Afterlife (Introduction)
Tony and I have agreed to indulge in a speculative, intellectual exercise on this subject, so I'm putting it on a new thread.
TONY: My best guess on the after life takes one of three forms, and in the end will probably settle somewhere in the middle. Either we die, and that is it, (which I have a hard time accepting), we enter a cycle of rebirth(reincarnation) as we progressively come closer to our spiritual perfection, or the cycle is imposed on us from outside and we are guided into that point of spiritual attainment a few at a time.
Personally, I think that, given the evidence, the last option is the most likely. I also think that would be a better fit with the archaeological evidence as well as the mythology of the numerous cultures around the world.
If we die and that is it, as far as I’m concerned God loses all relevance, other than as as a source of comfort to those who believe in his loving nature. Unlike yourself, I have no difficulty accepting it.
Rebirth/reincarnation doesn’t even require belief in any kind of god (see Buddhism), but I have a problem with it. My problem is that I have no recollection whatsoever of a previous life, and I do have a clear feeling that I am “me†and only me. What is the point in “me†being reborn if I don’t know it’s “meâ€? (See below for “perfectionâ€.)
The cycle being imposed from outside presumably entails a god/angel/spirit who is interested in me and is guiding me. Same problem as before, since I remember nothing, but perhaps this means I’m not one of the chosen few. Alternatively, nearly 7 billion of us are only just starting out on Stage 1.
I have a huge problem with the term “spiritual perfectionâ€. I really don’t know what it can mean. Does it entail my no longer being “meâ€? (I know you can’t answer – I’m just thinking aloud here.) Does it perhaps entail finding perfect peace, and being at one with BBella’s Gaia? If so, death as the end fits in on both counts. And how do I advance towards perfection if I can’t remember a damn thing about where I went wrong last time? I also recall BBella’s theory that “souls†might have the choice of returning to earthly life, though without their memories (I hope I’ve got that right). Attractive, though again if I’m no longer me, the new me might just as well be starting from scratch, so why bother in the first place with the waiting-room for souls? Unless the number of souls is rationed.
This sounds cynical, but we need also to consider the experiences of NDE-ers, who report that they were still themselves, consciously experienced feelings of overwhelming peace and happiness, and met up with dead people they knew. There are lots of other psychic phenomena involving contact with the dead (often with messages), and I’m not prepared to dismiss every single one as fraud, delusion, coincidence etc. The door remains open.
This is a big subject, especially because it calls into question the relevance of God to life on Earth, not to mention the promise offered by many religions that earthly suffering will somehow be compensated for by a loving, caring God in a better world to come.
******
The exchanges between yourself and BBella are extremely interesting, revealing, and stimulating. I’d like to join in, if I may, but time’s up for today!
Afterlife
by David Turell 
, Monday, November 28, 2011, 18:40 (4745 days ago) @ dhw
This sounds cynical, but we need also to consider the experiences of NDE-ers, who report that they were still themselves, consciously experienced feelings of overwhelming peace and happiness, and met up with dead people they knew. There are lots of other psychic phenomena involving contact with the dead (often with messages), and I’m not prepared to dismiss every single one as fraud, delusion, coincidence etc. The door remains open.This is a big subject, especially because it calls into question the relevance of God to life on Earth, not to mention the promise offered by many religions that earthly suffering will somehow be compensated for by a loving, caring God in a better world to come.
There are two new books for me to review on NDE. I have them and will report. One is by van Lommel! the other a good review.
Afterlife
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 23:50 (4743 days ago) @ dhw
DHW
If we die and that is it, as far as I’m concerned God loses all relevance.... Unlike yourself, I have no difficulty accepting it.
I don't have problems accepting oblivion, at least not in the narcissistic way that I may have accidentally implied. I have a problem accepting it because of, as you have repeatedly pointed to, NDE's/OBE's, past life experiences, metaphysical experiences, etc from numerous sources around the globe.
DHW
Rebirth/reincarnation doesn’t even require belief in any kind of god (see Buddhism), but I have a problem with it. My problem is that I have no recollection whatsoever of a previous life, and I do have a clear feeling that I am “me†and only me. What is the point in “me†being reborn if I don’t know it’s “meâ€? (See below for “perfectionâ€.)
In one sense, rebirth is a virtual guarantee. Even if you do not believe in an after life or anything of the sort, your elements and energy will eventually wind up becoming part of the aggregated compilation of another living being. You are correct in pointing out that a diety is not explicitly implied in reincarnation.
DHW
The cycle being imposed from outside presumably entails a god/angel/spirit who is interested in me and is guiding me. Same problem as before, since I remember nothing, but perhaps this means I’m not one of the chosen few. Alternatively, nearly 7 billion of us are only just starting out on Stage 1.
Why? Why would it not be possible to have 7 billion people all at various stages?
I have a huge problem with the term “spiritual perfectionâ€. I really don’t know what it can mean. Does it entail my no longer being “meâ€? (I know you can’t answer – I’m just thinking aloud here.) Does it perhaps entail finding perfect peace, and being at one with BBella’s Gaia? If so, death as the end fits in on both counts. And how do I advance towards perfection if I can’t remember a damn thing about where I went wrong last time? I also recall BBella’s theory that “souls†might have the choice of returning to earthly life, though without their memories (I hope I’ve got that right). Attractive, though again if I’m no longer me, the new me might just as well be starting from scratch, so why bother in the first place with the waiting-room for souls? Unless the number of souls is rationed.
Eh, its the perfection bit that trips people up, because it is really such a hard word to define. However there are a couple of definitions from Merriam-Webster that I really like.
: the quality or state of being perfect: as
a : freedom from fault or defect
b : maturity
2
a : an exemplification of supreme excellence
b : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
From an online dictionary: the quality or condition of being perfect; extreme degree of excellence according to a given standard
So the idea of recycling until you attain spiritual perfect could be seen as simply learning until you have an extreme degree of spiritual excellence according to a given standard. We don't even have to know what the standard IS. Knowing the standard is not a pre-requisite for meeting or exceeding the standard.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Afterlife
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 03:25 (4743 days ago) @ dhw
...
If we die and that is it, as far as I’m concerned God loses all relevance, other than as as a source of comfort to those who believe in his loving nature. Unlike yourself, I have no difficulty accepting it.
Nor do I. I find that having a confined life has always provided me with a sense that I really need to do something with it. The traditional Christian focus on the afterlife is one that has always seemed to beg for inanity and weakness...
I have a huge problem with the term “spiritual perfectionâ€. I really don’t know what it can mean. Does it entail my no longer being “meâ€? (I know you can’t answer – I’m just thinking aloud here.) Does it perhaps entail finding perfect peace, and being at one with BBella’s Gaia? If so, death as the end fits in on both counts. And how do I advance towards perfection if I can’t remember a damn thing about where I went wrong last time? I also recall BBella’s theory that “souls†might have the choice of returning to earthly life, though without their memories (I hope I’ve got that right). Attractive, though again if I’m no longer me, the new me might just as well be starting from scratch, so why bother in the first place with the waiting-room for souls? Unless the number of souls is rationed.
This sounds cynical, but we need also to consider the experiences of NDE-ers, who report that they were still themselves, consciously experienced feelings of overwhelming peace and happiness, and met up with dead people they knew. There are lots of other psychic phenomena involving contact with the dead (often with messages), and I’m not prepared to dismiss every single one as fraud, delusion, coincidence etc. The door remains open.
Of note, those who experience NDEs in the east, India, China, Vietnam and Japan, all report many more instances of meeting their deities/incarnations than they do former loved ones. I find this cultural split fascinating, as I think it highlights the incredibly arbitrary nature of these experiences...
Hindu experiences are discussed here.
I find the general commonality striking, in terms of all the different religions. But the differences are also telling.
This is a big subject, especially because it calls into question the relevance of God to life on Earth, not to mention the promise offered by many religions that earthly suffering will somehow be compensated for by a loving, caring God in a better world to come.
******
The exchanges between yourself and BBella are extremely interesting, revealing, and stimulating. I’d like to join in, if I may, but time’s up for today!
I recall in one of these recent posts you declaring some level of trepidation in the Buddhist/Hindu view of reincarnation. Again, I practice a very austere form of Buddhism, but even if you are lucky enough to read a copy of the Tibetan Book of the Dead you will realize quickly that even this most well-known version of Buddhism looks at all of these things as psychological states... I have yet to read a teaching of an actual "rebirth" or "afterlife" of any kind in Buddha's teachings. Everything is allegory for one's own transformation to Buddhahood.
The Book of the Dead is unique, in that it discusses the mental states of death.
In the Buddhist view, the fact that our bodies are made of stardust and will be reclaimed into the world around us is simply another allegory for what will happen to what we mistakenly call our "soul."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife
I’m combining responses to Tony and to Matt, as there’s a good deal of overlapping.
Dhw: The cycle being imposed from outside presumably entails a god/angel/spirit who is interested in me and is guiding me. Same problem as before, since I remember nothing, but perhaps this means I’m not one of the chosen few. Alternatively, nearly 7 billion of us are only just starting out on Stage 1.
TONY: Why? Why would it not be possible to have 7 billion people all at various stages?
Because if we can’t remember anything from a past life, we’re starting out from scratch. I’m assuming that most of the world’s population won’t remember their past life either.
TONY: So the idea of re-cycling until you attain spiritual perfection could be seen as simply learning until you have an extreme degree of spiritual excellence according to a given standard.
How do you learn if you don’t remember anything from your past lives and mistakes?
DHW: I have a huge problem with the term “spiritual perfectionâ€. I really don’t know what it can mean.
TONY: Eh, its the perfection bit that trips people up, because it is really such a hard word to define. However there are a couple of definitions from Merriam-Webster that I really like: the quality or state of being perfect: as
a : freedom from fault or defect
b : maturity
I understand “perfectionâ€, but I don't underatand “spiritual perfectionâ€. I think you missed the point of my questions: Does it entail my no longer being me? Does it entail finding perfect peace, and being at one with BBella’s Gaia? If so, death as the end fits on both counts. In other words, when I’m dead, buried and non-existent, I shall be free from fault or defect. So who needs reincarnation?
******
MATT: Of note, those who experience NDEs in the east, India, China, Vietnam and Japan, all report many more instances of meeting their deities/incarnations than they do former loved ones. I find this cultural split fascinating, as I think it highlights the incredibly arbitrary nature of these experiences...
Hindu experiences are discussed here.
Matt, thank you for these links (please see xeno, 30 November at 03.25). I hope everyone interested in this subject will read them in full, because they’re fascinating. The wide variety of experiences and teachings seems to suggest that you’ll find what you believe in. A few comments:
1) I was horrified to learn that many of these eastern NDEs involved a clash with bureaucracy (“functionaries who then discover that a mistake has been made and send the person backâ€). Ugh, some things never change!
2) “Hinduism, Buddhism and other southern Asian religions portray the samsaric process [cycle of death and rebirth] as unhappy.†(See my response to Matt below.) Moksha = release from this cycle, when the individual Atman merges with Brahma. “Rather than losing one’s individuality, the Upanishadic understanding is that the Atman is never separate from Brahma; hence individuality is simply waking up from the dream of separateness.†When you wake up, you're conscious, but if you're not conscious of yourself as an individual, the level of consciousness must be very low – probably what we imagine to be that of insects. So you may as well be eternally dead.
3) Devotionalism entails a loving God, and the afterlife is spent in a “blissful round of devotional activitiesâ€. Can you imagine spending the rest of eternity praising God? I know I’m cursed with limited knowledge and imagination, but I’d have thought even God would get fed up with it after a few millennia. This is a major problem with regard to any form of conscious afterlife: what do people do for the rest of time?
MATT: I have yet to read a teaching of an actual "rebirth" or "afterlife" of any kind in Buddha's teachings. Everything is allegory for one's own transformation to Buddhahood. The Book of the Dead is unique, in that it discusses the mental states of death. In the Buddhist view, the fact that our bodies are made of stardust and will be reclaimed into the world around us is simply another allegory for what will happen to what we mistakenly call our "soul."
Clearly there are just as many branches of Buddhism and Hinduism as there are of Christianity, so I don’t think anyone can talk authoritatively of “the Buddhist viewâ€. Under 2) there is explicit talk of “successive lifetimesâ€. But I must say that if I had to choose the one that made most sense to me, it would be yours – along the lines Tony has described: “Even if you do not believe in an afterlife […] your elements and energy will eventually wind up becoming part of the aggregated compilation of another living being.†Not necessarily even a living being. As Hamlet observes of Alexander the Great: “Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth unto dust; of earth we make loam, and why of that loam whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel?†I think all of us can agree on such recycling as a possible form of “afterlifeâ€, but a richer subject is those forms that suggest the survival of conscious individuality, as apparently experienced in many NDEs both eastern and western. I really don’t see how an afterlife without conscious individuality can be any advance on eternal death.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 19:40 (4742 days ago) @ dhw
1) I was horrified to learn that many of these eastern NDEs involved a clash with bureaucracy (“functionaries who then discover that a mistake has been made and send the person backâ€). Ugh, some things never change!
In Western NDE's the experiencers are politely told to go back. It is not their time. Some of the experiencers have said they wanted to stay, where they were was so wonderful.
Afterlife
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 01, 2011, 04:03 (4742 days ago) @ dhw
******
Matt, thank you for these links (please see xeno, 30 November at 03.25). I hope everyone interested in this subject will read them in full, because they’re fascinating. The wide variety of experiences and teachings seems to suggest that you’ll find what you believe in. A few comments:1) I was horrified to learn that many of these eastern NDEs involved a clash with bureaucracy (“functionaries who then discover that a mistake has been made and send the person backâ€). Ugh, some things never change!
If you've ever read Chinese history, this shouldn't seem so alien. At one point in their ancient history, they forced everyone to get an education. What it created, was an environment where the only way to get ahead was to pass government exams... to the point where the ONLY way you could advance was by passing government exams... China has always had a problem with excessive government, it seems...
2) “Hinduism, Buddhism and other southern Asian religions portray the samsaric process [cycle of death and rebirth] as unhappy.†(See my response to Matt below.) Moksha = release from this cycle, when the individual Atman merges with Brahma. “Rather than losing one’s individuality, the Upanishadic understanding is that the Atman is never separate from Brahma; hence individuality is simply waking up from the dream of separateness.†When you wake up, you're conscious, but if you're not conscious of yourself as an individual, the level of consciousness must be very low – probably what we imagine to be that of insects. So you may as well be eternally dead.
Agreed.
3) Devotionalism entails a loving God, and the afterlife is spent in a “blissful round of devotional activitiesâ€. Can you imagine spending the rest of eternity praising God? I know I’m cursed with limited knowledge and imagination, but I’d have thought even God would get fed up with it after a few millennia. This is a major problem with regard to any form of conscious afterlife: what do people do for the rest of time?
MATT: I have yet to read a teaching of an actual "rebirth" or "afterlife" of any kind in Buddha's teachings. Everything is allegory for one's own transformation to Buddhahood. The Book of the Dead is unique, in that it discusses the mental states of death. In the Buddhist view, the fact that our bodies are made of stardust and will be reclaimed into the world around us is simply another allegory for what will happen to what we mistakenly call our "soul."
Clearly there are just as many branches of Buddhism and Hinduism as there are of Christianity, so I don’t think anyone can talk authoritatively of “the Buddhist viewâ€. Under 2) there is explicit talk of “successive lifetimesâ€. But I must say that if I had to choose the one that made most sense to me, it would be yours – along the lines Tony has described: “Even if you do not believe in an afterlife […] your elements and energy will eventually wind up becoming part of the aggregated compilation of another living being.†Not necessarily even a living being. As Hamlet observes of Alexander the Great: “Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth unto dust; of earth we make loam, and why of that loam whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel?†I think all of us can agree on such recycling as a possible form of “afterlifeâ€, but a richer subject is those forms that suggest the survival of conscious individuality, as apparently experienced in many NDEs both eastern and western. I really don’t see how an afterlife without conscious individuality can be any advance on eternal death.
I have read the works of Buddha Shakyamuni. I have read what all the modern leaders of the Buddhist religion currently have to say. (Dhali Llama, Thich Nhat Hahn...) There is, in what I've read, a consensus that all there is, in terms of Buddhist doctrine, is psychological states.
Both the writers I mention, represent differing traditions of Buddhism. The Dhali Llama represents Mahaynana Buddhism, in the form of Tibet. Thich Nhat Hanh represents a syncretism of Mahayana with Theravedan Buddhism.
Both writers stress that Buddhism, as it infiltrated areas that didn't previoulsy exist--assimiliated beliefs based upon the areas it joined. In the Dhali Llama's case, Buddhism assimilated the ancient Gods of northern Tibet. Similarly, in China, Buddhism absorbed the Gods of Taoism.
All teachers of Buddhism assert the idiom of the raft: Whatever it takes to get you on the raft, that is acceptable, because "the Buddha" will eventually take the raft away.
Both the Dalai Llama, and other Buddhist leaders decry all incarnations of deities as illusory. Again, in modern writing, I have not seen any reference, either from Shakyamuni, nor of his disciples that discuss of an afterlife in any traditional manner that I am accustomed to. (Buddhism in the 17th century is NOT the Buddhism of today.)
In Buddhism, the doctrines deny you the right to a "self," in a Western sense. You are only a manifestation of the whole... so your death is nothing more than a return to nature.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife
MATT: Again, in modern writing, I have not seen any reference, either from Shakyamuni, nor of his disciples that discuss of an afterlife in any traditional manner that I am accustomed to. (Buddhism in the 17th century is NOT the Buddhism of today.)
You clearly know far more about the subject than I do, so please put me right. Firstly, you say you have “read the works of Buddha Shakyamuniâ€. I was always under the impression that his teachings had been passed on orally and only written down hundreds of years later.
Like yourself, I’m used to the traditional view of samsara as the cycle of death and rebirth, and karma as the effects of past deeds on the present life. If this didn’t arise from the teachings of the Buddha himself and/or his disciples, have you any idea how it did arise? And what is the modern interpretation of samsara and karma, or have these concepts been dropped altogether?
You also mentioned the Dalai Lama, who traditionally was believed to be a reincarnation of previous dalai lamas. Had the tradition already died when he was chosen?
Sorry to quiz you, but although I do find it hard to keep up with the 21st century, I’m genuinely surprised to find that I’m still only in the 17th century!
Afterlife
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, December 02, 2011, 02:49 (4741 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: Again, in modern writing, I have not seen any reference, either from Shakyamuni, nor of his disciples that discuss of an afterlife in any traditional manner that I am accustomed to. (Buddhism in the 17th century is NOT the Buddhism of today.)
You clearly know far more about the subject than I do, so please put me right. Firstly, you say you have “read the works of Buddha Shakyamuniâ€. I was always under the impression that his teachings had been passed on orally and only written down hundreds of years later.
This is true. My introduction to Buddhism was a book by Thich Nhat Hahn. He opened the book with: "Buddha was a man and not a God." This idiom has been repeated by the Dalai Llama. Thich Nhat Hanh describes how all the original teachings we now know, were known only to a single monk--who was very arrogant. So we have an admonition immediately from him that we cannot trust the writings immediately. (Talk about a breath of fresh air compared to our Abrahamic traditions...)
A true Buddha teaching must be tested. You must put it into practice and observe it making you more harmonious. If it doesn't work, set it aside and try a different one.
Like yourself, I’m used to the traditional view of samsara as the cycle of death and rebirth, and karma as the effects of past deeds on the present life. If this didn’t arise from the teachings of the Buddha himself and/or his disciples, have you any idea how it did arise? And what is the modern interpretation of samsara and karma, or have these concepts been dropped altogether?
Buddha's teaching was a huge paradigm shift in Hindu thinking. He taught that the wheel of repetition could be broken by solid realizations in the present. While I can't put words into the mouth of Shakyamuni... modern Buddhist thought does not seem to believe in anything other than the present. The writings of Hanh, Llama, Dogen, Suzuki, and the American master Steve Hagen reach a consensus of thought that I have never before seen in a religious tradition. Samsara and Karma, from the writings of Llama and Hanh only speak of death and rebirth within our own life... I've seen nothing to suggest a thought of a literal death and rebirth in the traditional Hindu sense... which makes sense because Shakyamuni preached severance from reincarnation. (Buddha reallly was the Christ of Hinduism, if you want to understand his revolutionary nature.)
You also mentioned the Dalai Lama, who traditionally was believed to be a reincarnation of previous dalai lamas. Had the tradition already died when he was chosen?
Buddhism has been a unique experience in that it's the only time where I've seen the leadership... kindly speak negatively about their followers.
You need to read his books: he *never* makes mention of an afterlife in a non-allegorical sense, and all of his discussions in regards to reincarnation and the wheel of Dharma are always focused on your life here and now... never on a future life. If he means for an afterlife in the traditional western sense, he leaves this out of his writings.
In the forward to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, The Dalai Llama directly calls the gods "psychological states." The fact that the book was originally esoteric--meant only for disciples who had mastered a certain level of understanding--underlines the importance of the allegorical nature.
Tibetan Buddhism is complex, but the rebirth isn't taken literally by its leaders. Remember I told you that Buddhism holds that our consciousness isn't limited to ourselves, that ultimately, the self is illusion. (Many parallels with Jung, actually.) The manifestation of a Llama is kind of a cosmic re-emergence of the Buddha's essence... not in personality or in personage, but a living incarnation of Buddha-nature.
Sorry to quiz you, but although I do find it hard to keep up with the 21st century, I’m genuinely surprised to find that I’m still only in the 17th century!
I wasn't meaning to say YOUR understanding was there... but the most intriguing NDE story for me was Lingza Chokyi.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife
MATT: He [Buddha] taught that the wheel of repetition could be broken by solid realizations in the present. While I can't put words into the mouth of Shakyamuni... modern Buddhist thought does not seem to believe in anything other than the present. […] Samsara and Karma, from the writings of Llama and Hanh only speak of death and rebirth within our own life... I've seen nothing to suggest a thought of a literal death and rebirth in the traditional Hindu sense...which makes sense because Shakyamuni preached severance from reincarnation.
Thank you for your patient explanations. I don’t want to take up too much of your time on this, but I’m still puzzled by the apparent shift from the traditional concept of rebirth/reincarnation. I don’t understand how it could have become so ingrained if the Buddha himself and his disciples never taught it. The “wheel of repetition†was traditionally that of samsara, and “severance from reincarnation†meant an end to this cycle of literal death and rebirth, which only happened when the person achieved enlightenment. The current view as you’ve described it seems to be that the whole process can only take place during this lifetime, and death and rebirth are, presumably, just images for every day-to-day experience – like saying each passing second is a death and each new second is a rebirth. So it’s now or never for enlightenment.
This may be so, but it doesn’t seem to be the view of the current Dalai Lama. You say “he *never* makes mention of an afterlife in a non-allegorical sense, and all of his discussions in regards to reincarnation and the wheel of Dharma are always focused on your life here and now... never on a future life.†A statement made on his own website on 24 September this year, sets out his thoughts on the subject:
www.dalailama.com/messages/tibet/reincarnation-statement
“In order to accept reincarnation or the reality of Tulkus [reincarnations of spiritual masters], we need to accept the existence of past and future lives. Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death.â€
“To reject past and future rebirth would contradict the Buddhist concept of the ground, path and result.â€
“There are many different logical arguments given in the words of the Buddha and subsequent commentaries to prove the existence of past and future lives.â€
“There are people who can remember their immediate past life or even many past lives.†(Interesting in view of earlier discussions.)
The context of all this is the huge problem now created by the Chinese insistence on choosing his successor. I’m not doubting what you say about other commentators (he mentions one school himself), but his article suggests that perhaps the issue is not quite as cut and dried as you think.
Afterlife
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 03, 2011, 14:58 (4740 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,
I must admit that I'm taken aback... obviously my knowledge of the Llama's thought is limited to the 2 books and one forward...
The only conclusion that I can draw is this: There is a principle for Buddhist teachers to only teach what isn't too difficult for the student. When talking to western audiences, he probably doesn't talk about those parts of his religion that would be difficult for us to digest.
The tradition I'm more formally trained in is Soto Zen, which is based in Japan, but has a lineage tracing through Korea, Vietnam, to China. (Nowhere near Tibet.)
I saw quite a few parallels in both Hanh's writings and the Llama's and I thought that Tibetan Buddhism had given up its mystical bent some time ago--clearly I was mistaken. From now on I'll try to keep my words to the areas I know well. Hanh has a long history of peaceful disobedience, so the concept of "live in the now, do in the now" makes perfect sense for someone who is in political asylum. But his words ring true with Soto Zen. "When sitting, just sit. When walking, just walk."
For the Buddha... I do think he really did believe in Karma in the Hindu sense... remember that he was originally training to become a Brahmin. But the understanding of his words have clearly been transformed to mean different things to different people... and these things are all also true. The history of Buddhism parallels many other religions, in that there have been several breaks and schisms required as times change and the religion is forced to adapt to new conditions. Thankfully, it was built with adaptation in mind...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife
MATT: For the Buddha... I do think he really did believe in Karma in the Hindu sense... remember that he was originally training to become a Brahmin. But the understanding of his words have clearly been transformed to mean different things to different people... and these things are all also true. The history of Buddhism parallels many other religions, in that there have been several breaks and schisms required as times change and the religion is forced to adapt to new conditions. Thankfully, it was built with adaptation in mind...
As you say, this applies to most religions. And when teachings have been passed down orally for centuries, who knows what was said originally? Ancient texts are just as unreliable, since we often don’t know who wrote them, or when they were written, but we do know that the records of events and statements have all passed through the filter of a subjective and fallible author, that language changes down through the centuries, and that translation and interpretation entail more subjective filtering. All the major religions are capable of adapting to new conditions, and the texts can always be twisted to allow for whatever slant is needed. That’s why you find so many different branches, and why down through the ages there have always been devout believers practising slavery, apartheid, and cold-blooded murder. I’m not sure, though, that Buddhism has ever been associated with such inhumane practices – you will know better than I do. But then Buddhism has always seemed to me more of a philosophy than a religion.
Afterlife
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 03, 2011, 18:22 (4740 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: For the Buddha... I do think he really did believe in Karma in the Hindu sense... remember that he was originally training to become a Brahmin. But the understanding of his words have clearly been transformed to mean different things to different people... and these things are all also true. The history of Buddhism parallels many other religions, in that there have been several breaks and schisms required as times change and the religion is forced to adapt to new conditions. Thankfully, it was built with adaptation in mind...
As you say, this applies to most religions. And when teachings have been passed down orally for centuries, who knows what was said originally? Ancient texts are just as unreliable, since we often don’t know who wrote them, or when they were written, but we do know that the records of events and statements have all passed through the filter of a subjective and fallible author, that language changes down through the centuries, and that translation and interpretation entail more subjective filtering. All the major religions are capable of adapting to new conditions, and the texts can always be twisted to allow for whatever slant is needed. That’s why you find so many different branches, and why down through the ages there have always been devout believers practising slavery, apartheid, and cold-blooded murder. I’m not sure, though, that Buddhism has ever been associated with such inhumane practices – you will know better than I do. But then Buddhism has always seemed to me more of a philosophy than a religion.
The words of yours I marked in red I will return to.
Buddhism was passed down orally for several generations. I have ALWAYS loved Hanh for his pointing out directly that we cannot accept any account of Buddha's teaching as immediately authentic. When you read his commentaries he is always quick to point out that some of the writings that refer to "all the multitudes of gods and goddesses" are important mystic alliteration.
But there have been rough patches. The Tibetan Empire was a militaristic kindgdom, somehow founded on Buddhism, though quite obviously NOT Buddhist at all.
And yes... it even happens in modern times.
As to the question of philosophy vs. religion, I've often heard this--from almost everyone I've met that's learned a little about it. I've fallen to considering it a religion. Here's why:
Philosophies rarely inculcate tradition upon its adherents. The hardest part for me as a practicing Buddhist, is that I find no real meaning in the Japanese trappings of what I practice. We chant in Chinese, often with no real understanding of the words. (There are always translations, but I still don't understand why these its important to chant in Chinese.) I often chuckle, because Buddhism is supposed to adapt to the needs and beliefs of differing cultures, but in my experience, walking into a Zen shrine is like walking into another world. And then there is a practice where, as time goes on you create your own mendicant's robe. These things, in my opinion, get in the way of the meaning of the practice, and if I could have access to a different method of practice, I would.
Stoicism of course is Western tradition's closest analog, but again, I don't recall there being a set of cultural "hand me downs" that would make it really a religion.
So... I both agree and disagree with "Buddhism as philosophy." Maybe the thread that I wish I practiced would be more philosophy, but I feel it is definitely more religious.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife
MATT: Philosophies rarely inculcate tradition upon its adherents. The hardest part for me as a practicing Buddhist, is that I find no real meaning in the Japanese trappings of what I practice. [...] These things, in my opinion, get in the way of the meaning of the practice, and if I could have access to a different method of practice, I would. […] So... I both agree and disagree with "Buddhism as philosophy." Maybe the thread that I wish I practiced would be more philosophy, but I feel it is definitely more religious.
I know exactly what you mean, as I find myself squirming during any religious ceremony. But humans seem to need rituals, and I suppose they also need excuses to get together as a community (which is often beneficial to those concerned). You’re right, none of that belongs to philosophical tradition. On the other hand, religion by definition requires belief in some kind of divine power. I guess it doesn’t really matter, though. Buddhism is Buddhism. Or rather it’s different forms of Buddhism.
I’d like to tie our discussion in with the extraordinary experience of Dr Eben Alexander. Many thanks, David, for telling us about this. It’s a real eye-opener.
DAVID: When a neurosurgeon has an NDE, his materialism goes out the window:
http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-alexander-near-death-experience/
I hope everyone will read it from start to finish, always keeping in mind that this man was an out-and-out materialist. Also keep in mind BBella’s account of her experiences, and add the following by the Sri Lankan Prof. Walpola Sri Rahula Thera (1907-1997), one of the great 20th-century Buddhist scholars(Theravada) : “A being is nothing but a combination of physical and mental forces or energies. What we call death is the total non-functioning of the physical body. Do all these forces and energies stop altogether with the non-functioning of the body? Buddhism says ‘No’. Will, volition, desire, thirst to exist, to continue, to become more and more, is a tremendous force that moves whole lives, whole existences. That even moves the whole world. This is the greatest energy in the world. According to Buddhism, this force does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death, but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called rebirth.â€
I’m not concerned with the question of whether modern Buddhists do or don’t believe literally in rebirth – obviously some do and some don’t – but with the belief in dualism, i.e. that the energy which drives our mental self (Alexander refers to it simply as consciousness) does NOT have its source in the materials of the brain, and survives physical death. Buddhists don’t believe in a god, and I don’t recall Alexander mentioning God either, though I may be wrong, but with or without deities, the belief in a separate mind/soul/spirit is so widespread, in so many ancient and modern cultures, that it really requires a very large set of blinkers to shut it out. The implications are huge!
Afterlife
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 05, 2011, 21:21 (4737 days ago) @ dhw
Alexander did mention a 'god' of sorts, but more along the lines of a 'power' instead of a persona.
I have no problem at all accepting the divide between mental and physical, and to some extent, I would subdivide it further into mental, physical, and spiritual. The names are kind of misnomers though. Mental in this regards is the direct activity of the gray matter turning the gears, different than the 'spiritual' which is the ghost in the machine driving the car.
His description of the hyper-reality doesn't particularly surprise me either. I think it might be described as "reality that is unfiltered by your senses and brain". When you think about it, everything that we experience as humans passes through two major bottle-necks. The first is the physical apparatus of our senses, which anyone who has vision or hearing problems like I do knows are very limiting indeed. The second bottle-neck is our brain. While its processing capacity is truly incredible, it is not infinite in size nor speed nor organization.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Monday, December 05, 2011, 22:58 (4737 days ago) @ dhw
I don’t recall Alexander mentioning God either, though I may be wrong, but with or without deities, the belief in a separate mind/soul/spirit is so widespread, in so many ancient and modern cultures, that it really requires a very large set of blinkers to shut it out. The implications are huge!
Alexander mentioned being in a divine presence or sensing divinty
Afterlife
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 06, 2011, 01:50 (4737 days ago) @ dhw
I’d like to tie our discussion in with the extraordinary experience of Dr Eben Alexander. Many thanks, David, for telling us about this. It’s a real eye-opener.DAVID: When a neurosurgeon has an NDE, his materialism goes out the window:
http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-alexander-near-death-experience/
I hope everyone will read it from start to finish, always keeping in mind that this man was an out-and-out materialist.
If you liked Dr. Alexander gorge on this site:
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
DAVID: If you liked Dr. Alexander gorge on this site:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research11.html
It's too much to take in at a single sitting, but here we have an astonishing collection of near-death experiences. I hope Matt will let us know whether he is now prepared at least to consider the possibility that there might be a form of psychic energy beyond the material world as we know it.
Thank you, David.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by BBella , Thursday, December 08, 2011, 05:23 (4735 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If you liked Dr. Alexander gorge on this site:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research11.html
It's too much to take in at a single sitting, but here we have an astonishing collection of near-death experiences. I hope Matt will let us know whether he is now prepared at least to consider the possibility that there might be a form of psychic energy beyond the material world as we know it.
Thank you, David.
I read these accounts with interest, but this one by Pam Reynolds especially caught my attention:
It was communicated to me that it [returning to her body] was like jumping into a swimming pool. No problem, just jump right into the swimming pool. I didn't want to, but I guess I was late or something because he [the uncle] pushed me. I felt a definite repelling and at the same time a pulling from the body. The body was pulling and the tunnel was pushing ... It was like diving into a pool of ice water ... It hurt! When I came back, they were playing Hotel California and the line was "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave." I mentioned [later] to Dr. Brown that that was incredibly insensitive and he told me that I needed to sleep more. (Pam Reynolds)
Pam's experience of reentry into her body as, "diving into a pool of ice water" and it hurting, so reminded me of what happens to me when I am startled awake while in a deep sleep. My body always feels as if it has suddenly been plunged into ice water and it's always very painful, altho only momentarily.
I mentioned this experience before to a few folks at different times in my life, both believers of the consciousness or soul having a life apart from the body. They both gave the same explanation: Our soul/consciousness "astral travels" while we are in REM sleep, and if the consciousness is hurried back into the body for whatever reason, the feeling can sometimes be recognized as painful. Being suddenly awakened brings both realities into play; being free outside the body and suddenly within the body. The split second contrast can be received by the emotional body as pain. I was surprised to hear Pam describe her experience so like my own.
Very interesting accounts! Thanks!
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!! Pam Reynolds again
by David Turell , Sunday, November 29, 2020, 23:11 (1455 days ago) @ BBella
A new book describing that anesthetized patients can be aware of what occurred during their surgery:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/features/henri-laborit-feels-our-pain/?utm_source=Cosmos+-+M...
"In her new book Anaesthesia: The Gift of Oblivion and the Mystery of Consciousness, Australian journalist Kate Cole-Adams describes several episodes in which patients have been anaesthetised before undergoing surgery yet afterwards shown signs of having recalled parts of what happened to them during the operation, while they were supposedly unconscious.
"As the book’s title suggests, what may seem a simple matter of administering a cocktail of drugs to render a patient senseless before submitting them to an otherwise agonising surgery has complexities that stretch well beyond a medical procedure. Indeed, it goes right to the root of what it is that makes us alive: what is consciousness?
"'Reviewing the book in a recent edition of The New Yorker magazine, Joshua Rothman says, “The root of the problem is that no one understands why we are conscious. If you don’t know why the sun comes up, it’s hard to say why it goes down.'”
Comment: The article is a review of Laborit's life. But the saga about understanding consciousness goes on.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 31, 2011, 17:28 (4712 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,
Thus far I have read Dr. Dianne Morrissey's story.
So far, from here, I see nothing that contradicts the theory posited by the USAF researcher I posted some time ago. It's still plausible that the conscious part of her mind was fully functioning in complete correspondence with the subconscious. I think this is underlined by her "warping" to places of more comfort.
I don't know that I shared this, but when I was put into twilight sleep for my surgery, while I never floated above my body, I was positively on another world. I've always said that I don't believe that our sense organs "turn off," and in the case of this story, she was literally only dead for seconds, maybe minutes. When she describes the light emanating from her as well as other things--I've had dreams just like this. This story, does not move me.
Dr. George Ritchie's experience doesn't quite do much either. He's much less descriptive.
Take note however, that the man made of light he describes doesn't come into effect until he thinks about being dead... then... at that point...
Then the story of Reinee Pasarow.
I find it interesting that they edit out her discussion of heaven. (This is telling, to me.)
So far, at this point, especially in the one above, I have this to say:
These people have all been inculcated (as most of us are) with certain thoughts about death and dying from a very young age. In all these instances, I find it telling that we return to "things that make us feel better" which fully serves the wants and needs of our lower consciousness. I think that when these people came to a conscious realization "I am dead" that there is a sudden pang of fear, and--in these cases--our minds construct whatever reality we want. In all of these cases, it is also telling that our dividing line for "life and death" are fully blurred. Reinee's story especially. She was obviously still conscious.
I find nothing in these stories that can tell me that they weren't experiencing a waking dream--in which our conscious and subconscious collide in the now. I used to suffer from night terrors when I was a young child--does that mean that there are little men with wooden heads that float around my room before attacking me? It's especially frightening when you are convinced you are awake. I've heard similar discussions of "Incubus and Succubus" attacks where people witness black humanoid forms floating over them in bed. These episodes are linked to people who suffer from conditions like sleep apnea.
I'm not saying at all that these experiences are pure dreams--this, I do not know. But at the same time, they don't make me any more ready to accept the idea of a disembodied consciousness.
I have to pause the article at this point to go head over to a friend's.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
Matt is going through the long list of NDEs that David drew our attention to some weeks ago. He has read the first three, and finds “nothing in these stories that can tell me that they weren’t experiencing a waking dream – in which our conscious and subconscious collide in the now.â€
You say of Reinee Pasarow that “she was obviously still conscious.†If you read the story again, you will find that she had been pronounced dead on arrival, that she saw her own body from the outside, and observed what different people were doing. This is not a waking dream. Interestingly, you would like to know more about her experience in “heavenâ€, because of course that WOULD fit into your dream theory as it can’t be verified. In the context of our discussion, I’m much more interested in the fact that she saw real people doing real things, although clearly there was no visible sign of her seeing or registering anything. That’s why she was pronounced dead! How do you see people, scenes and events all around you without moving your eyes and your body?
Your conclusion so far is: “I’m not saying at all that these experiences are pure dreams – this I do not know. But at the same time, they don’t make me any more ready to accept the idea of a disembodied consciousness.â€
I have not asked you accept it. I have asked you to suspend judgement, in accordance with the principles of your old mate Agrippa. Dreams? Your own bear no relation to the Pasarow “deathâ€. Have you ever dreamed what is actually happening to you in reality at a specific moment when your body and brain have been pronounced dead? Later, you will come to some experiences that I find even more puzzling, i.e. those in which information is obtained and afterwards corroborated by witnesses. Waking dreams provide no explanation at all. So please read on.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 05, 2012, 03:12 (4707 days ago) @ dhw
Matt is going through the long list of NDEs that David drew our attention to some weeks ago. He has read the first three, and finds “nothing in these stories that can tell me that they weren’t experiencing a waking dream – in which our conscious and subconscious collide in the now.â€
You say of Reinee Pasarow that “she was obviously still conscious.†If you read the story again, you will find that she had been pronounced dead on arrival, that she saw her own body from the outside, and observed what different people were doing. This is not a waking dream. Interestingly, you would like to know more about her experience in “heavenâ€, because of course that WOULD fit into your dream theory as it can’t be verified. In the context of our discussion, I’m much more interested in the fact that she saw real people doing real things, although clearly there was no visible sign of her seeing or registering anything. That’s why she was pronounced dead! How do you see people, scenes and events all around you without moving your eyes and your body?
Being pronounced dead--doesn't mean you're dead. It doesn't even mean you're not conscious--it means you're unable to respond, like a coma victim or a sufferer of sleep paralysis. Discussion of the afterlife in NDEs are telling because as you will read in my other comments, they always take on the beliefs inculcated in the experiencer.
Having never had an experience like this myself, I can't be anything but intensely skeptical.
Your conclusion so far is: “I’m not saying at all that these experiences are pure dreams – this I do not know. But at the same time, they don’t make me any more ready to accept the idea of a disembodied consciousness.â€
I have not asked you accept it. I have asked you to suspend judgement, in accordance with the principles of your old mate Agrippa. Dreams? Your own bear no relation to the Pasarow “deathâ€. Have you ever dreamed what is actually happening to you in reality at a specific moment when your body and brain have been pronounced dead? Later, you will come to some experiences that I find even more puzzling, i.e. those in which information is obtained and afterwards corroborated by witnesses. Waking dreams provide no explanation at all. So please read on.
I won't add to the commentary I've already laid down: I have more questions than answers. Maybe you'll take my responses as being more able to discuss them, but the reason I don't is that they are SO subjective as to be beyond question.
In some small free time, I've been reading the writings of Christian apologist St. Athanasius. In it he discusses--as evidence for Christ--all of the demons that can be driven away by using the name of Christ and the Cross...
dhw,
Where have all the demons gone?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Thursday, January 05, 2012, 04:54 (4707 days ago) @ xeno6696
Being pronounced dead--doesn't mean you're dead. It doesn't even mean you're not conscious--it means you're unable to respond, like a coma victim or a sufferer of sleep paralysis.
Flatlike EKG and flatline EEG, you are dead if it lasts 4 minutes or longer. In those four minutes your brain cannot respond to anything external. For all purposes nothing can get in or get out. Unless your consciousness is a disembodied quantum state, which is what va Lommel guesses is the situation.
In some small free time, I've been reading the writings of Christian apologist St. Athanasius. In it he discusses--as evidence for Christ--all of the demons that can be driven away by using the name of Christ and the Cross...dhw,
Where have all the demons gone?
Good point. Do we even know if Jesus, as described in the gospels is real?
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 05, 2012, 03:01 (4707 days ago) @ dhw
Now we move on to the "veridical NDEs."
I still feel after hearing Pam's story that I'm not being given enough story to play with. What was the layout of the OR, where was the door, what kind of view did she have while being wheeled into the room, but most importantly, how can we verify that sense perceptions fail when we're "practically" dead?
David will probably find this a cop-out, but I cannot make a judgment here. I have dozens of questions--mind--but I have a difficult time believing this story as-is. Part of it is because the only solution is Cartesian dualism. And nearly every philosophy that ever existed has extremely good arguments against dualism--Buddhism notwithstanding. I recently discussed a book attempting to re-establish dualism, and it was one of the biggest rubbish piles I'd ever read. (Didn't even mention NDE's like Pam's, which you would think...)
Still... it stinks of human clinging: NDEs seem very often to rotate back to loved ones (typically deceased) and whatever cultural realm of death you inherited. <--This speaks to me of the intrusion of conditioned human experience and informs me that the answer lies somewhere in a mixed state of consciousness.
I have yet to come across the writings, but there's an ancient Chinese Zen master named Chih 'i who was supposed to have written treatises on advanced meditation. (The technical term is called, Dyhana.) Supposedly, some of these ancient Zen Master's have reported being able to consciously separate from their bodies. If you've read the writings of more modern-day "magisters" such as Aliester Crowley or Michael Ford, who claim(ed) to be able to enter other people's bodies to influence them. The writings of Hermetic Christians and Kabbalists have also confirmed for many, the existence of an eternal soul.
I don't know that any of this answers your question or maybe gives you some background on my reluctance to broach the issue: I'm not really going to be able to put stock in fantastical experiences lacking the experience myself.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 05, 2012, 03:04 (4707 days ago) @ xeno6696
To add to my own comment(s) here...
The very fact that the vast majority of NDEs correspond to the experience of a person--ie--whatever death deity(ies) they have learned in life, to me serves as a firm hammer to bring home on the concept at large: If there was more unity in the experiences across cultures, I would be more inclined to take them seriously.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Thursday, January 05, 2012, 04:48 (4707 days ago) @ xeno6696
I still feel after hearing Pam's story that I'm not being given enough story to play with. What was the layout of the OR, where was the door, what kind of view did she have while being wheeled into the room, but most importantly, how can we verify that sense perceptions fail when we're "practically" dead?
Be a real scientist Matt!!! I've read the book by Sabom. Nothing you conjure up is NOT covered. Sabom is a very qualified cardiologist. Blackmore covered this case in her stupid book, Dying to Live, and I demolished her. Look in my book, youv'e got it. Your off-hand rebuttals are very annoying.
David will probably find this a cop-out,
I'm irritated and I'm sure it really shows. You are too bright to reject this stuff the way you do. Read the original text!
I don't know that any of this answers your question or maybe gives you some background on my reluctance to broach the issue: I'm not really going to be able to put stock in fantastical experiences lacking the experience myself.
I'm reading the new book by van Lommel. I suggest you get a copy from Amazon. The closest I've gotten in talking with dozen patients or so. They are very believable.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 07, 2012, 05:09 (4705 days ago) @ David Turell
Be a "real scientist?" Really?
First... I take issue with your suggestion of dismissal. I bought Sabom's
book--and you should remember well my writings about the part of your book
that dealt with what we call psychic phenomenon. If you recall, I left
positively intrigued and was even waxing philosophical about some of my own
possible experiences. I intended to read Reynold's story from his book as
I thought that the website did not give me enough information.
Nowhere did I say that the story at large was bogus... I don't think you
were quite fuming, but reign in your frustration a bit, it's unbecoming!
Nowhere am I NOT being scientific about this. From the story given, I
decided I needed more information.
However--it's patently hard to be "scientific" about this. It's a personal experience. I can no more verify Pam's experience than Christ risen. In fact, in a direct sense, the claims are identical. In Christ's case I have to take the eyewitness word of 4 Gospels. In our case, I have to take Pam's and her doctor's "word for it" and it is at this level that we cannot be scientific-->Methodological materialism does not even apply. We're beyond science here, and you will do well to recognize it. (Or demonstrate why I'm wrong here.)
I'm no less "scientific" about Pam's story than I am towards anything else we've discussed. But as I've said before I make clear distinctions between observation, fact, experience, and knowledge, but in all circumstances in my hierarchy, knowledge + experience trumps. (This is in fact, why mathematics is alluring...)
I've also said before, science that isn't replicable, isn't science. I hold to that. So asking me to be a "real scientist...?" sorry, that's exactly what I'm doing.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Saturday, January 07, 2012, 14:50 (4705 days ago) @ xeno6696
First... I take issue with your suggestion of dismissal. I bought Sabom's
book--and you should remember well my writings about the part of your book
that dealt with what we call psychic phenomenon. If you recall, I left
positively intrigued and was even waxing philosophical about some of my own
possible experiences. I intended to read Reynold's story from his book as
I thought that the website did not give me enough information.
Too much wine the night I read your reply, but no where are you telling me that you cracked Sabom's book and read his physician's description of the operation and her verifiable observations will literally blind, deaf, and severely hypothermic.
Nowhere am I NOT being scientific about this. From the story given, I
decided I needed more information.
Why respond as you did without getting the info first, especially if you have the book.
However--it's patently hard to be "scientific" about this. It's a personal experience. I can no more verify Pam's experience than Christ risen. In fact, in a direct sense, the claims are identical. In Christ's case I have to take the eyewitness word of 4 Gospels. In our case, I have to take Pam's and her doctor's "word for it" and it is at this level that we cannot be scientific--
I recognize that there are soft sciences as psychology, but those folks are making valid attempts to get around some of your objections.
(This is in fact, why mathematics is alluring...)
I clearaly understand your prejudices. How hard a science is economics?
I've also said before, science that isn't replicable, isn't science. I hold to that. So asking me to be a "real scientist...?" sorry, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Your response the other day was off-hand and dismissive. I still stick with falsifiable, along with replicable, and suggest thatd a use of both is much more complete.
My bias is from medical science, yours from math. A great difference.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 07, 2012, 18:26 (4705 days ago) @ David Turell
Too much wine the night I read your reply, but no where are you telling me that you cracked Sabom's book and read his physician's description of the operation and her verifiable observations will literally blind, deaf, and severely hypothermic.
Nowhere am I NOT being scientific about this. From the story given, I
decided I needed more information.
Why respond as you did without getting the info first, especially if you have the book.
When I say this, I do not mean to say this sarcastically or negatively: But I thought it was clear that my postings on this topic were a running commentary on the website you posted, as well as the topic of NDE/OBE.
However--it's patently hard to be "scientific" about this. It's a personal experience. I can no more verify Pam's experience than Christ risen. In fact, in a direct sense, the claims are identical. In Christ's case I have to take the eyewitness word of 4 Gospels. In our case, I have to take Pam's and her doctor's "word for it" and it is at this level that we cannot be scientific--
I recognize that there are soft sciences as psychology, but those folks are making valid attempts to get around some of your objections.
Phenomenology is really the only thing psychology can do. The experiment discussed at the beginning of the website's article is a prime example of one thing that could be done. I like the idea of random messages.
(This is in fact, why mathematics is alluring...)I clearaly understand your prejudices. How hard a science is economics?
Economics is a social science--so it's not "hard" at all. There's very real and descriptive mathematics behind it, but at the end of the day you have supply-siders using the same theorems as demand-siders to make opposite claims.
(Sound familiar?) Economics as a "hard science" breaks down because it makes a critical and unrealistic assumption:
That people will always act in their own self-interest.
It is precisely the fact that we don't--that prevents Economics from being "hard." In relation to psychology, I still claim economics does more to explain humanity and its nature. So if the question becomes "Is economics a harder science than psychology?" Unequivocally yes. Psychology is phenomenology.
I've also said before, science that isn't replicable, isn't science. I hold to that. So asking me to be a "real scientist...?" sorry, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Your response the other day was off-hand and dismissive. I still stick with falsifiable, along with replicable, and suggest thatd a use of both is much more complete.My bias is from medical science, yours from math. A great difference.
Thank you for the falsifiable piece--> Very silly of me to leave it out.
You're free to interpret my post however you wish, but when reading the site, I wrote down all the questions that came to my mind. You call it dismissive, I call it inquisitive. My primary criticism: If we know that we know very little about consciousness, we have very little right to be able to claim we know for sure when it ends. <--This application of Occam that justly criticizes neuroscience comes back to slice you in the discussion of NDEs. We don't know enough about consciousness and the mind-brain interaction to be able to give a reasonable discussion of NDEs.
The key difference between our mindsets turns on the critical fact that the mathematical perspective is radically conservative. You rarely see one of us make a move or a decision until we're certain we're right. It's an ascetic art. Its relation to mysticism is that you experience what you learn. The first time you crack a hard problem--and I'm not talking computations, physics, or engineering equations, but a true, general and difficult problem--there is an almost transcendental feeling that you have uncovered a deep and hidden secret.
Then, you attempt to destroy your secret, in the hopes that it will survive. No other science operates like this.
This isn't a process that Medical Doctors have any use for. You don't have the luxury of time. And you certainly don't have time to destroy your "secret." I know how differential diagnosis works: when you find what you think the problem is, attempt the solution and figure out if the symptoms go away. If not... try again.
You still use a math brain for this. But you follow a heuristic and a trial and error process necessitated by time-boxing. There is no time limit on mathematics.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Sunday, January 08, 2012, 05:10 (4704 days ago) @ xeno6696
When I say this, I do not mean to say this sarcastically or negatively: But I thought it was clear that my postings on this topic were a running commentary on the website you posted, as well as the topic of NDE/OBE.
That is a cop out. To be thoughtful you need to crack Sabom's book, and I am not seeing that from you. You are too bright to close your mind like this.
However--it's patently hard to be "scientific" about this. It's a personal experience. I can no more verify Pam's experience than Christ risen.> Phenomenology is really the only thing psychology can do.
You are not expected to 'verify' Pam.
But Sabom's description of the events is very compelling. What Pam 'saw' is verified. How did she do it?. I don't know. Sabom doesn't know. Something is going on and you won't even open up to it.
>
I've also said before, science that isn't replicable, isn't science. I hold to that. So asking me to be a "real scientist...?" sorry, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Too strict a standard. Sometimes things require a more open mind than you have.van Lommel's book is like that. An open mind, because what is observed is so surprising.
Your response the other day was off-hand and dismissive. I still stick with falsifiable, along with replicable, and suggest thatd a use of both is much more complete.My bias is from medical science, yours from math. A great difference.
Thank you for the falsifiable piece--> Very silly of me to leave it out.
We don't know enough about consciousness and the mind-brain interaction to be able to give a reasonable discussion of NDEs.
Agreed. We don't know squat, but we can take a look at experiences that give information to a person who is dying, that they would have no way of knowing, but they do. How is that?. Where is your curiosity?
The key difference between our mindsets turns on the critical fact that the mathematical perspective is radically conservative. You rarely see one of us make a move or a decision until we're certain we're right. It's an ascetic art. Its relation to mysticism is that you experience what you learn. The first time you crack a hard problem--and I'm not talking computations, physics, or engineering equations, but a true, general and difficult problem--there is an almost transcendental feeling that you have uncovered a deep and hidden secret.
No problem with your description, but that approach limits you to a tiny amount of reality to think about.
This isn't a process that Medical Doctors have any use for. You don't have the luxury of time...... I know how differential diagnosis works: when you find what you think the problem is, attempt the solution and figure out if the symptoms go away. If not... try again.
Exactly. And that is what our searching for meaning and reality is really like.
You still use a math brain for this. But you follow a heuristic and a trial and error process necessitated by time-boxing. There is no time limit on mathematics.
I think you are limiting yourself. Thought about reality is not as rigid as you make it.
I'm glad we are having this discussion. We are so different in our approach to reality. At least we can agree to disagree. I think you are shutting out alot.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
Matt, the discussion between yourself on the one hand, and David and me (see my unanswered post of 6 January at 12.32) on the other, revolves round two sentences in your last post: “My primary criticism: If we know that we know very little about consciousness, we have very little right to be able to claim we know for sure when it ends. [...] We don’t know enough about consciousness and the mind-brain interaction to give a reasonable discussion of NDEs.â€
Back to epistemology. You are fully aware that neither David nor I claim to “know for sure†when consciousness ends. That is a straw man argument. If anything, it is you who are making such a claim, since you do not take NDEs seriously. What do you mean by “a reasonable discussionâ€? All of us are attempting to understand the nature of consciousness, and in order to do so, we have to consider all the available evidence. If you cannot explain the acquisition of knowledge by unknown means, you should at least explain why you are not prepared to accept it as POSSIBLE evidence of dualism. Not definite evidence, not evidence to tell us anything “for sureâ€, not evidence that will answer all our questions (e.g. why the cultural differences?), but POSSIBLE evidence of consciousness independent of the physical brain. How did Pam Reynolds see what she saw, how did Yuri know the baby’s arm was broken, how did the man know where his dentures were (van Lommel section), how did the blind Vicki see herself, how did Maria see the tennis shoe, how did the other lady see the red shoe, how did Joyce Harmon see the plaid shoelaces, how did Sue Saunders see the yellow top, how did a whole host of patients see – they all say from above – the details of what was being done to them and around them when clinically they were dead and the medical staff attending to them could detect no sign of life? Do you know the answer “for sureâ€? Of course you don’t. And yet you are “extremely skepticalâ€. So let me ask you yet again, do you think all these people and all the witnesses were lying or were victims of collective delusion? If not, what are you “extremely skeptical†about?
David may be more convinced of dualism than I am, since I remain firmly seated on my agnostic picket fence but, for the sake of emphasis, let me repeat: it is an absolute cop out to claim that, since we cannot know “for sure†where consciousness ends, and we do not understand the nature of consciousness, it's not “reasonable†to discuss NDEs, or even to take them seriously. In the context of materialism versus dualism, refusal to consider POSSIBLE evidence – i.e. phenomena that so far remain unexplained – is neither scientific nor reasonable. It is, to put it bluntly, prejudgemental.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 04:07 (4702 days ago) @ dhw
Matt, the discussion between yourself on the one hand, and David and me (see my unanswered post of 6 January at 12.32) on the other, revolves round two sentences in your last post: “My primary criticism: If we know that we know very little about consciousness, we have very little right to be able to claim we know for sure when it ends. [...] We don’t know enough about consciousness and the mind-brain interaction to give a reasonable discussion of NDEs.â€
Back to epistemology. You are fully aware that neither David nor I claim to “know for sure†when consciousness ends. That is a straw man argument. If anything, it is you who are making such a claim, since you do not take NDEs seriously. What do you mean by “a reasonable discussionâ€? All of us are attempting to understand the nature of consciousness, and in order to do so, we have to consider all the available evidence. If you cannot explain the acquisition of knowledge by unknown means, you should at least explain why you are not prepared to accept it as POSSIBLE evidence of dualism. Not definite evidence, not evidence to tell us anything “for sureâ€, not evidence that will answer all our questions (e.g. why the cultural differences?), but POSSIBLE evidence of consciousness independent of the physical brain. How did Pam Reynolds see what she saw, how did Yuri know the baby’s arm was broken, how did the man know where his dentures were (van Lommel section), how did the blind Vicki see herself, how did Maria see the tennis shoe, how did the other lady see the red shoe, how did Joyce Harmon see the plaid shoelaces, how did Sue Saunders see the yellow top, how did a whole host of patients see – they all say from above – the details of what was being done to them and around them when clinically they were dead and the medical staff attending to them could detect no sign of life? Do you know the answer “for sureâ€? Of course you don’t. And yet you are “extremely skepticalâ€. So let me ask you yet again, do you think all these people and all the witnesses were lying or were victims of collective delusion? If not, what are you “extremely skeptical†about?
I can't verify the means with which they gained their information. THAT is what makes me skeptical. I have to take their stories as an article of faith, and I've never been shy about not liking faith. Maybe you think I'm psychologically defunct for that, but that's why. You've pressed me into the very reason that the whole subject... is uncomfortable for me. You can call it prejudging all you want, but short of experiencing one of these events myself I have no "warm fuzzy" that lets me go beyond acceptance without something in my brain rupturing.
David may be more convinced of dualism than I am, since I remain firmly seated on my agnostic picket fence but, for the sake of emphasis, let me repeat: it is an absolute cop out to claim that, since we cannot know “for sure†where consciousness ends, and we do not understand the nature of consciousness, it's not “reasonable†to discuss NDEs, or even to take them seriously. In the context of materialism versus dualism, refusal to consider POSSIBLE evidence – i.e. phenomena that so far remain unexplained – is neither scientific nor reasonable. It is, to put it bluntly, prejudgemental.
No, its not a cop out, its pointing out why a solution cannot be claimed. Dualism's automatic failure has been in explaining the physical basis for consciousness. If mind and body are separate, than it is for the dualist to discuss how exactly the transfer of information between body and mind takes place. (If you stick your finger in an outlet, how does the physical body tell the mind to say "ouch?")
Buddhism's approach is drastically different. Since we are all manifestations of the same consciousness, there is no possibility for dualism. After doing some digging, one possibility is that we can see other people in an NDE because we are in a state where our mind is dissolving--we're half-in and half-out of the illusion of the "self." If there is a universal consciousness in the Buddhist sense, when you're still "half you" it makes sense that you can see nearly everything because you're tapping into everyone else's consciousness.
This isn't the work of Buddha, but some of the Tibetan mystics that wrote the Book of the Dead. Buddhism offers no ontology for the mind--one of its attractions is its implicit assertion that ontologies are dangerous. (They create illusion as opposed to helping us dissolve them.)
^^^Take everything I said above with a grain of salt. When dealing with metaphysics, there is no right or wrong.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 06:24 (4702 days ago) @ xeno6696
This isn't the work of Buddha, but some of the Tibetan mystics that wrote the Book of the Dead. Buddhism offers no ontology for the mind--one of its attractions is its implicit assertion that ontologies are dangerous. (They create illusion as opposed to helping us dissolve them.)
It is my impression that the Book of the Dead was written to handle the problem NDE's presented.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 00:34 (4701 days ago) @ David Turell
This isn't the work of Buddha, but some of the Tibetan mystics that wrote the Book of the Dead. Buddhism offers no ontology for the mind--one of its attractions is its implicit assertion that ontologies are dangerous. (They create illusion as opposed to helping us dissolve them.)
It is my impression that the Book of the Dead was written to handle the problem NDE's presented.
Have you read it? It was compiled over several hundreds of years as Buddhist Priests attended the last rites of their dying. Much of it is compiled from people who experienced NDEs. It's a manual of what death is and more importantly--what to expect as you die. It is not an attempt at explaining NDEs. Buddhism generally dislikes ontologies, it isn't likely to try and "explain" something it ultimately recognizes as unknowable. It's referred to as "The Middle Way" because on one side you have Vedic thought--the material world is unreal, only the spiritual world in Brahma is real--and materialism.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 01:14 (4701 days ago) @ xeno6696
This isn't the work of Buddha, but some of the Tibetan mystics that wrote the Book of the Dead. Buddhism offers no ontology for the mind--one of its attractions is its implicit assertion that ontologies are dangerous. (They create illusion as opposed to helping us dissolve them.)
It is my impression that the Book of the Dead was written to handle the problem NDE's presented.
Have you read it?
No, just a review of it.
It was compiled over several hundreds of years as Buddhist Priests attended the last rites of their dying. Much of it is compiled from people who experienced NDEs. It's a manual of what death is and more importantly--what to expect as you die. It is not an attempt at explaining NDEs.
That is how I understood it. Thanks for your explanation.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
MATT: Being pronounced dead – doesn’t mean you’re dead. It doesn’t even mean you’re not conscious – it means you’re unable to respond, like a coma victim or a sufferer of sleep paralysis.
David has explained the difference. You’ve quoted me in relation to the Reinee Pasarow incident, and then ignored the implications: “she saw her own body from the outside...she saw real people doing real things, although clearly there was no visible sign of her seeing or registering anything. [...] How do you see people, scenes and events all around you without moving your eyes and your body?†(No patient in a coma could have seen what she saw.) But far more importantly, as I keep stressing over and over again in relation to “veridical NDEsâ€, how do patients obtain information they could not have acquired by any known means? There are several instances of this, but you don’t deal with them. Why not? Here are some of your comments:
1) “David will probably find this a cop-out, but I cannot make a judgment here.â€
I also find it a cop-out, and unfortunately you do make a judgment.
2) “Having never had an experience like this myself, I can’t be anything but intensely skepticalâ€.
If someone obtains information by unknown means, and that information is corroborated by several witnesses, are you saying everyone concerned was a liar or was suffering from some kind of collective delusion? If not, what are you sceptical about? Do you never believe anything people report unless you’ve experienced it yourself?
3) “I’m not really going to be able to put stock in fantastical experiences lacking the experience myself.†(Re modern day “magistersâ€, whose work we are not discussing.)
Are you saying that the list of verified experiences, observations, items of knowledge David and I asked you to consider were also “fantastical� Why do you persistently focus on those aspects of such experiences that are NOT verifiable, when we are expressly asking you to consider those that ARE?
3) “If there was more unity in the experiences across cultures, I would be more inclined to take them seriously.â€
So observations of REAL events and the acquisition of VERIFIED information are not to be taken seriously?
4) “I have a difficult time believing this story as-is. Part of it is because the only solution is Cartesian dualism. And nearly every philosophy that ever existed has extremely good arguments against dualism – Buddhism notwithstanding.â€
Except, of course, those philosophers from Socrates and Plato onwards who believed in an immaterial soul, but I guess they don’t count. Not one of these “extremely good arguments†is able to explain consciousness. Not even the greatest of neuroscientists can explain consciousness. But your problem is clear: “the only solution is Cartesian dualismâ€, and you have decided that although nobody can explain consciousness, dualism is wrong, and therefore corroborated observations and information are not to be taken seriously. That is not scepticism, it is prejudgement.
Why do people from different cultures (including their demons!) have different experiences? I don’t know. Why is it only a small percentage of people who have these NDEs? (If dualism is correct, shouldn’t all the patients have experienced the separation of soul from body?) I don’t know. What is the source of consciousness? I don’t know. How do some people (not just during NDEs) gain access to information that is not accessible through normal channels? I don’t know. Does the brain operate the mind, or does the mind operate the brain? I don’t know. If you don’t know either, why don’t you keep your mind/brain open? Come on, Matt, take agrippan yourself!
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 03:35 (4702 days ago) @ dhw
...
1) “David will probably find this a cop-out, but I cannot make a judgment here.â€
I also find it a cop-out, and unfortunately you do make a judgment.2) “Having never had an experience like this myself, I can’t be anything but intensely skepticalâ€.
If someone obtains information by unknown means, and that information is corroborated by several witnesses, are you saying everyone concerned was a liar or was suffering from some kind of collective delusion? If not, what are you sceptical about? Do you never believe anything people report unless you’ve experienced it yourself?
Why don't you believe in the Risen Christ? There were a host of witnesses. Enough that many were willing to be brutalized in the following years than reject what they saw. Saul claimed that the "dead" Christ spoke to him on the road to Damascus. What's different about some of these NDEs from NT stories, save the source?
Amazingly however, you DO have me pegged well in the words in red. It's the core of the many disagreements I have with people all the time. If the story is relatively mundane (Salvation Army needs blankets... someone got shot in a gang dispute...) I don't spend too much time thinking about it. I accept--I don't believe. (There's a difference.) If a friend were to tell me that they had an OOB, I would be polite, most likely wouldn't even challenge it, but no, I wouldn't believe it. I would accept that they experienced something, but in no way does that commit me to their story. I lack that frame of reference--I'm hopelessly out of my element.
If you want me to state it bluntly: I reject faith. I don't think it has any place in my life and I go out of my way to kill it when I find it. Gaining information by a means that I can't myself use, means that I have to take it on faith that the other person gained information by that means. This means that when someone makes a claim like NDE/OOB, that while I won't call them fraudulent, I can never go beyond "accept."
...
Are you saying that the list of verified experiences, observations, items of knowledge David and I asked you to consider were also “fantastical� Why do you persistently focus on those aspects of such experiences that are NOT verifiable, when we are expressly asking you to consider those that ARE?
One of my programming instructors survived two parachute failures.
THAT is just as fantastical as these veridical NDE claims. Fantastical is the correct word.
The problem I have is that there is a definite "picking and choosing" going on. You want to concentrate only upon one part of NDEs, when I don't think you can really do that. It's like taking only a single petal to study a rose.
The verifiable parts rest on a bed of the unverifiable. I've always told both you and David that I'm uncomfortable talking about NDE/OBE precisely (to beat this horse some more) because I accept that we have a materialistic means to study our world. At any point where you lose those tools, you lose any amount of reliability and you are dealing squarely with stories. And I don't mean that in a degrading context, but in the context that they are: Unexplained AND unexplorable phenomenon.
If I can't find a rung, how do you expect me to climb?
...
So observations of REAL events and the acquisition of VERIFIED information are not to be taken seriously?
See above. You already admitted yourself that you lack an explanation. David emphatically lacks an explanation. I lack an explanation. Where exactly do you want me to go here? It seems to me that the discussion halts here.
4) “I have a difficult time believing this story as-is. Part of it is because the only solution is Cartesian dualism. And nearly every philosophy that ever existed has extremely good arguments against dualism – Buddhism notwithstanding.â€
Except, of course, those philosophers from Socrates and Plato onwards who believed in an immaterial soul, but I guess they don’t count.... That is not scepticism, it is prejudgement.
I'll say it explicitly: I don't think the stories are bullshit, but lacking any handle or frame of reference to explore them, I'm left with a ladder that has no rungs. David says I'm limiting myself, but I'm limiting myself to the tools available. If that's prejudgment, than I guess we can fit me for the inquisitor's frock.
Why do people from different cultures (including their demons!) have different experiences? I don’t know. Why is it only a small percentage of people who have these NDEs? (If dualism is correct, shouldn’t all the patients have experienced the separation of soul from body?) I don’t know. What is the source of consciousness? I don’t know. How do some people (not just during NDEs) gain access to information that is not accessible through normal channels? I don’t know. Does the brain operate the mind, or does the mind operate the brain? I don’t know. If you don’t know either, why don’t you keep your mind/brain open? Come on, Matt, take agrippan yourself!
Open to what? If I don't know, and you don't know, and David doesn't know, there is literally nothing to be open about!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 06:19 (4702 days ago) @ xeno6696
Why don't you believe in the Risen Christ? There were a host of witnesses. Enough that many were willing to be brutalized in the following years than reject what they saw. Saul claimed that the "dead" Christ spoke to him on the road to Damascus. What's different about some of these NDEs from NT stories, save the source?
The gospels are reproductions of spoken tales told over an over to a generation of unsophisticated folks who believed in miracles and magic. The Apostles had a religion to sell. I think the morality Jesus preached is right on. The miracles, all the invented miracles were selling a religion of Jesus. I don't believe he ever expected that.On the other hand these NDE stories appear on the first hand, not 80 years after, and many have verification.
If you want me to state it bluntly: I reject faith. This means that when someone makes a claim like NDE/OOB, that while I won't call them fraudulent, I can never go beyond "accept."
That's OK. Just spend a little time to listen.
...
Are you saying that the list of verified experiences, observations, items of knowledge David and I asked you to consider were also “fantastical� Why do you persistently focus on those aspects of such experiences that are NOT verifiable, when we are expressly asking you to consider those that ARE?
One of my programming instructors survived two parachute failures.THAT is just as fantastical as these veridical NDE claims. Fantastical is the correct word.
Yes, fantastical, but verifiable.
The problem I have is that there is a definite "picking and choosing" going on. You want to concentrate only upon one part of NDEs, when I don't think you can really do that. > The verifiable parts rest on a bed of the unverifiable.
I don't see it that way. Not all the NDE's have verificaation, but what about the plethora of those that do?
...
So observations of REAL events and the acquisition of VERIFIED information are not to be taken seriously?
See above. You already admitted yourself that you lack an explanation. David emphatically lacks an explanation. I lack an explanation. Where exactly do you want me to go here? It seems to me that the discussion halts here.
4) “I have a difficult time believing this story as-is. Part of it is because the only solution is Cartesian dualism. And nearly every philosophy that ever existed has extremely good arguments against dualism – Buddhism notwithstanding.â€
Philosophic answers are not fact. And those answers did not know about these new findings.
Except, of course, those philosophers from Socrates and Plato onwards who believed in an immaterial soul, but I guess they don’t count.... That is not scepticism, it is prejudgement.
Why do people from different cultures (including their demons!) have different experiences? I don’t know. Why is it only a small percentage of people who have these NDEs? (If dualism is correct, shouldn’t all the patients have experienced the separation of soul from body?) I don’t know. What is the source of consciousness? I don’t know. How do some people (not just during NDEs) gain access to information that is not accessible through normal channels? I don’t know. Does the brain operate the mind, or does the mind operate the brain? I don’t know. If you don’t know either, why don’t you keep your mind/brain open? Come on, Matt, take agrippan yourself!
Open to what? If I don't know, and you don't know, and David doesn't know, there is literally nothing to be open about!
Yes there is. You just want to avoid it, as you have really admittted.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 00:21 (4701 days ago) @ David Turell
David
The gospels are reproductions of spoken tales told over an over to a generation of unsophisticated folks who believed in miracles and magic. The Apostles had a religion to sell. I think the morality Jesus preached is right on. The miracles, all the invented miracles were selling a religion of Jesus. I don't believe he ever expected that.On the other hand these NDE stories appear on the first hand, not 80 years after, and many have verification.
Verification on only one level: Someone else agrees that they obtained information they couldn't otherwise have known. But there exists no explanation about the means. Even if you have 1000 confirmed cases of this: The state of the problem is one where no verifiable solution exists.
<--This is the part that gives me heartburn. If a reproducible, empirical case can be made, I'm all for it. I'll believe it.
If you want me to state it bluntly: I reject faith. This means that when someone makes a claim like NDE/OOB, that while I won't call them fraudulent, I can never go beyond "accept."
That's OK. Just spend a little time to listen.
I do listen. (Hence why I'm still here!)
But you should know by now that reliability is king of the hill in my ranking list for solutions to problems. The solution must be reliable.
THAT is just as fantastical as these veridical NDE claims. Fantastical is the correct word.
Yes, fantastical, but verifiable.
Exactly. I can look at his x-ray for the first one, and see how he fractured 102 bones. I don't remember what caused the parachute to fail, but the cause of that exists as well.
There is physical evidence for this event. It is reliable.
An NDE that leaves nothing but the spoken word--is not.
I don't get why you're pushing so hard about this. If you can convince me that reliability isn't the best measure for a solution, I'm game. Otherwise, you're attacking a position I backed myself into about 11 years ago: The acceptance that methodological materialism is the benchmark for finding out about our world.
The problem I have is that there is a definite "picking and choosing" going on. You want to concentrate only upon one part of NDEs, when I don't think you can really do that. > The verifiable parts rest on a bed of the unverifiable.
I don't see it that way. Not all the NDE's have verificaation, but what about the plethora of those that do?
I think I've been pretty honest in my objections: From day one at this site I said that I lean materialist, and the reason is because I value reliable explanations that allow me to predict. If evidence is unclear and no explanation exists, the tiebreaker is personal experience. If I lack personal experience, whatever it is I'm dealing with goes on the "unsolved" pile. <--Can I be any more honest? How on earth can I be more open? What magic pill am I missing?
See above. You already admitted yourself that you lack an explanation. David emphatically lacks an explanation. I lack an explanation. Where exactly do you want me to go here? It seems to me that the discussion halts here.
4) “I have a difficult time believing this story as-is. Part of it is because the only solution is Cartesian dualism. And nearly every philosophy that ever existed has extremely good arguments against dualism – Buddhism notwithstanding.â€
Philosophic answers are not fact. And those answers did not know about these new findings.
No, but I actually put more credit to the Hindus and Kabbalistic Rabbis: They explored the universe by exploring the inside. Many of their answers harmonize with you.
Open to what? If I don't know, and you don't know, and David doesn't know, there is literally nothing to be open about!
Yes there is. You just want to avoid it, as you have really admittted.
Every problem to be solved, has to have a comprehensible solution-->Else we lack a solution.
And that's kind of unfair-->I've offered up what I've found in regards to Buddhist interpretations. You just need to accept that this isn't a subject I take lightly, and have thought deeply about-->and came to the conclusion that I lack the information necessary to work a solution.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 01:11 (4701 days ago) @ xeno6696
But there exists no explanation about the means.
That is exactly the point. And I am not sure that we will find the means.
No, but I actually put more credit to the Hindus and Kabbalistic Rabbis: They explored the universe by exploring the inside. Many of their answers harmonize with you.
I can readily accept that.
I've offered up what I've found in regards to Buddhist interpretations. You just need to accept that this isn't a subject I take lightly, and have thought deeply about-->and came to the conclusion that I lack the information necessary to work a solution.
And I certainly accept your position here. I am not asking for a solution. Just a recognition that this NDE issue presents a puzzle, and I recognize that you see it that way also, but on your own terms.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 01:47 (4701 days ago) @ David Turell
But there exists no explanation about the means.
That is exactly the point. And I am not sure that we will find the means.
No, but I actually put more credit to the Hindus and Kabbalistic Rabbis: They explored the universe by exploring the inside. Many of their answers harmonize with you.
I can readily accept that.
I've offered up what I've found in regards to Buddhist interpretations. You just need to accept that this isn't a subject I take lightly, and have thought deeply about-->and came to the conclusion that I lack the information necessary to work a solution.
And I certainly accept your position here. I am not asking for a solution. Just a recognition that this NDE issue presents a puzzle, and I recognize that you see it that way also, but on your own terms.
I've always recognized it. Just, for some reason, dhw wanted to draw me into a discussion about them. Likely, he didn't (perhaps still doesn't) understand my reluctance or my responses. (Not that he's not capable, but I'm not a stellar communicator.)
I'm a deeply systematic thinker. I recognize that. Compared to my classmates, it will often take me longer to arrive at a solution, simply because I can easily get lost checking my corner cases. (I write very reliable software, by the way, lol...)
What many people fail to respect, is that when things are outliers to my system, I still categorize them, but if I have no line whatsoever from A-Z, it exists as an outlier. (And truth is usually discovered in outliers!) But as I've told you before, I feel no rush to answer these questions before I die. If its one thing that I had to get used to on every level, it's living with ambiguity.
I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as "copping out" on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I'm being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation: and speculation is dangerous. If you reflect deeply, most of the horrible mistakes of history were perpetrated due to speculation and accepting immediate solutions when there was no need...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 05:21 (4701 days ago) @ xeno6696
I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as "copping out" on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I'm being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation:
Where you see wild speculation, I don't. I see an unexplained phenomenon that begs for an answer we do not have, I've not offered an answer. I've simply wanted acceptance that an unexplained phenomenon exists and wants for an answer.
These are not hallucinations. I've met lots of those in practice, but what they are I do not know. Are they significant? Yes. I have my opinion that conscousness which is an emergent property from the brain, can at a quantum level exist independent from the brain. Van Lommel feels the same way, if the early part of his book is any indication. Does this prove anything? Of course not. Is it worth discussing? Yes, because we should not avoid any alley, even if we think it may be blind.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 12:48 (4701 days ago) @ David Turell
I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as "copping out" on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I'm being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation:
Where you see wild speculation, I don't. I see an unexplained phenomenon that begs for an answer we do not have, I've not offered an answer. I've simply wanted acceptance that an unexplained phenomenon exists and wants for an answer.
These are not hallucinations. I've met lots of those in practice, but what they are I do not know. Are they significant? Yes. I have my opinion that conscousness which is an emergent property from the brain, can at a quantum level exist independent from the brain. Van Lommel feels the same way, if the early part of his book is any indication. Does this prove anything? Of course not. Is it worth discussing? Yes, because we should not avoid any alley, even if we think it may be blind.
David, it IS wild speculation when you have a disjoint like this. Quantum mechanics? Does Lommel discuss that these interactions are very rare in nature, and that for we humans to be able to induce large-scale entanglement, we have to operate in temperatures colder than liquid nitrogen?
Physics needs to be able to induce entanglement at temperatures of the human body before THAT road leads to any enlightenment.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 14:41 (4701 days ago) @ xeno6696
David, it IS wild speculation when you have a disjoint like this. Quantum mechanics? Does Lommel discuss that these interactions are very rare in nature, and that for we humans to be able to induce large-scale entanglement, we have to operate in temperatures colder than liquid nitrogen?Physics needs to be able to induce entanglement at temperatures of the human body before THAT road leads to any enlightenment.
You are much more knowledgable in this area than I. I know that entanglement at 100 Kilometers in Switzerland was at Swiss temperatures in the space between the two cities.
I haven't gotten to van Lommel's conjectures in the latter part of his book. I'll report back.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 15:09 (4701 days ago) @ David Turell
David, it IS wild speculation when you have a disjoint like this. Quantum mechanics? Does Lommel discuss that these interactions are very rare in nature, and that for we humans to be able to induce large-scale entanglement, we have to operate in temperatures colder than liquid nitrogen?Physics needs to be able to induce entanglement at temperatures of the human body before THAT road leads to any enlightenment.
You are much more knowledgable in this area than I. I know that entanglement at 100 Kilometers in Switzerland was at Swiss temperatures in the space between the two cities.
You have a misconception about entanglement: the space betwen two locations is irrelevant. What matters is the two substances that are entangled in the two labs. Care must be taken that the atoms to be entangled have absolutely identical conditions, and currently this can only be done at superconductive temperatures---supercold. I know this because one of the biggest problems in quantum computing is how to deliver electricity (which creates heat and disturbs atoms) without breaking entangled states. At present we can only maintain entanglement (in a computer) for about a millionth of a second--enough to find all the primes under 16.
I haven't gotten to van Lommel's conjectures in the latter part of his book. I'll report back.
Please do... but don't hold your breath...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
MATT: I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as "copping out" on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I'm being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation.
DAVID: Where you see wild speculation, I don't. I see an unexplained phenomenon that begs for an answer we do not have. I've not offered an answer. I've simply wanted acceptance that an unexplained phenomenon exists and wants for an answer.
MATT: I've always recognized it [i.e. that NDEs present a puzzle]. Just, for some reason, dhw wanted to draw me into a discussion about them. Likely, he didn't (perhaps still doesn't) understand my reluctance or my responses. (Not that he's not capable, but I'm not a stellar communicator.)
For me, the basic purpose and pleasure of these discussions is the exchange of ideas and information, but also the chance to clarify our own ideas. In this discussion, you keep emphasizing the impossibility of finding a solution, whereas all David and I have consistently asked you to do is recognize that these NDEs present us with a puzzle. You have at last done so, but you haven’t always done so, and perhaps that’s where your non-stellar communication has caused so many misunderstandings. Your posts are littered with references to your “extreme skepticismâ€, and I’ve repeatedly asked you what you’re sceptical about. You now say you don’t think the experiences listed are fraudulent. Then your scepticism and your allusion to “wild speculation†can only refer to proposed solutions. I’m not so sure about “wild†in relation to all possible solutions, but “speculation†they certainly are (both materialist and dualist) and will most likely continue to be. There has never been any dispute over that.
However, we do need to look at the reason for the discussion. Our subject is the possibility of an afterlife. For me, this is pretty meaningless unless my consciousness and identity survive (becoming worm-food is not my idea of an afterlife). This, then, raises the question of whether consciousness is or is not wholly dependent on the physical cells of the brain, i.e. materialism versus dualism. There’s plenty of scientific evidence for materialism: we know that our mental activities are accompanied by electrical activities in the brain, and drugs and diseases can have a profound effect on consciousness and identity. Is there any evidence for dualism? Perhaps, but it can’t be scientific because science can only handle known materials. The POSSIBLE evidence is personal experiences, throughout history, of unexplained so-called psychic phenomena. In recent times, doctors have recorded puzzling instances of events observed and information received by no identifiable means, but corroborated by independent witnesses. Any speculative conclusions about the nature of consciousness should not, in David’s view and mine, exclude consideration of these phenomena. Full stop.
You wrote: “From day one at this site I said that I lean materialist.†You did (though the breadth of your interests offers a far more colourful palette of philosophies). As long as you do not lean so far as to ignore this POSSIBLE evidence for dualism, or to express “extreme skepticism†about the authenticity of the experiences themselves, or to dismiss them as not worth taking seriously because you haven’t had any yourself or because they vary from culture to culture or because they might imply that your favoured materialistic explanations are wrong, we can all move happily on to other areas.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 13, 2012, 00:26 (4699 days ago) @ dhw
dhw has a way of encyclopedically referencing old posts to contradict: And I attempted to do the same thing, but the volume of writings here... yeah... we hae a lot of time on our hands, don't we??? 
I went as far back as 2009 and I simply can't find a set of about 3 different posts that back me up here.
I've always been consistent, what happened here is yet another flub of my keyboard: I uttered the words "taking it seriously" in reference to NDE or OOB.
dhw must hate my ability to alter definitions: I speak in metaphors often in my own head, and for me to be able to "take a subject seriously" I have to be able to study it.
^^^I've been very consistent about this. I remember posting something to these lines several times.
Not "Taking something seriously" has the connotation of writing it off as a joke or something to be ridiculed. It would be fair for dhw to say that I'm trying to save face, and he has every right to do so. But if you think back to the few times I have mentioned NDE/OOB, compare what I said then to what I've said in the past few days and I'll let you judge for yourself if I'm on the level or not.
Have we forgotten that just a few short weeks ago I posted a link to a Buddhist story of NDE? How is that anything other than an "open mind?"
By the way: I have no problem with you provoking me to talk about a subject-->it's perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe I don't like talking about it because it threatens materialism, and I have no real issue doing it, but my un-comfortableness with the topic stems from the two facts I will restate:
1. We lack a real knowledge of the human consciousness.
2. To understand NDE, we must understand consciousness.
It is really difficult for me to think about or deal with a problem when the link to its primary domain is completely unestablished. I lack a way to think about it.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html <--here is another link to the OOB research I had discussed a long time ago.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
MATT: dhw has a way of encyclopedically referencing old posts to contradict.
The references were all taken from your posts of the last few days. However, they were not contradictory – you simply came up with one different reason after another for your scepticism towards NDEs. Matt, we can only discuss what you write, and you’ve honestly admitted that your thinking can be hard to follow! I know David also had the impression that you were dismissing NDEs too lightly, and so we needed clarification. My last post was simply meant as a summing-up of a week’s to-ing and fro-ing, after we finally appeared to have reached agreement. I’m sorry if this has made you uncomfortable.
MATT: dhw must hate my ability to alter definitions: I speak in metaphors often in my own head, and for me to be able to "take a subject seriously" I HAVE to be ABLE to study it.
Study just means finding out as much as you can about a subject (look at the variety of subjects on offer at university). It doesn’t even entail reaching conclusions. So once again we’re back to subjective definitions. I suspect yours demands objective results of some kind. On the other hand, of course, you won’t bother to study a subject unless you take it seriously!
MATT: [...] my uncomfortableness with the topic stems from the two facts I will restate: 1. We lack a real knowledge of the human consciousness. 2. To understand NDE, we must understand consciousness.
Absolutely right, and that’s why this subject lies at the heart of our attempt to gauge whether or not there might be a form of energy beyond the material world as we know it (e.g. a “soulâ€, a UI). Your second point can be reversed: to understand consciousness, we must understand NDEs – along with any other authenticated psychic phenomena, and along with emotions, memory, imagination etc., and along with how the physical brain functions. All these things are intertwined. At present we can do no more than speculate, but that’s all we can do about many of the subjects that matter to us.
Thank you for the link: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html <
Quote: “The need to understand the states of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness, along with the mechanisms that cause the transition between these states is shared by those investigating NDEs and G-LOC.â€
Exactly. (And some people can and do investigate/study NDEs!)
Quote: “Loss-of-consciousness episodes of all types appear to have an explainable physiologic basis.â€
The mystery of NDEs lies not in loss of consciousness but in retention and even enhancement of consciousness when the body and brain have been certified dead. We know that drugs and diseases can also affect consciousness, and can also result in strange experiences, which may be evidence for materialism but, as you have acknowledged, that doesn’t solve the mystery of independently authenticated observations and information.
Jerry Gross’s out-of-body “astral realm†would be more impressive if he provided concrete examples of information verified by independent third parties, so I’d rather stick to the website we’ve been discussing. I’m sure you’ll agree!
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Saturday, January 14, 2012, 14:52 (4698 days ago) @ dhw
Thank you for the link: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html <Quote: “The need to understand the states of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness, along with the mechanisms that cause the transition between these states is shared by those investigating NDEs and G-LOC.â€
Exactly. (And some people can and do investigate/study NDEs!)
The mystery of NDEs lies not in loss of consciousness but in retention and even enhancement of consciousness when the body and brain have been certified dead.
This website has much mysticism mixed in, i.e.,Edgar Cayce especially. Lots of hype, nothing valid. As a Houstonian, I've been in the centrifuge room at NASA.
As for G-LOC, 12 seconds, vs. days in some famous cases, I find there is little to compare. No EEG studies as part of it? A piddling approach.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 02:50 (4702 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,
Not ignoring your posts, but I want to finish going through all the stories at the website before I read them.
Next is Lommel's study... and it's one that David cites in his book. A key insight is this:
"Lommel noted that only 10 seconds after the heart stops beating, the electroencephalogram goes dead. At this point, there is no activity in the brain cortex and the brain cannot manufacture visions."
The assumption here is that register-able brain activity alone is sufficient to determine "death."
This is a piece that I have a difficult time accepting as fact. The reason, is that the cells are not dead. Contrary to the wishes of some neuroscientists, the brain is NOT a computer... it doesn't only have two states, "on" and "off." I think of it more like a room with a light dimmer, as evidenced by what happens when you experience a fever. (Your body burns through calories more quickly.)
As long as cells are alive--they are still capable of some kind of function. This still doesn't give an explanation to veridical NDEs, but I feel my hands are tied by methodological materialism there. Lommel's conclusions here, ignore the fact that we don't know all that much about consciousness-->The same argument that allows many people to infer a creator also binds us from jumping headlong into accepting Lommel's thinking that consciousness survives after death.
How long does it survive? How many stories do we have of an NDE that lasts say, 3 days?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 06:01 (4702 days ago) @ xeno6696
As long as cells are alive--they are still capable of some kind of function. This still doesn't give an explanation to veridical NDEs, but I feel my hands are tied by methodological materialism there.
Brain cells function by producing electrical current. I agree, no curent no overt function, but what is left? A sleep like state? Coma? Can these cells really record or experience. We don't know. Information received. How? We don't know. Methodological materialism is the only approach.
No Way!!!
How long does it survive? How many stories do we have of an NDE that lasts say, 3 days?
None. Of what matter is this? You can't shut your mind to the impression these stories offer. Nor can you reach an important conclusion. Both dhw and I are asking you, enter this subject with a very open mind.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 23:53 (4701 days ago) @ David Turell
As long as cells are alive--they are still capable of some kind of function. This still doesn't give an explanation to veridical NDEs, but I feel my hands are tied by methodological materialism there.
Brain cells function by producing electrical current. I agree, no curent no overt function, but what is left? A sleep like state? Coma? Can these cells really record or experience. We don't know. Information received. How? We don't know. Methodological materialism is the only approach.
No Way!!!
Yes way. Unless something changed in the last few days, you're limited to the same 5 senses as myself. The only recourse for those phenomenon that somehow escape them, is raw imagination. (Metaphysics.)
As for the others: Yeah, I know we don't know. That's why I brought them up.
How long does it survive? How many stories do we have of an NDE that lasts say, 3 days?
None. Of what matter is this? You can't shut your mind to the impression these stories offer. Nor can you reach an important conclusion. Both dhw and I are asking you, enter this subject with a very open mind.
Contrary to what you think, I'm not shutting my mind to anything. I'm pointing out that I have no way to study the phenomenon in question. Sure, I can read stories that tantalize, but without tools, without an observational framework, without a means of reproduction--you have a disjoint between these experiences, and everything else in existence.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 01:03 (4701 days ago) @ xeno6696
Contrary to what you think, I'm not shutting my mind to anything. I'm pointing out that I have no way to study the phenomenon in question. Sure, I can read stories that tantalize, but without tools, without an observational framework, without a means of reproduction--you have a disjoint between these experiences, and everything else in existence.
Yes, a huge disjoint, which is why it is so fascinating.
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 01:37 (4701 days ago) @ David Turell
Contrary to what you think, I'm not shutting my mind to anything. I'm pointing out that I have no way to study the phenomenon in question. Sure, I can read stories that tantalize, but without tools, without an observational framework, without a means of reproduction--you have a disjoint between these experiences, and everything else in existence.
Yes, a huge disjoint, which is why it is so fascinating.
Well... we don't really know how big a disjoint it is: To crack the NDE problem, we first have to crack the consciousness problem.
That said: The existence of a puzzle--is not a solution.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 05:10 (4701 days ago) @ xeno6696
Well... we don't really know how big a disjoint it is: To crack the NDE problem, we first have to crack the consciousness problem.That said: The existence of a puzzle--is not a solution.
Amazing. finally on the same page.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 06, 2011, 15:20 (4737 days ago) @ dhw
Another view of Buddhism by a person who tried it:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/12/02/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism/?WT_...
Afterlife
I have just read an article about a book entitled Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander (published by Piatkus). David drew our attention to this author last December, and I am posting this as a reply to my own post at that time. Apparently the new book recounts the story of his Near Death Experience in 2008, when he was in a coma and his neocortex had shut down. What makes this special is that the author is a neurosurgeon, and "the experience contradicted everything that he, as a man of science, thought he knew ... including his scepticism about religion."-Alexander is well aware of all the academic theories explaining his experience, but having sifted them, "in the end he rejects them all (on careful scientific grounds) in favour of a much more surprising one: that it was real." He was adopted as a baby, and months later he "discovers from a previously unseen photograph that the young woman who'd welcomed him to the afterlife was a dead birth sister he'd never met." (Assuming he is not lying, it is always this kind of information that adds authenticity to such experiences.)-The article, in the November issue of 'Reader's Digest', contains an interview with him. Some more quotes: "I was encountering the reality of a world of consciousness that existed completely free of the limitations of my physical brain." He now believes in "a God who loves and cares about each one of us and about the universe itself." "My conclusions are based on a medical analysis of my experience, and on my familiarity with the most advanced concepts in brain science and consciousness studies." He is well aware that he is risking the scorn of his peers by writing the book, but he regards it as "hands-down the most important story I will ever tell."-We shouldn't believe everything we read. But until we have grounds for disbelieving, we should at least keep an open mind. A neurosurgeon seems hardly likely to risk ruining his reputation by trying to con everyone with a fraud that will make his peers ridicule him. Nor, as a former sceptic, is he likely to take the objections lightly. NDEs are a field of fairly common experience which, just like the mystery of consciousness itself, is not going to go away. Since we don't have any answers, it would be sheer arrogance to claim that one day we will, and the answer will be pure materialism.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 01:12 (4421 days ago) @ dhw
It is worth going to his website:-http://www.lifebeyonddeath.net/neurological-community
Afterlife
by David Turell , Monday, December 05, 2011, 00:55 (4738 days ago) @ xeno6696
When a neurosurgeon has an NDE, his materialism goes out the window:
http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-alexander-near-death-experience/
Afterlife: Validating NDE study
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 08, 2014, 16:00 (3700 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, October 08, 2014, 16:16
Dr. Sam Parnia with a study of over 2,000 patients, now concludes these are not hallucinations and consciousness seems to survive clinical death during resuscitation, One case absolutely veridical:-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html-"One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life - and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room.-"Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, 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.-“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.-“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”-"Dr Parnia's study involved 2,060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria, and has been published in the journal Resuscitation."-Article abstract:-http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext-University news release:-http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/oct/14_181.shtml