new study on nde's says they are real

[Audie]

Audie, in quote below

According to Audie, all that we know and can prove in neuroscience means NOTHING.
Honestly now...this is getting ridiculous.

Seems like Audie wants to redefine dead based on HER definitions and not science.

Paul is as it seems wrong on assuming things about you.

Why is he wrong, what is not truth about you and what the truth is?

In bold is what he assumed / imagines / made up, choose the label that you think fits.

A good deal is known about neuroscience and there is a lot not known. How the percents go on that, I dont know. Im guessing the much smaller part is what is known.
The thing about me saying all we know about neuroscience is nothing is itself nothing but a falsehood based personal attack. I can respect "attack the idea" but that is not what he is doing.

People have strange experiences it seems, when they are near death. Now, this could mean that there is brain activity as yet undetectable by modern science.

It could mean that some sort of "soul" detaches from the body, and goes about having experiences, then can return and some way plug back into the neurons, and activate them with the memory.

Im inclined to take a conservative "wait and see" approach to it. And to take the occams razor approach, which certainly seems to me to favour the undetected activity side.

Now as for me trying to (re)define death, its not me doing it. We have people here declaring "death' even tho the thing under discussion is the NEAR death experience.
Saying someone is "Dead" when every cell is alive, and presently they are up and going about again. That doesnt seem dead to me, but...

We all know when someone is alive, if they are moving about talking; we know an egyptian mummy is dead. We know its day when the sun is high, and night when its stars and dark sky. There is a blurry line between night and day, between life and death. That is an obvious fact, its not me trying to "redefine" anything.

[RickD]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

[Audie]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Good enough. Thanks.

[bippy123]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Rick that issue has been addressed by many of the best nde researchers and the best explanation for this is that the brain is a form of a receiver for consciousness , not the cause of it . If a persons brain were offline and the brain comes back online the "brain as a receiver analogy makes perfect sense . If consciousness comes from outside of the brain then it makes perfect sense as well. Stuart hammeroff and roger Penrose believe that the microtubules in the brain encode information in some kind of quantum state so maybe the memories from the nde experimec are coming back into the brain in some quantum state and encoded back into the brain. We simply don't know how it's happening but it is happening .

Now in a completely materialists explanation these kinds of experiences shouldn't exist and that is what Audi is having problems with . Everything that is happening with Nde's points to us eventually letting go of this materialistc paradigm that we are mired in because Nde's just don't fit any way shape or form with this paradigm .

The brain goes offline and there shouldn't be any memories of this experience happening , but they are happening and not just that the evidence is overwhelming in one direction .

Professor patricia is still mired in the brain equals mind paradigm and you can see how she was demolished by alex tsakiris , and she was demolished because her materialistic faith doesn't fit into the nde evidence anymore .

Instead of admitting to this and following the evidence to its logical conclusion she hanged up the phone on him.

[RickD]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Rick that issue has been addressed by many of the best nde researchers and the best explanation for this is that the brain is a form of a receiver for consciousness , not the cause of it . If a persons brain were offline and the brain comes back online the "brain as a receiver analogy makes perfect sense . If consciousness comes from outside of the brain then it makes perfect sense as well. Stuart hammeroff and roger Penrose believe that the microtubules in the brain encode information in some kind of quantum state so maybe the memories from the nde experimec are coming back into the brain in some quantum state and encoded back into the brain. We simply don't know how it's happening but it is happening .

Now in a completely materialists explanation these kinds of experiences shouldn't exist and that is what Audi is having problems with . Everything that is happening with Nde's points to us eventually letting go of this materialistc paradigm that we are mired in because Nde's just don't fit any way shape or form with this paradigm .

The brain goes offline and there shouldn't be any memories of this experience happening , but they are happening and not just that the evidence is overwhelming in one direction .

Professor patricia is still mired in the brain equals mind paradigm and you can see how she was demolished by alex tsakiris , and she was demolished because her materialistic faith doesn't fit into the nde evidence anymore .

Instead of admitting to this and following the evidence to its logical conclusion she hanged up the phone on him.

Thanks Bippy.
To a laymen like myself, that seems logical. As a NDE happens in the spiritual realm, it's the spirit or soul that is experiencing the NDE. And as one who believes the human mind is part of the soul, it seems reasonable to me.

[abelcainsbrother]

Atheists like to play the Noah's ark card but first off no christian thinks all of the bible can be proven 100% so for atheists to expect us to is just not reasonable.But also it is much easier to believe in a world wide global flood than to believe somehow you can have this vast universe without God.Noah's flood is much much easier to believe even if it cannot be proven.No atheist can prove how you get this universe without God and yet they reject God as a cause for the universe.They have no cause and forget all things are caused by something else it makes no difference what you're talking about all things are caused by something else an God is the most logical and reasonable cause for the matter that makes up the universe.Something caused the matter to be caused,nothing happens without a cause and God is the cause.

Since you seem go with bible, could you quote chapter and verse that justifies
your seemingly unconscionable habit of making up things with which to try to belittle people you dont know?

First off,don't take what I say personal.But I see a lot of atheists bashing Noah's flood,the stories in the bible,Jesus,etc but I'm just pointing out that every story in the bible is far easier to believe than what I see atheists believing and promoting.

I can give can give quotes from the bible that show how science confirms things the bible said and point out that if we compare it to other holy books? They are wrong.I've noticed here lately you bringing up YEC's and the flood and I've already heard a lot of why atheists say it did not or could not have happened.You don't seem to be like a lot of the other atheists out there bashing God and the bible,so I apologize if you felt compared to them.

I just present what I know to be true and am kind of bold in the way I present it.

I dont take it personally. You dont have the capacity to say anything that would hurt my feelings, as you dont know a thing about me.

You do NOT "just present what you know to be true". You are deceiving yourself if you think that. You do not know. You interpret, you make mistakes, you make things up. The easiest person to deceive is yourself. Dont be easy.

The "flood" is NOT an "atheist / Christian" issue. The "flood" is a belief-on-faith of a subset of Christians.
Educated Christians, people of other faiths, people of no religion, people of ordinary common sense see that there was no such event.

It would be of tremendous interest to everyone, if it had happened, and the signs of it would be everywhere, it wouldnt be he exclusive province of a cult to possess such knowledge as would be universally evident.

Your statement about 'atheists" is about all atheists, and exclusively about them, disregarding that atheists are a tiny minority and only a minority of them care to even discuss such a crazy topic. Disregarding that the "flood believers" are themselves a tiny minority of the earth's population.

Now, what YOU find easy to believe, and what YOU think "atheists promote and believe" is what YOU think.
Presenting it as a fact is dishonest. You neglected to quote the chapter and verse justification I asked for.
Why do you think it is ok to make up things and say them as true? If you dont know why you do it, some introspection is called for. If you cant admit to yourself that you do it, a lot more introspection is called for.

Again you state, and I put it in bold, that it is "atheists" who point out that your "flood' did not happen.
Sure, a god COULD do anything. Its just that he didnt.

Even you must somewhere inside your head realize that your idea about the polar ice being held from floating because its frozen to bedrock is absurd.

a) because the ice is MOVING. GLACIERS MOVE. They are not stuck down. You want to claim they are?
b) under deep ice, its not even frozen, the glacier sits on, yes, water.
c) EVEN IF the glacier were frozen to bedrock, the adhesion of the ice is a weak force, and the billions of tons of upward pressure would rip it loose.'


But yet you can claim that "it is easier to believe" that there was a flood? Seriously?

Maybe that is the key to it tho. Easy. Just read the book assume you read it right and think not. Ignore the obvious, disregard common sense. I dont find it easy, I dont find it possible to just go with what is so 'easy". Why do you7

You claim to be interesting in learning, to not have your mind totally made up on things, but I dont believe it.
Here is your chance to show us if you really are, or if you are fooling.

I handed you the key to freeing your mind from this nonsensical idea with which you've burdened yourself (and with which you insult such god as there may be, by claiming he did such a thing).

Its incredibly simple. You are going to resist it tho, but if you just face it squarely, the resistance is going to shatter, sooner or later. The polar ice is far far older than any date for a biblical flood. If the ice had gone under water it would have floated, Ocean currents holding it in place and setting it back down just precisely so, as you proposed, is seriously silly. If it floated, it would have drifted away, broken up, and be gone.


But there it sits. You know the polar ice proves there was no flood. Are you going to run away, or face it?

I know you don't believe in God but miracles are easy for God but because you reject him,you must look at everything from a flawed perspective without realizing it.I'm not getting into the flood in this thread but it is still easier to believe Noah's flood happened than to believe you can have this universe without a cause and this is what you are forced to accept,not us who have a cause for the matter and everything that makes up this universe.Without realizing it all you have is imagination to lean on and you do it presupposing how this universe got here without God.You're education,scientific knowledge,etc cannot help you and yet we who believe in God have a cause and we have logic and reason on our side because all things are caused by something else even the matter in the universe.How did it get here?

[bippy123]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Rick that issue has been addressed by many of the best nde researchers and the best explanation for this is that the brain is a form of a receiver for consciousness , not the cause of it . If a persons brain were offline and the brain comes back online the "brain as a receiver analogy makes perfect sense . If consciousness comes from outside of the brain then it makes perfect sense as well. Stuart hammeroff and roger Penrose believe that the microtubules in the brain encode information in some kind of quantum state so maybe the memories from the nde experimec are coming back into the brain in some quantum state and encoded back into the brain. We simply don't know how it's happening but it is happening .

Now in a completely materialists explanation these kinds of experiences shouldn't exist and that is what Audi is having problems with . Everything that is happening with Nde's points to us eventually letting go of this materialistc paradigm that we are mired in because Nde's just don't fit any way shape or form with this paradigm .

The brain goes offline and there shouldn't be any memories of this experience happening , but they are happening and not just that the evidence is overwhelming in one direction .

Professor patricia is still mired in the brain equals mind paradigm and you can see how she was demolished by alex tsakiris , and she was demolished because her materialistic faith doesn't fit into the nde evidence anymore .

Instead of admitting to this and following the evidence to its logical conclusion she hanged up the phone on him.

Thanks Bippy.
To a laymen like myself, that seems logical. As a NDE happens in the spiritual realm, it's the spirit or soul that is experiencing the NDE. And as one who believes the human mind is part of the soul, it seems reasonable to me.

Rick correct me if I'm wrong , but is that belief called dualism ?

[Storyteller]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Good enough. Thanks.

Audie,

I`m sorry honey, I was a little harsh with you in my previous post.

I completely missed the point you were trying to make.

I was wrong.

[RickD]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Rick that issue has been addressed by many of the best nde researchers and the best explanation for this is that the brain is a form of a receiver for consciousness , not the cause of it . If a persons brain were offline and the brain comes back online the "brain as a receiver analogy makes perfect sense . If consciousness comes from outside of the brain then it makes perfect sense as well. Stuart hammeroff and roger Penrose believe that the microtubules in the brain encode information in some kind of quantum state so maybe the memories from the nde experimec are coming back into the brain in some quantum state and encoded back into the brain. We simply don't know how it's happening but it is happening .

Now in a completely materialists explanation these kinds of experiences shouldn't exist and that is what Audi is having problems with . Everything that is happening with Nde's points to us eventually letting go of this materialistc paradigm that we are mired in because Nde's just don't fit any way shape or form with this paradigm .

The brain goes offline and there shouldn't be any memories of this experience happening , but they are happening and not just that the evidence is overwhelming in one direction .

Professor patricia is still mired in the brain equals mind paradigm and you can see how she was demolished by alex tsakiris , and she was demolished because her materialistic faith doesn't fit into the nde evidence anymore .

Instead of admitting to this and following the evidence to its logical conclusion she hanged up the phone on him.

Thanks Bippy.
To a laymen like myself, that seems logical. As a NDE happens in the spiritual realm, it's the spirit or soul that is experiencing the NDE. And as one who believes the human mind is part of the soul, it seems reasonable to me.

Rick correct me if I'm wrong , but is that belief called dualism ?

Yes Bippy. That could be considered one kind of dualism. The mind being different than the body. Or, the spirit being different than the material.

[Audie]

Atheists like to play the Noah's ark card but first off no christian thinks all of the bible can be proven 100% so for atheists to expect us to is just not reasonable.But also it is much easier to believe in a world wide global flood than to believe somehow you can have this vast universe without God.Noah's flood is much much easier to believe even if it cannot be proven.No atheist can prove how you get this universe without God and yet they reject God as a cause for the universe.They have no cause and forget all things are caused by something else it makes no difference what you're talking about all things are caused by something else an God is the most logical and reasonable cause for the matter that makes up the universe.Something caused the matter to be caused,nothing happens without a cause and God is the cause.

Since you seem go with bible, could you quote chapter and verse that justifies
your seemingly unconscionable habit of making up things with which to try to belittle people you dont know?

First off,don't take what I say personal.But I see a lot of atheists bashing Noah's flood,the stories in the bible,Jesus,etc but I'm just pointing out that every story in the bible is far easier to believe than what I see atheists believing and promoting.

I can give can give quotes from the bible that show how science confirms things the bible said and point out that if we compare it to other holy books? They are wrong.I've noticed here lately you bringing up YEC's and the flood and I've already heard a lot of why atheists say it did not or could not have happened.You don't seem to be like a lot of the other atheists out there bashing God and the bible,so I apologize if you felt compared to them.

I just present what I know to be true and am kind of bold in the way I present it.

I dont take it personally. You dont have the capacity to say anything that would hurt my feelings, as you dont know a thing about me.

You do NOT "just present what you know to be true". You are deceiving yourself if you think that. You do not know. You interpret, you make mistakes, you make things up. The easiest person to deceive is yourself. Dont be easy.

The "flood" is NOT an "atheist / Christian" issue. The "flood" is a belief-on-faith of a subset of Christians.
Educated Christians, people of other faiths, people of no religion, people of ordinary common sense see that there was no such event.

It would be of tremendous interest to everyone, if it had happened, and the signs of it would be everywhere, it wouldnt be he exclusive province of a cult to possess such knowledge as would be universally evident.

Your statement about 'atheists" is about all atheists, and exclusively about them, disregarding that atheists are a tiny minority and only a minority of them care to even discuss such a crazy topic. Disregarding that the "flood believers" are themselves a tiny minority of the earth's population.

Now, what YOU find easy to believe, and what YOU think "atheists promote and believe" is what YOU think.
Presenting it as a fact is dishonest. You neglected to quote the chapter and verse justification I asked for.
Why do you think it is ok to make up things and say them as true? If you dont know why you do it, some introspection is called for. If you cant admit to yourself that you do it, a lot more introspection is called for.

Again you state, and I put it in bold, that it is "atheists" who point out that your "flood' did not happen.
Sure, a god COULD do anything. Its just that he didnt.

Even you must somewhere inside your head realize that your idea about the polar ice being held from floating because its frozen to bedrock is absurd.

a) because the ice is MOVING. GLACIERS MOVE. They are not stuck down. You want to claim they are?
b) under deep ice, its not even frozen, the glacier sits on, yes, water.
c) EVEN IF the glacier were frozen to bedrock, the adhesion of the ice is a weak force, and the billions of tons of upward pressure would rip it loose.'


But yet you can claim that "it is easier to believe" that there was a flood? Seriously?

Maybe that is the key to it tho. Easy. Just read the book assume you read it right and think not. Ignore the obvious, disregard common sense. I dont find it easy, I dont find it possible to just go with what is so 'easy". Why do you7

You claim to be interesting in learning, to not have your mind totally made up on things, but I dont believe it.
Here is your chance to show us if you really are, or if you are fooling.

I handed you the key to freeing your mind from this nonsensical idea with which you've burdened yourself (and with which you insult such god as there may be, by claiming he did such a thing).

Its incredibly simple. You are going to resist it tho, but if you just face it squarely, the resistance is going to shatter, sooner or later. The polar ice is far far older than any date for a biblical flood. If the ice had gone under water it would have floated, Ocean currents holding it in place and setting it back down just precisely so, as you proposed, is seriously silly. If it floated, it would have drifted away, broken up, and be gone.


But there it sits. You know the polar ice proves there was no flood. Are you going to run away, or face it?

I know you don't believe in God but miracles are easy for God but because you reject him,you must look at everything from a flawed perspective without realizing it.I'm not getting into the flood in this thread but it is still easier to believe Noah's flood happened than to believe you can have this universe without a cause and this is what you are forced to accept,not us who have a cause for the matter and everything that makes up this universe.Without realizing it all you have is imagination to lean on and you do it presupposing how this universe got here without God.You're education,scientific knowledge,etc cannot help you and yet we who believe in God have a cause and we have logic and reason on our side because all things are caused by something else even the matter in the universe.How did it get here?

Anything but read and think about let alone respond to what I said, huh?

This isnt about god, or me, or evolution, or the universe happening without a cause.

I gave you simple obvious proof that there was no flood, and you are running away from it.

[Audie]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Good enough. Thanks.

Audie,

I`m sorry honey, I was a little harsh with you in my previous post.

I completely missed the point you were trying to make.

I was wrong.

No worries.

[Audie]

All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

Rick that issue has been addressed by many of the best nde researchers and the best explanation for this is that the brain is a form of a receiver for consciousness , not the cause of it . If a persons brain were offline and the brain comes back online the "brain as a receiver analogy makes perfect sense . If consciousness comes from outside of the brain then it makes perfect sense as well. Stuart hammeroff and roger Penrose believe that the microtubules in the brain encode information in some kind of quantum state so maybe the memories from the nde experimec are coming back into the brain in some quantum state and encoded back into the brain. We simply don't know how it's happening but it is happening .

Now in a completely materialists explanation these kinds of experiences shouldn't exist and that is what Audi is having problems with . Everything that is happening with Nde's points to us eventually letting go of this materialistc paradigm that we are mired in because Nde's just don't fit any way shape or form with this paradigm .

The brain goes offline and there shouldn't be any memories of this experience happening , but they are happening and not just that the evidence is overwhelming in one direction .

Professor patricia is still mired in the brain equals mind paradigm and you can see how she was demolished by alex tsakiris , and she was demolished because her materialistic faith doesn't fit into the nde evidence anymore .

Instead of admitting to this and following the evidence to its logical conclusion she hanged up the phone on him.

Thanks Bippy.
To a laymen like myself, that seems logical. As a NDE happens in the spiritual realm, it's the spirit or soul that is experiencing the NDE. And as one who believes the human mind is part of the soul, it seems reasonable to me.

Since someone who Im not in the habit of addressing sees fit to talk about me, missspell my name and make a statement of fact not in evidence about me...

Guess I will respond to certain parts of it.

First, I'd like to see the basis for the assertion about the brain as receiver, etc.
Could be so; as I was saying,there is a lot more to know about neuroscience, despite the claims of some that if we cant detect something going on, its not there.

But sure, if this line of inquiry does show conclusively that the brain is as claimed here, that is wonderfully exciting news.

The stuff about people being mired in paradigms, failing to "admit" (reluctantly confess), "materialist faith", etc is just editorializing for a point of view and adds nothing other than more reason to be skeptical of the claims so framed.



As for the comment about me, I am not "having a problem". I see something thinly evidenced, highly speculative and of potentially the most profound, earthshaking significance. A conservative skeptical approach to poor evidence would have been a real good idea in the case of WMD and the invasion of Iraq, not a "problem".

[Storyteller]

Found this...

I`ve only skimmed through it but it does put forward the idea that the brain is indeed a receiver of consciuosness (how do you spell that?)

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... ver-of-it/

[Audie]

Found this...

I`ve only skimmed through it but it does put forward the idea that the brain is indeed a receiver of consciuosness (how do you spell that?)

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... ver-of-it/

I checked out the site, and the article.

With all due respect, it s a site that has that unmistakeable air of woo woo to it.

Doesnt mean they are wrong, but isnt there something better than that?

[Storyteller]

To be fair, it was the first one I found

Will lok for more.