evidence of the potential for the mind and the body to 'play tricks' on us. I don't think that this is really an atheist issue, I have no doubt that very many religious people would have the same views.

King Mob · 28-02-2017 1:20am

J C wrote: »

Quote:-
"Dr Parnia said: 'We know the brain can't function when the heart has stopped beating.
'But in this case conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn't beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped."

Yes, you keep quoting this, but you are ignoring what people have been explaining to you.

This assumption is wrong. Just because you have found one scientist stating it as fact does not make it true.

It's been explained to you that there is tons of factors at play here. Ignoring points do not magically make them vanish.
The heart stopping does not imply that the brain begins to shut down after a few seconds. And that's if any of his subjects hearts actually did stop.
For example: How do you know that the few patients in questions weren't on some kind of life support or weren't being resuscitated, keeping their blood flowing even after their heart had stopped?

Even then it's been explained to you that the brain doesn't go off like a switch. It takes time for it to die off, and this can take minutes after it starts.

And even then it's been explained to you that even if activity in the brain isn't being registered, it doesn't mean it's stopped.

And even then it's been explained to you how it's possible that sensory organs can still send information even if the brain is mininally, or not active.

Your pet scientist has not accounted for all of these things and is basing his entire conclusion on the assumption that the brain shuts down completely in 20-30 seconds. Given his sample size of maybe 2 cases, this is a huge assumption.

J C wrote: »

Here is an account of one such experiment:-
Quote:-
"Parnia is not the first person attempting to prove that consciousness survives when the brain is offline. The search for proof has a history, and it is fraught. In 2004 and 2005, for instance, University of North Texas counseling professor Janice Miner Holden studied a series of patients undergoing implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator, a pacemaker-like device. During the procedure, their hearts were shocked to a halt to test whether the device would kick in as intended. While their hearts were stopped, their brains were inactive; they were temporarily dead.

A computer then played a loop of 60 cartoons on a monitor taped to the wall well above the eye level of the medical team but theoretically visible to anyone near the ceiling and looking down—in other words, visible to anyone having a true (and not hallucinatory) OBE. Holden hypothesized that a temporarily dead individual whose consciousness actually separated from his or her body would see a cartoon, along with a time stamp on the monitor, and report it after the procedure. A few recalled a sense of profound peace or seeing a deceased loved one, but no one reported an OBE or full-blown NDE.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201409/seeing-the-light

Wait, your proof that people report events accurately is an experiment that failed?

The 57-year-old social worker from Southampton was 'dead' for three minutes yet managed to recount detailed actions of the nursing staff and the sound of the machines.

Ok. What details exactly?

smacl · 28-02-2017 11:47am

J C wrote: »

We simply don't know (from a scientific perspective) what NDEs are, at present ... and the researchers say that we need more research ... and an open mind.
I have no argument with this ... and I'd have thought that many Atheists (who pride themselves on going where the evidence goes) would also have no argument with this ... but they aparently do ... because they have a bias which excludes, even the possibility, of any supernatural explantions.

What we do know is that as brain chemistry changes for whatever reason, subjective experience is prone to becoming very distorted and unreliable, e.g. as illustrated in Huxley's Doors of Perception. This commonly includes profound religious experience, hence use of entheogens as a mechanism to get a spiritual high. Much like NDEs however, that fact that someone has had a sincere religious or spiritual experience, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it extends beyond their own subjective experience. What is also interesting is that brain hypoxia can also lead to similar euphoric experiences as practised with erotic asphyxiation, which would seem close to what is happening with NDEs. As per this Scientific American article the conclusion that

Altogether, scientific evidence suggests that all features of the near-death experience have some basis in normal brain function gone awry.

The burden of proof that anything beyond subjective experience happens in NDE lies squarely with those who claim their is a paranormal element. Won't stop my watching the OA mind, do love a bit of fantasy.

robindch · 28-02-2017 1:33pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whereas religions make hypotheses which are either tested and found lacking, or in the case of the more successful ones, have refined (or, evolved, if you prefer) their hypotheses so as to make them effectively untestable.

Or, as Jerry Coyne pointed at one of the more pointed religion/science debates:

Jerry Coyne wrote:

When a religious claim is found to be false, it becomes metaphor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3sLevsRJU

J C · 01-03-2017 12:29am

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you keep quoting this, but you are ignoring what people have been explaining to you.

This assumption is wrong. Just because you have found one scientist stating it as fact does not make it true.

It's been explained to you that there is tons of factors at play here. Ignoring points do not magically make them vanish.
The heart stopping does not imply that the brain begins to shut down after a few seconds. And that's if any of his subjects hearts actually did stop.
For example: How do you know that the few patients in questions weren't on some kind of life support or weren't being resuscitated, keeping their blood flowing even after their heart had stopped?

Even then it's been explained to you that the brain doesn't go off like a switch. It takes time for it to die off, and this can take minutes after it starts.

And even then it's been explained to you that even if activity in the brain isn't being registered, it doesn't mean it's stopped.

And even then it's been explained to you how it's possible that sensory organs can still send information even if the brain is mininally, or not active.

Your pet scientist has not accounted for all of these things and is basing his entire conclusion on the assumption that the brain shuts down completely in 20-30 seconds. Given his sample size of maybe 2 cases, this is a huge assumption.

He isn't my pet scientist ... he is a Medical Doctor practicing emergency medicine.
... and there are many like him ... who know about the amazing processses that surround the deaths of Humans.

King Mob · 01-03-2017 12:44am

J C wrote: »

He isn't my pet scientist ... he is a Medical Doctor practicing emergency medicine.
... and there are many like him ... who know about the amazing processses that surround the deaths of Humans.

Answering precisely zero of my points. I will assume then that I:m not going to be getting an answer to them any time soon.

So lets continue:

The 57-year-old social worker from Southampton was 'dead' for three minutes yet managed to recount detailed actions of the nursing staff and the sound of the machines.

What detailed actions and sounds exactly did this person report?
Please support your answer with something substantial.

J C · 01-03-2017 12:52am

King Mob wrote: »

Answering precisely zero of my points. I will assume then that I:m not going to be getting an answer to them any time soon.

So lets continue:

What detailed actions and sounds exactly did this person report?
Please support your answer with something substantial.

I don't have access to the details you are asking ... but one thing is for sure, I don't think this NDE research should be 'strangled at birth' ... by the atheist bias in the medical establishment, simply because potential evidence and conclusions that life continues after death, is a challenge to their (unfounded) biased beliefs that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Here we have tantalising evidence that there is a next life ... and what we are getting is a 'shouting down' of the people involved by people who don't believe in the supernatural.

A cold calm recording of the evidence and its publication is an absolute requirement IMO.

King Mob · 01-03-2017 1:01am

J C wrote: »

I don't have access to the details you are asking

So how do you know they are true? How do you know, for a fact, that they are indicative of a supernatural explanation and that they could not possibly have a non-supernatural explanation?

J C wrote: »

... but one thing is for sure, I don't think this NDE research should be 'strangled at birth' ... by the atheist bias in the medical establishment, simply because potential evidence and conclusions that life continues after death, is a challenge to their (unfounded) biased beliefs that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Which of my points, that you have ignored repeatedly, rely on this?

Also, you have not presented any potential evidence at all and you have been completely unable to defend any of your claims or points on top of ignoring every point against you.
The reason we don:t take the notion seriously is not because of bias on our part.

J C wrote: »

Here we have tantalising evidence that there is a next life ...

And which evidence is this? The one case you have pointed to with the details you do not actually know?

And you believe that this one case is proof positive of an afterlife? And we:re biased?

J C wrote: »

and what we are getting is a 'shouting down' of the people involved by people who don't believe in the supernatural.

Who:s getting shouted down?
What thread are you reading?

Cianmcliam · 01-03-2017 1:03am

The big problem I have with supposed 'brain death' OBE's and other NDE's is, if the brain is actually dead, how is it recording memories to be recounted consciously afterwards? Surely a dead brain is as useful as a Sky box during a power cut. You won't find your programmes waiting there for you after power is restored.

If non-material 'consciousness' can insert unrecorded memories into your brain, why bother having an energy hungry brain at all? A hamster sized brain would keep the body going.

J C · 01-03-2017 1:11am

King Mob wrote: »

So how do you know they are true? How do you know, for a fact, that they are indicative of a supernatural explanation and that they could not possibly have a non-supernatural explanation?

Which of my points, that you have ignored repeatedly, rely on this?

Also, you have not presented any potential evidence at all and you have been completely unable to defend any of your claims or points on top of ignoring every point against you.
The reason we don:t take the notion seriously is not because of bias on our part.

And which evidence is this? The one case you have pointed to with the details you do not actually know?

And you believe that this one case is proof positive of an afterlife? And we:re biased?

Who:s getting shouted down?
What thread are you reading?

A cold calm recording of the evidence and its publication is an absolute requirement IMO.

This thread isn't shouting down anybody ... I was talking about the materialistic bias within science in general and the medical establishment, in particular.
BTW, nothing wrong with this approach to operative medical practice ... where it would become a problem, is if it is applied to deny the evidence for NDE ... or to rule out collecting and evaluating the evidence around NDEs in an un-biased manner.

J C · 01-03-2017 1:16am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The big problem I have with supposed 'brain death' OBE's and other NDE's is, if the brain is actually dead, how is it recording memories to be recounted consciously afterwards? Surely a dead brain is as useful as a Sky box during a power cut. You won't find your programme waiting there for you after power is restored.

... the difference between the Human Body and a sky-box is that the Human Body may be possessed of an eternal spirit/mind/personality ... that can exist outside the body ... while the sky box most definitely does not possess an eternal soul !!

Cianmcliam wrote: »

If non-material 'consciousness' can insert unrecorded memories into your brain, why bother having an energy hungry brain at all? A hamster sized brain would keep the body going.

An interesting question, if and when we establish that consciousness can have an existence outside the brain.

King Mob · 01-03-2017 1:17am

Again you have avoided points JC.

So how do you know they are true? How do you know, for a fact, that they are indicative of a supernatural explanation and that they could not possibly have a non-supernatural explanation?

J C wrote: »

This thread isn't shouting down anybody ... I was talking about the materialistic bias within science in general and the medical establishment, in particular.

Again, who are you talking about?

J C · 01-03-2017 1:27am

King Mob wrote: »

Again you have avoided points JC.

Again, who are you talking about?

We don't know whether NDEs have a supernatural dimension ... but the only way to find out is by further un-biased research.

Cianmcliam · 01-03-2017 1:32am

J C wrote: »

... the difference between the Human Body and a sky-box is that the Human Body may be possessed of an eternal spirit/mind/personality ... that can exist outside the body ... while the sky box most definitely does not possess an eternal soul !!

If that were the case, why is it waiting until the minutes before death to start wandering around? Surely a blind person's spirit should see that bus coming down the street and they will know to stop walking.

How does this spirit see things at all for that matter, if it can posses extra-sensory perception we wouldn't need eyes or ears along with a frontal cortex.
That's a lot of unnecessary and vulnerable hardware.

A very sad but telling aspect of degenerative brain disease is that you can see parts of a persons personality, memory and reasoning vanish abruptly. Where is this spirit while parts of the brain have actually died but the person is still alive?

An interesting question, if and when we establish that consciousness can have an existence outside the brain.

We do know that consciousness is vulnerable to chemicals and hormones that pass through the brain, creating unlived experiences, that electrical probes placed just right can also reliably induce hallucinations and delusions and that electromagnetic pulses can strongly influence moral decision making. Not sure that leaves any room for consciousness outside the brain doing anything useful or detectable.

J C · 01-03-2017 1:36am

Cianmcliam wrote: »

If that were the case, why is it waiting until the minutes before death to start wandering around? Surely a blind person's spirit should see that bus coming down the street and they will know to stop walking.

How does this spirit see things at all for that matter, if it can posses extra-sensory perception we wouldn't need eyes or ears along with a frontal cortex.
That's a lot of unnecessary and vulnerable hardware.

A very sad but telling aspect of degenerative brain disease is that you can see parts of a persons personality, memory and reasoning vanish abruptly. Where is this spirit while parts of the brain have actually died but the person is still alive?

We do know that consciousness is vulnerable to chemicals and hormones that pass through the brain, creating unlived experiences, that electrical probes placed just right can also reliably induce hallucinations and delusions and that electromagnetic pulses can strongly influence moral decision making. Not sure that leaves any room for consciousness outside the brain doing anything useful or detectable.

We are 'prisoners' of our bodies while we are alive ... but we may have a separate eternal existence when out bodies physically die ... and NDEs provide tantalising evidence that this may be the case.

King Mob · 01-03-2017 1:37am

J C wrote: »

We don't know whether NDEs have a supernatural dimension ... but the only way to find out is by further un-biased research.

So when you said+

J C wrote: »

Near death experiences are another phenomenon ... that indicates that we may have an existence beyond this life:-

J C wrote: »

How do you explain how some NDEs can describe things that happened in precise detail that they could only know if they were out of their bodies and fully conscious at the time ... even though they were clinically dead?

J C wrote: »

People with flatline eeg with enhanced consciousness ... which proves that consciousness may not be localised and is outside time and space ... this is just as challenging for me as a Christian ... as it may be for an Atheist :-

You were wrong?

J C · 01-03-2017 1:44am

King Mob wrote: »

So when you said+
You were wrong?

No, these are some examples of the questions that need to be answered ... and some of the tantalising evidence, that I have been talking about.

King Mob · 01-03-2017 2:45am

J C wrote: »

No, these are some examples of the questions that need to be answered ... and some of the tantalising evidence, that I have been talking about.

A question you believe is answered by a supernatural explanation which is what you are implying.
Unless you think that they can possibly be explained by non-supernatural means?

However now you are trying to backtrack away cause you cant defend any of your points.

You have not been talking about tantalising evidence.
You have been presenting unscientific anecdotes that are completely unverifiable.
And when you point to one definite example, it turns out that you dont know any of the details that would allow you to make any conclusion about it.

Again, the only one showing any bias here is you.
That and abject dishonesty.

J C · 01-03-2017 8:13pm

King Mob wrote: »

A question you believe is answered by a supernatural explanation which is what you are implying.
Unless you think that they can possibly be explained by non-supernatural means?

I've said that I don't know whether NDEs are supernatural or non-supernatural ... but they are a phenomenon that deserves further un-biased research.

King Mob wrote: »

However now you are trying to backtrack away cause you cant defend any of your points.

You have not been talking about tantalising evidence.
You have been presenting unscientific anecdotes that are completely unverifiable.
And when you point to one definite example, it turns out that you dont know any of the details that would allow you to make any conclusion about it.

... all good reasons to urgently carry out further un-biased research.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, the only one showing any bias here is you.
That and abject dishonesty.

... and I always speak so highly of you !!!:(
Your unfounded and un-parliamentary language unbecomes you and whatever other points you may want to make.

King Mob · 02-03-2017 1:00am

J C wrote: »

I've said that I don't know whether NDEs are supernatural or non-supernatural ... but they are a phenomenon that deserves further un-biased research.

So you keep parroting, but it addresses nothing, and it doesn't support your belief in an afterlife

J C wrote: »

... all good reasons to urgently carry out further un-biased research.

Not really. It just shows off your bias.
There is no reason to believe that an afterlife is a viable explanation.
Even if we ignore all of the issues with your evidence (which you do) and assume that they do definitely some kind of effect that shows that the consciousness can exist without a brain, it does not show that it is any kind of afterlife.
In all of the anecdotes the people report returning after only a few seconds. For all we can conclude, the conscious could perhaps only exist for a few moments in that state before fizzling out completely. There is no reason at all to assume that the conscious can or does last forever. This idea comes from pre-existing religious myths and it's a bias.

And even then, if the conscious can and does last forever, there is nothing to suggest that we can retain any sense of control, nevermind interact with anything. For all the evidence can show, a person could just leave their body and stay in that place forever, unable to move or react or communicate. Or perhaps you stay locked in that point in space and watch as the earth whizzes out from under you leaving you alone in space forever. The idea that you exist as a ghost who can float around at will and walk through walls etc comes from myths and pop-culture, so it too is a bias.

And even then, ignoring all of this, there is no reason to assume that it's your version of the afterlife. In fact there's lots of reasons against that being the case.

Now, can you honestly say that all of these possibilities are valid? How about the idea that there simply is no effect and that all of the cases are explainable with known, materialistic science? Is that also a possibility?

J C wrote: »

... and I always And speak so highly of you !!!:(

I would prefer you show actual respect and address the points made to you like an honest adult. Your faux politeness is shown up by how you actually act, so you can save it.

J C wrote: »

Your unfounded and un-parliamentary language unbecomes you and whatever other points you may want to make.

I'm not sure how else to describe it.
How would you characterise it when some one ignores points they can't answer, pretends they don't exist and were never made, then continues the discussion as if nothing happened?
I call that dishonest.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-03-2017 12:41pm

J C wrote: »

The brain doesn't die for a number of minutes ... but its electrical activity stops within seconds of the the heart stopping.

Again that is simply not true. You are making that up because it being a fact would suit you. Even Parnia is wishy-washy on this one though. For example in a 2014 article he is is quoted as saying "“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped."

Yet, in this 2009 interview with Dr. Parnia he states at 3:39 into the video, ''Death begins when your heart stops. And it goes on for a period of time as you have a lack of blood flow into your brain. Your brain cells start to change a little bit and eventually they die. And this can go on for over an hour of time.''

So whatever else we might say about this subject...... you simply wholesale inventing scientific "facts" of your own making is not likely to progress things.

J C wrote: »

Dr Sam Parnia is Assistant Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Director of Resuscitation Research at The State University of New York at Stony Brook ... and he is saying that NDEs "merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

What part of that do you think anyone here, myself included, is disagreeing with? NDE does very much merit further investigation. LOTS of it. Just not for the reasons YOU pretend.

J C wrote: »

The reason that patients experience real world events at points when you previously expected otherwise ... is because they are experiencing these things and recalling them when the brain has shut down electrically ...

Except, yet again, you are simply making that up. Your WHOLE rhetoric on this thread is based solely on one thing and one thing only. Pretending to know, when you demonstrably do not, the processes and sequences of brain death.

J C wrote: »

Equally, it is not only real world events occurring around NDE patients, that they recall ... they also recall out of this world experiences as well.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you have absolutely nothing at all to substantiate that claim in any way. You certainly have not done so before, so I think I am on safe ground in assuming you will not be doing so today either.

J C wrote: »

Quote:- "Dr Parnia said: 'We know the brain can't function when the heart has stopped beating.

You have misinterpreted that quote and it is in fact in DIRECT odds with the quote in the You Tube Video I have linked to above. You simply do not know what you are talking about. There genuinely is no other way to say that to you.

J C wrote: »

but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating.

Once again, the heart beating or not has little to do with it. There is no reason to correlate subjective experience with a beating heart, or assume no level of it can not occur in that period. There is a temporal dislocation between the two, which I have discussed but you have simply chosen to ignore.

J C wrote: »

We simply don't know (from a scientific perspective) what NDEs are, at present ... and the researchers say that we need more research ... and an open mind.
I have no argument with this ... and I'd have thought that many Atheists (who pride themselves on going where the evidence goes) would also have no argument with this ... but they aparently do ...

Who does exactly? People on here? People in reality? Or people existing solely in your head?

I certainly have not seen a single person on here suggest they have an argument with there needing to be more research into it.

You appear to think people not agreeing with your fantasy and unsubstantiated conclusions, is the same thing as them having no interest at all in NDE or the research of it.

The reality I am observing on this thread is not just different, but the EXACT REVERSE of the one you appear to be imagining.

J C wrote: »

I don't have access to the details you are asking ...

No. Of course you do not. Quelle Suprise.

We did not expect you did to be honest. What you DO have is an anecdote which appears to support the narrative you want to be true........ so you present it solely for that reason without any knowledge of the specifics, the details, the reality or the science.

"Evidence" for you consists solely of quoting anyone who agrees with you. And this is not a healthy or, lets not dilute reality here, honest approach to discourse.

J C wrote: »

I don't think this NDE research should be 'strangled at birth' ... by the atheist bias in the medical establishment, simply because potential evidence and conclusions that life continues after death, is a challenge to their (unfounded) biased beliefs that the supernatural doesn't exist.

You appear to think that not jumping to your conclusions is the same as having a bias against them. Not seeing a shred of substantiation (least of all from you) for an after life or "the supernatural" is not the same thing as being biased against them. Much as you really...... really really..... need to pretend it is.

J C wrote: »

This thread isn't shouting down anybody ... I was talking about the materialistic bias within science in general and the medical establishment, in particular.

Except that bias is purely in your imagination. The one showing a bias here is YOU, you.... just you.... only you..... no one but you.... and.... of course.... you.

Because you present things you OPENLY ADMIT you have no details for, as evidence for YOUR conclusions. So you do not care what the evidence actually is, you just assume it supports the conclusions YOU like.

That is the very text book complete definition of bias right there and it is coming SOLELY from your corner. Sitting back, as I do, and saying "Hang on, no, wait, explain to me exactly how what you presented is evidence for your conclusions" is the exact opposite of bias. But you projecting your failings onto others reverses that reality entirely, in your head at least.

J C wrote: »

We don't know whether NDEs have a supernatural dimension ... but the only way to find out is by further un-biased research.

And what we see is that people who are biased TOWARDS a positive result (like Sam Parnia for example) still can not find any evidence for it. Yet that appears to tell you nothing. All you can do is imagine the bias goes the other way, even when people like Parnia show your narrative to be demonstrably false.

Unlike you however Parnia can seemingly keep his bias out of his work...... if not out of his interviews.

vrt12 · 10-03-2017 5:14pm

The best hope an atheist who wants to cling to the belief of an after life has is the theory of multiple universes. For every decision you make there is another universe where you made a different decision. If you get hit by a bus, there's another universe where you didn't get hit by a bus.

We perceive the universe in a 3 dimensional linear way. But reality has many dimensions. In theory, you are you and all your multiple decisions throughout your entire life all at the same point. When you die, you are still alive in the past.

Also, in an infinite universe with a finite number of elements there is a limited number of combinations that can be made. So go far enough away and the universe begins to repeat itself. Meaning in an infinite universe there are infinite copies of the exact same you (and also infinite variations of you) throughout the universe.

Not exactly an afterlife, but should please some peoples fear of mortality. Although I would argue even if all this was true, it's still not you. If YOU are dead then YOU are dead.

Mutant z · 12-03-2017 2:08am

Well generally to be an athiest, means you dont believe in the supernatural, so yes its not compatible with an after life.

bou · 13-03-2017 12:43pm

I find the many worlds theory equally beyond natural. It's like a universe that is infinity to the power of infinity. Imagine the branching possibilities for every atomic/molecular interaction among > 10^70 atoms, and not just nearest neighbour interactions but longer range EM and gravitational effects. Mind-boggling. All of these possibilities equally existing and branching over an infinity of time?

On the measurement of neuron activity at the time of death, that could be interesting. From the tradition I follow, after ordinary consciousness has died, the remaining consciousness coalesces from above and from below at the heart centre which is somewhere around the spinal column at chest level. Perhaps some residual activity could be there after the brain activity has ceased. In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body. There is a good description of the subjective experience of the dying process in this book "Mind beyond death":https://selfdefinition.org/zen/Dzogchen-Ponlop-Rinpoche-Mind-Beyond-Death.pdf. See pages 130-140.

On the subject of neurons and mind, I noticed someone looking at the activity of dendrites and seeing them behave in more complex ways than previously understood: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-research-upend-long-held-belief-about-how-neurons-communicate It seems to point to different ways in which neurons might operate less like a digital neural network.

I've been browsing over some very interesting articles on brain activity to do with attention and habitual/addictive behavior and how that is modified by meditation, e.g. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/psy/people/ytang/2015TiCS.pdf and http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/08/13/024174.full.pdf.

There is so much research being done in brain science. I look forward to it's further development. I'd love to develop a greater understanding of this area but alas, there are other things I need to do.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-03-2017 3:19pm

bou wrote: »

In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body.

Riiiiiight.

looksee · 13-03-2017 5:54pm

bou wrote: »

On the measurement of neuron activity at the time of death, that could be interesting. From the tradition I follow, after ordinary consciousness has died, the remaining consciousness coalesces from above and from below at the heart centre which is somewhere around the spinal column at chest level. Perhaps some residual activity could be there after the brain activity has ceased. In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body. There is a good description of the subjective experience of the dying process in this book "Mind beyond death":https://selfdefinition.org/zen/Dzogchen-Ponlop-Rinpoche-Mind-Beyond-Death.pdf. See pages 130-140.

I read the pages you indicated - pretty quickly I admit - and I do agree from my limited experience the four stages of dying do reflect the physical process. However the rest is just creative waffle and proves nothing. Anyone who came back to relate the detail given of the mental effects of dying was not dead in the first place.

Can you offer any information or evidence of how the knowledge of any of this was gathered?

seamus · 13-03-2017 6:00pm

Mutant z wrote: »

Well generally to be an athiest, means you dont believe in the supernatural, so yes its not compatible with an after life.

Being pedantic, that's not what it means at all.

"Atheist" specifically relates to belief in God, or lack of one.

One does not need to believe in God to believe in the supernatural.

It just so happens that for most atheists in the western world, that lack of belief in a God was something that they had to realise for themselves through critical analysis and consideration.

The exact same kind of analysis consequently leads you to realise that all proposed supernatural phenomena are without sufficient evidence.

However, someone who was never raised to believe in a God is likely a little more susceptible to supernatural belief. Though I doubt very many people get to adulthood without ever having to consider the whole God delusion. So that critical thinking will have been exercised at some stage.

smacl · 14-03-2017 12:14pm

seamus wrote: »

However, someone who was never raised to believe in a God is likely a little more susceptible to supernatural belief.

What's your logic on this one? I was raised atheist and consider myself less superstitious or inclined towards supernatural belief than most. My experience is that people who've bought into one inexplicable faith based belief system (e.g. Christianity) are prone to buy into others (ghosts, homeopathy, reiki, etc..) on the basis they're brought up to accept given truths from trusted sources without question.

Though I doubt very many people get to adulthood without ever having to consider the whole God delusion. So that critical thinking will have been exercised at some stage.

You also have religions that simply don't have deities, such as Jainism and some schools of Taoism. These are technically atheistic.

seamus · 14-03-2017 6:00pm

smacl wrote: »

What's your logic on this one? I was raised atheist and consider myself less superstitious or inclined towards supernatural belief than most. My experience is that people who've bought into one inexplicable faith based belief system (e.g. Christianity) are prone to buy into others (ghosts, homeopathy, reiki, etc..) on the basis they're brought up to accept given truths from trusted sources without question.

What I meant is that people raised atheist were probably a bit less suspicious than people who became atheist in later life. I definitely didn't mean that they were more susceptible to nonsense than your average religious person.
No, once someone accepts religion, pretty much anything goes for them, in my experience. Ghosts, reiki, homeopathy, leprechauns, whatever you imagine, "could be real, you never know!".

I guess my rationale here is that people who've been raised religious and later become atheist probably have their bullsh1tometer set overly sensitive when compared to someone who was raised atheist.

vrt12 · 21-03-2017 4:52pm

seamus wrote: »

What I meant is that people raised atheist were probably a bit less suspicious than people who became atheist in later life. I definitely didn't mean that they were more susceptible to nonsense than your average religious person.
No, once someone accepts religion, pretty much anything goes for them, in my experience. Ghosts, reiki, homeopathy, leprechauns, whatever you imagine, "could be real, you never know!".

I guess my rationale here is that people who've been raised religious and later become atheist probably have their bullsh1tometer set overly sensitive when compared to someone who was raised atheist.

How is someone raised atheist?

smacl · 21-03-2017 5:30pm

vrt12 wrote: »

How is someone raised atheist?

Simply raised without any theistic religion. Both my folks were atheist so at no stage in my life was I ever presented with the notion that a god or gods existed by them. Didn't do Santa either FWIW, though did do the tooth fairy. No idea why.

seamus · 21-03-2017 5:31pm

vrt12 wrote: »

How is someone raised atheist?

Raised in a household where the parents do not impose any religion on their children or propose as fact the existence of a god-like being.

Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

Comments