Bullshit. You acknowledge the stories and develop a pattern from them. Then you can see a correlated architecture from it.
Same thing with UFO's, and sociopaths working in secret.

How many NDE testimonies? How long has it been going on? Not that your point is not valid, but I sense a disproportion of bias to it.

No, not the same thing. It is similar, yes, but not the same thing. The difference is the comfort. The information about aliens and sociopaths is not comforting. We don't want the world to be that way, where aliens can use us as lab rats with impunity, and sociopaths can deceive and manipulate us, controlling us so completely without our awareness. We don't want to believe these things exist, but we are forced to by the evidence. Not so with the elaborate stories of spirits, reincarnation, and the after-life. Here, we want to believe. We need an explanation that will make some sense out of the insanity and absurdity of life. Our bias for that is strong and innate, and our history clearly demonstrates this, and we can hardly help ourselves from being drawn in by the comfort we so desperately desire.

I think the biggest giveaway is that the whole fantasy is centered around us. Other life is not included in the picture, only humans. But I don't see humans as special, meriting elaborate spirit cities in the sky or repeated attempts to "grow up". We're just the experiment of life taken to an unfortunate extreme (sociopaths being an even more unfortunate example).


How many hallucinations does it take to make reality? When does reality fade into bias? What is real?

Skepticism is a healthy thing, it's been described as a "questioning attitude or state of mind"... What's unhealthy is "closed minded" skepticism!

With that said, I think this would be a great topic to present and discuss the "overwhelming" scientific evidence of these unknown realms, my last post was just a teaser!

One point of Ebens many is that consciousness does not originate from the brain.


Proof Of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey Into The Afterlife with Dr. Eben Alexander 1:03:12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSb3G53HsA

There are lots of questionable assumptions behind Eben's explanation of his experience, and that is one of them. In fact, we do not know the origin of consciousness. We do not know that "consciousness does not originate from the brain."

Another bad assumption is that bacterial meningitis creates a "dead" brain incapable of experience. I find such a statement coming from a neurosurgeon to be shockingly irresponsible.


So an infection of the membrane enveloping the brain is the effective equivalent of a brain kill switch. I don't think so. I've had a lung infection and my lungs did not stop functioning (after all, I survived, and so did Eben).

Here is the main thing Eben said that I agree with: "We're all here to get closer to truth. It's not a battle."

Eben had an experience. Other people have had similar experiences (that may be because people have similar brains). People having similar experiences often have similar explanations for those experiences. Human explanations of experiences can sometimes have very little to do with reality. And the real kicker is -- our interface with reality is experiential. And that is a serious Catch-22 situation.

Its good you are reviewing the information Chic


The point of this thread is not stating the origin of consciousness, but observing its dynamic. You did the "bad assumption" first and now have projected your certainty on that. Lets correct it, if I may be so bold.

There are to many testimonies that have coincidental and correlated stories to deny the possibility of life after death. And to boot, the similarities in experiences with an orchestrated architecture that are held by laws of science. A man searching for the truth would at the least investigate this area with an open mind. Even if Ebens biological mechanisms were not completely dead, does that discredit all near death experiences? I think not...

A person stating that its mass delusion, or that the biological mechanism did not die fully sounds dishonest.


This quote is irony, as your certainty comes from a topical research on the internet? As opposed to the credentials of Eben?

The point being, this is important research. To what if you are indeed dead and find yourself in these realms without Knowledge!
And yes this narrative can be exploited to suit sociopaths as evidence by this world and your testimony.

Narrow is the path?

Life after death conclusion on CNN 5:54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tFDEaH_klo

It was Eben's certainty that I was questioning.


I don't deny the possibility. I see other human characteristics at work that provide alternate explanations that are more plausible than the traditional explanations (I consider life-after-death explanations as traditional explanations).


No, but it discredits Eben's explanations of his NDE, as it is one of the pillars supporting his arguments.


I agree with the your point on mass delusion (which no one claimed), but I disagree with the status of the biological mechanism, which Eben did claim. We know so little about the brain that claiming it is not working in a comatose patient is indeed irresponsible, in my view. We have seen cases where comatose patients diagnosed as brain-dead recover completely.


No, it comes from a lifetime of observation and questioning certainty. Eben uses his credentials to make arguments from authority. We should know better than to fall for that no questions asked.


He wasn't dead. He never died. He was on a respirator while in a coma. Finding oneself without knowledge is a known phenomenon that appears to be related to brain function. One form is called amnesia.


Humans make it narrow by their narrow belief systems.

My fault, I thought it was more of a general approach. If any type of brain activity is required to justify an atheist position I dont think there is to much room to argue. Preemptive atheist strike? How many organs can cease to work before the body dies? Reasonable approach must succeed here. How many NDE's with extreme brain death are there? I would say plenty.


I am not suggesting a one size fits all. I am just suggesting an idea that is on par with anything else.


Your right, I will try to find his response on this. It should be more in line of my early observation, with reasonable approach.


Its more of observing what happens to consciousness when the body ceases to work. This becomes valuable research not irresponsible inquiry.


I dont think Eben is the type of man that would not allow questions. Do you sense that?


Im wondering if this will be an impasse with you. As the only death you would recognize is the one that does not come back. That would be called an open and shut case.




Agreed...

No, I'm not even thinking about religious beliefs with respect to NDEs. NDEs are a real subjective phenomenon. It may be that they occur naturally when brain function is interrupted or upset, and we are erroneously assigning meaning to a natural event for which we have zero understanding.


I am not talking about questioning the messenger, but questioning the message.


That is the current working definition of death -- when your body doesn't ever live again. Again, like consciousness, we can't even really define life or death, so how do you expect to argue about it rationally? We just fumble about with the ideas and come up with funky explanations, and that's what I am continually pointing out in the face of everyone else's certainty.