Life after Death? More Life?

Is Life after death?
Is “death” an extension of life?
Does “life” subsist through respiratory life?
Are we influenced or directed by “life” we rightly regarded as dead?
Was the idea of life after death invented because it was convenient for us, or some of us?
Is life after death a division of hocus-pocus?
Is nonexistence death?
If there was life after death, and our mother was dead, would the adage “What would your mother say if she saw you now,” be extra momentous?

What does anyone think?

Here is a link, which I found charming, yet it raised more questions, and queries are often times domineeringly hideous.
Life after Death?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no idea to be honest. i mean i could theorise all day but i really dont know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Plain and simply there is not even a hint of evidence that a person's consciousness persists after death.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The following links convey quite a different suggestion.


Evidence of Life After Death," BBC News
http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/nde/001_pages/07.html

(b) "University of Southampton Research"
http://www.mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/u_k__study.html

(c) "Study Suggests Life After Death: Brains of Dead Heart Attack Patients Still Function"
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/news/020629.html

(d) "Scientists Validate Near-Death Experiences"
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/nde/001_pages/52.html

(a) "Autoscopic Evidence: Dr. Charles Tart's Out-of-Body Experience Research"
http://www.near-death.com/tart.html

(b) "Psychophysiological Study of Out-of-the-Body Experiences in a Selected Subject"
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/display/ctt_articles2.cfm?ID=31

(c) "Mind Over Body: Neurologist Finds Way to Trigger Out-of-Body Experiences"
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/nde/001_pages/68.html

(d) "The Seat of Soaring Consciousness: Brain Region Linked to Out-of-Body Experience"
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/nde/001_pages/85.html

(e) "The NDE and Out-of-Body: Kevin Williams' Research Conclusions"
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research11.html

a) "The Trigger of Gravity: Dr. James Winnery's NDE Research"
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html

(b) "Loss of Consciousness and Near-Death Experiences" by James E. Whinnery
http://www.nidsci.org/articles/whinnery/whinnery_nde.html


This is the parent link: http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

 

There is some compelling evidence here and there, but it is obviously heavily open to interpretation at this point.

 

Hmm, now I'm curious what would happen if the brains were completely decomposed. Although, in that case, I think the doctors are less likely to be mistaken about the patient's being clinically dead

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The faculties that people lose after brain damage, e.g. in car accidents, suggest to me that consciousness is limited by our wetware, but that's just one opinion.

 

That information might be little behind the times there Johnny. Several hospotals have rigged their operating rooms with monitors and very easy to recognize images on those monitors that sit on cabinets and face upwards. People whom experience a NDE/OOBE in the operating room would easily see the images and be able to communicate what they were. To date not a single person was even aware that the images were there.

What these experiences are evidence for is what happens to a human perception in extreme conditions.

 

There is emotionally attractive interpretation here and there and I am not aware of the evidence you are referring to. Want to show it?

 

I would like to believe in life after death, but if there is such a thing, I doubt think that you would be conscious of your existance. More likely, it's just hard to swallow that you'll seize to exist. I've looked into various religions and articles, and I haven't found anything that I think is beyond superstitions and haulucinations. I will continue looking though, as I don't want to accept death.

 

Objectively reading that article, one might convey that the dissertations within the report, constructively oppose your view(s), in reference of your insoluble resistance, thus having refuted the findings reported in the article, after which you gave subsequent to your patent interpretation of the article.

The article:http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/news/020629.html
".........................."The brain function these patients were found to have while unconscious is commonly believed to be incapable of sustaining lucid thought processes or allowing lasting memories to form, Parnia said — pointing to the fact that nobody fully grasps how the brain generates thoughts.

The brain itself is made up of cells, like all the body's organs, and is not really capable of producing the subjective phenomenon of thought that people have, he said.

He speculated that human consciousness may work independently of the brain, using the gray matter as a mechanism to manifest the thoughts, just as a television set translates waves in the air into picture and sound."......................."


For the sake of a vigorous angular dialogue, let us discern from the psychical approach to/of this squabble, and wade through a more empirical loom.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=6413
“………………………….”Another British astrophysicist and sub-atomic researcher, Michael Scott, BSc, a graduate of Edinburgh University, cites Niels Bohr's "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"
as seeming to actually require the existence of consciousness as a non-material extension to space-time. Scott makes the point that sub-atomic physics, as explored by he and other researchers worldwide, no longer views the building blocks of the universe as discrete particles of solid substance, but rather as vague, wavelike structures whose existence borders on the
ethereal. Scott further states that: "The advancement of quantum physics has produced a description of reality which allows the existence of parallel universes. Composed of real substance, they would not interact directly with matter from our universe."……………………………………..”

Tis an interesting, yet a somewhat absent theory, dearth of insight and clear profundity, one might argue.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=6413
“………………..”A quote from Arthur Schopenhauer describes the current situation in the study of sub-atomic physics as it relates to ongoing life now being at the second stage, and nearing the third: "Any
unexplained phenomenon passes through three stages before the reality of it is accepted. During the first stage it is considered laughable. During the second stage, it is adamantly
opposed. Finally, during the third stage, it is accepted as self-evident."………………………..”

 

That argument would mean the concept of theory is utterly misunderstood. There is no theory here. Some hospitals simply tested a hypothesis concerning NDEs/OOBEs and the result is that they are hallucinations. That is plain and simply the truth.

You should not believe everything that is attractive. The statements you quoted and statements like this one:

perform a valuable service to the believer. They talk about all sorts of details about fantastic unexplained phenomenoa, giving the believer a strong foundation to believe upon. The reality is that in all cases I am aware of the phenomenoa doesn't exist and is hallucinatory or just outright made up.

 

Yes, some hospitals have scientifically scrutinized a hypothesis pertaining to the cause of alleged NDEs/OBEs, in the hopes of accurately understanding the phenomenon in its entirety, rather than be dismissive. Certainly, anything which becomes scientifically concluded or proven goes through the rigors of an experimental process. In such a process the embryo is the hypothesis. Right, let us follow your tentative theory. Let me pose this question. How are NDEs/OBEs, alleged or otherwise, glibly classified as hallucinations if/when the patients’ were cited as being clinically dead? According to this logic, the brain would mistake what was visually perceived, or be impressed by the “images” of the hospitals’ “monitors” “and be able to communicate what they were,” yet the brains’ phantasms would be unfounded in articulation because of the induced state of neurological cessation.

My understanding of “clinical death” is that there is the possibility that all electricus activity in the brain may become entirely ceased. This can of course, in some instances be reversed. If it is not, “brain death” is consequent to cardiovascular arrest, and there is no chance for restoration. So the real question is why some subjects are accredited with these phenomena and others are not? Oh right, you sir, have already answered that for us. “What these experiences are evidence for is what happens to a human perception in extreme conditions.” Hmmmm. What’s that my perceptions are telling me? Oh. Pardon me. I have to regurgitate. Tis an interesting, yet somewhat of an absent theory, dearth of insight and clear profundity.

“Originally Posted by From the article
Fully authenticated and documented visits to living family members, friends, and researchers have long proven the reality of these manifestations, but their cause and origin has remained inexplicable in the context of heretofore known laws of physics.”


Sir, I do not believe everything that is attractive. That is why I am obliged to convey to you, that if your presumptuous attitude of me were correct, I would not have anything to believe in this world. I would, like an animal whose instincts are finalized, isolate myself in the wilderness and encumber breath. Empathy is a crucial and ingenious position to hearten, and one must not mistake it for the indifference or alleged credence of, for, or in something. Forgive me Sir; I am reluctant to believe that perhaps you are insecure within the ideation that I am advocating biases based on your hideous dissertations.

My reluctance thus far is curved into a scuttle.
The "believer?" To make believe is to surrender to the fact that all we can ever prove is the proof of ourselves in reality. This might bore some. Now, if one can believe based on the proofs that are made, well than, one might be inclined to procure stock in a system of believe not regulated by his own inventions, but justified by them, however slight, and however litigious.

 

Clinical death isn't a decleration where all electrical/chemical activity has come to a complete halt. It's a threshold of not being able to measure heartbeats, brainwaves, etc. and that threshold under most circumstances equates to death. Cells in the human body can live on for quite some time after clinical death and anyone whom has experienced an NDE/OBE in one of those special operating rooms cannot percieve some blatently visible images. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that an NDE's appears to be nothing more than consciousness still having enough living cells to persist, but like a dream the content is all derived from an interal state (which is in the process of dying).

That presumptuous attitude is because you are human and appear to be driving a position about NDE/OBE which has already been contradicted by several hospital experiments. Now it's time for a little hoensty.

1) Do you accept the assertion 'consciousness persists after death' as truth?
2) Do you find the idea of still consciously existing after death attractive?

If you answered 'no' to both of these questions then why do you care?

Maybe I didn't convey the right message. People are inclined to accept as truth that which they want to be true (usually not considering explicit supportive / contradictory evidence). This is the type of belief I am referring to. The quote that you had posted is analagous to someone saying (for example):

"Oh yesterday, subject A astral projected his soul into the zaboombafoo dimension again and partook in an ascended ceremony to open the doors of Klax. Clearly this was an important universal event and science has not been able to explain it"

What this is basically asserting is:

* Astral projectiosn exist
* Souls exist
* The zaboombafoo dimension exists
* The doors of Klax exist

and someone whom believes in these concepts has their beliefs reinforced by someone talking about them as if they are objective events.

 

And answers are veritably hostages of lugubriousness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Huh? So... living forever=meaningful, living less than forever=meaningless?
I don't understand the logic. Aren't short-lived things meaningful? A supernova? A glance across a crowded room? A flower?

Ah, so fear is the motivation.

Really? Some might say it is still somewhat less advanced than necessary.

It might if you have a domestic animal. Also, the empathy we have developed for our families could be transferred to others as an unintended side effect.

He sounds like an indian IT dude trying to rationalize his wishful thinking with convoluted logic.

I guess they don't have snow in India.

Not so. Tree rings are circular, dried mud forms hexagons...

He does not understand evolution.

Evolution does not depend on the notion of gradual change. Gradual change could be punctuated by sudden change.

Tigers hide very well in the dappled light of a forest, and I would not be so quick to discount the advantage of visual confusion created by the Zebra's stripes.

Ug, he should spend some more time studying the subject before attempting this kind of essay.

 

You don't say!

My fiendish boldness is folded origami-style into a trapezoid!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sir, please forgive my previous dissolutely astringent attitude.

In order to completely ascertain the phenomenon of human consciousness and precisely where it fits in with the brains’ anatomy, the conventions and dispersions of sub-atomic prorates must be completely analyzed. If the wiring in an electrical socket is in working order, and one attempts to operate the microwave plugged into that socket, yet the fuse of that circuit is blown, obviously the device will not work. Perhaps the consciousness is like that of a microwave’s outputted emissions. Even though the fuse, (threshold), is blown, if it is replaced, (patient is revived), the device will operate appropriately and productivity, (consciousness), will continue.

Of course, if the fuse is not replaced, the microwave will not work at all (death of consciousness). This argument is audacious, because it merely draws attention to the fact that if ones’ brain is in sheer dysfunction, how likely is it that alleged NDE’s/OBEs are isolated to the flailing consciousness, when not even a rocket scientist truly understands the proceedings of the consciousness?

1) No. Not in terms of the appropriation of redolence. Furthermore I might add that each individual consciousness is unique to that individual’s genealogical composition. If one dies, the consciousness of that one also ceases to exist because the rudiments, or cells, are dead.
2) No. The idea of still consciously existing after death is minuscule in proportion to the idea of a thriving consciousness in waking or dormant reality. The very notion terrifies me.

I am curious, and skeptical of any seemingly obvious assertions as to the whereabouts, status, or stamina of the human psyche. First there was dial-up, than there was cable and satellite linked internet connections. Of course an add-on to the latter two would be remote fiber optical connections. Simply curious, that’s all.

Right than. I must agree with you here. I was irresponsible in the quotations I chose, as you have rightly pointed out, a lot of inferences in the quotes and parent articles are tainted to such a degree, they might be considered favorable to anyone with grandeurs of illusion as to the survival of consciousness or what that might entail. Pardon my grotesque efforts, and the placid sources I cited and refered links to. I seemed to have miserably failed at establishing a neutral baseline from where which this argument could take place, and instead truncated a bi-partisanship.

 

Believing in God has never been the question, but does it believe in me?

 

Sir, I must adamantly set the record straight. I certainly would not want confusion to set in with regards to your post. That is why I have taken the time to correct your honest mistake.

None of these quotations have I written. The quotes you cited in this particular thread are taken from Harinder Sandhu’s article:

http://lifeafterdeath.info/Scientific-Origins.htm

I am appreciative that the link(s) I provided in my threads have sparked such intense replies from you. Your clever little statements are not held in vain. I simply provided links to articles that raised hypothetical dissertations based on the various research and conclusions provided by an assortment of authors. I gave no “answers”, for I had none to give, and I certainly did not vouch for the integrity of either the author’s text or the measures of the authors’ themselves.

The points you raised are valid and I extol your ingenuity. By the same token, I cannot oppose your confutations of the preferred experts from Sandhu’s article that you cited, yet I’ll be somewhat benevolent in the following statement. As a whole, Sandhu’s piece does have some validity, although tis indeed minor. The only true answers are derived from a collaborative effort, not a single sated intellect.