Afterlife proof?

[Aponia & Ataraxia]

(1:20 - 1:33)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_horizon

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Well there's certainly no proof, only ideas. I think that if we could understand everything from the start of the universe to the end, we would still only grasp a tiny fraction of the truth. I think there is so much more than we can probably ever perceive and this is relevant to the concept of an afterlife. I wouldn't claim to know anything, just to have more questions than answers...

Modern physics is convincingly postulating the existence of many more dimensions than the three that we live in. Maybe our lives really are the 3D outcrop of sub-atomic strings of energy/matter vibrating in the 10th dimension and collapsing out through the rest as probability density functions. Sure, it may sound like nonsense, bu then all the stuff that sounds reasonable doesn't seem to go very far to explaining things. Our maths show that a huge chunk of matter in the universe is simply... missing, and completely fails to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

And what is life anyway? consciousness also? We give things labels in order to try and understand them, but does that make those labels accurate? A human is alive and has consciousness and some would argue has a soul. A dog too. An ant? Does that have consciousness? If we kill one we don't grieve for months. So... it has less consciousness? And a tree or a lawn of grass, they are alive by our definition, but are they then less alive? And a rock or a river, surely they are not alive. But they have energy, they exist. Its a struggle to suggest the have consciousness by our definition, but they still have a place in the continuum of life.

Nature organizes things in progressively more refined and complex ways, from the combination of base elements into stars and planets, the formation of chemical compounds, the formation of geology, the evolution of life, the growth of consciousness. In living creatures we call this evolution, but it still appears to be the same pattern expressed in different media, from those sub-atomic strings to the modern day ape driving a car down the street.

But we have to label things because that's what we do...

So either,

A. Life is a process, the expression of an underlying pattern in a living creature. It has a beginning, a duration and an end. When it ends, its over. What we think of as life is the way matter and energy interact at a local level for a limited amount of time.

or

B. There is something after this life for us, as indeed there may have been something before it. We can express that in religious or philosophical terms because that is traditionally have human societies have viewed things.

or, in the words of Dumbledore when asked by Harry if this is real or only a dream: "Why can't it be both?"

I used to think that our (and our ancestors) need for life after death was a basic fear of the eternal dark. Its inconceivable to imagine non-existence. But even though my logic tells me that, my intuition yells at me that there is more. That when I die, I will certainly be gone, but maybe there is a more fundamental me underneath that will continue in some way. My individual consciousness may be gone, but could there be something even more fundamental than consciousness, this matter/energy interaction that is continually happening? An understanding of this concept (if it isn't all bollox that is) may be entirely beyond us because we only experience existence in a limited set of dimensions.

TL;DR: There may be more going on than we can ever realize or get evidence for and it may not be as simple as yes there is an afterlife or no there isn't.

 

[creatureoflight]

I have literally read and heard hundreds of NDEs and read dozens of scientific books on the subject. It cannot be that we are only our brains. There have been many theories about NDEs that have been debunked. It is not a matter of hypoxia or carbon dioxide-the experiences are real.

 

[Fylobatica]

. It is not a matter of hypoxia or carbon dioxide-the experiences are real.

This is a non sequitur; the fact that an experience is actually caused by neurotransmitters doesn't mean it's fake

If it wasn't for an organized brain structure and a complex neurochemical interaction we wouldn't be ourselves at all

 

[creatureoflight]

This is a non sequitur; the fact that an experience is actually caused by neurotransmitters doesn't mean it's fake

If it wasn't for an organized brain structure and a complex neurochemical interaction we wouldn't be ourselves at all

The whole topic is very complex to discuss. I don't mean that it is fake because it is caused by neurotransmitters. I mean the experiences are an actual proof of the afterlife.
There is an excellent book by Chris Carter on the subject as there are numerous others. Not one of the major explanations of hypoxia, anoxia, Co2, Ketamine etc. has effectively explained all near death experiences. Ketamine gives experiences similar to NDEs, however there are also big differences to NDEs with some vital elements missing so it cannot be the same kind of experience.

 

[Fylobatica]

. I mean the experiences are an actual proof of the afterlife.

Uh, actually no. To have proof of an afterlife, whatever it is, you need to come back from the dead. People who wake up from NDEs aren't

Not one of the major explanations of hypoxia, anoxia, Co2, Ketamine etc. has effectively explained all near death experience.

Harvard scientists have recently pinpointed the brain sections responsible for the arise of consciousness., it's obvious that scientific research needs to go on further, but that doesn't imply that our cognitive faculties are implanted million miles away on a far planet beyond this realm. It's all in our head

 

[creatureoflight]

Uh, actually no. To have proof of an afterlife, whatever it is, you need to come back from the dead. People who wake up from NDEs aren't



Harvard scientists have recently pinpointed the brain sections responsible for the arise of consciousness., it's obvious that scientific research needs to go on further, but that doesn't imply that our cognitive faculties are implanted million miles away on a far planet beyond this realm. It's all in our head

People have had NDEs who have actually been clinically dead or have known details they simply couldn't have known if they hadn't had an NDE.Obviously, research is ongoing, however there is simply no other explanation.

Our brains do in fact have our consciousness, but it is like a radio receiver-they are not the cause for it. They merely control it but are not its true origin. Like a TV is not the origin of the sound and color coming out of it.

 

[Fylobatica]

clinically dead

"Clinically dead" doesn't mean "dead and gone". It's simply a stand-by that our body kicks in when our brain is facing severe distress due to an accident, a shortage of oxygen or a lack of bloodflow.

Our brains do in fact have our consciousness, but it is like a radio receiver-they are not the cause for it. They merely control it but are not its true origin. Like a TV is not the origin of the sound and color coming out of it.

This look quite contradictory and the reference I made to the Harvard study was meant to show that the brain is actually a generator of thoughts and mental states, supported by specific brain areas (destined to interpret written and oral language, to our sight, to the detection of tastes, the sense of touch and so on)

 

[Deleted member 1465]

"Clinically dead" doesn't mean "dead and gone". It's simply a stand-by that our body kicks in when our brain is facing severe distress due to an accident, a shortage of oxygen or a lack of bloodflow.



This look quite contradictory and the reference I made to the Harvard study was meant to show that the brain is actually a generator of thoughts and mental states, supported by specific brain areas (destined to interpret written and oral language, to our sight, to the detection of tastes, the sense of touch and so on)

Do you have a link to the Harvard study? looks quite interesting...

 

[Fylobatica]

Do you have a link to the Harvard study? looks quite interesting...

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/harvard-researchers-have-found-the-source-of-human-consciousness

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Thanks

Interesting. Consciousness. Do we think of this as being alive? Or do we think of consciousness as being awake? People in a persistent vegetative state are technically alive but unconsciousness.

 

[creatureoflight]

"Clinically dead" doesn't mean "dead and gone". It's simply a stand-by that our body kicks in when our brain is facing severe distress due to an accident, a shortage of oxygen or a lack of bloodflow.



This look quite contradictory and the reference I made to the Harvard study was meant to show that the brain is actually a generator of thoughts and mental states, supported by specific brain areas (destined to interpret written and oral language, to our sight, to the detection of tastes, the sense of touch and so on)

No one can dispute the fact that if a part of the brain is damaged, the person cannot see, or speak etc. But this still says nothing about the cause of consciousness. How come blind people can see in NDEs if they couldn't see in real life then?
There have also been cases where people have returned to their bodies after a day of being dead in the morgue. However, these cases are more so anecdotal and not to be considered as first rate evidence of something.
Clinical death means no heartbeat, no brain activity and no soul if the body is the cause of all of this and people still had NDEs during that time.

 

[creatureoflight]

The Harvard study still does not prove or disprove NDEs.It simply states that if a part of the brainstem is damaged, people become unconscious.
The radio receiver theory is not proven or disproven by this.

 

[Fylobatica]

blind people can see in NDEs

Blind people can experience phosphenes, for example, the fact that they cannot see because they're retinal damaged doesn't mean that their cerebral cortex is insensitive to light

There have also been cases where people have returned to their bodies after a day of being dead in the morgue.

lol. Misdiagnosis of death have always been popular back in the ages because physicians used to declare dead people who fell into coma and suddenly wake up, they were not dead

Clinical death means no heartbeat, no brain activity and no soul if the body is the cause of all of this and people still had NDEs during that time.

Slow down, please. Clinical death doesn't equal death and that is medical praxis. So it is obvious that the undergoing state of coma might trigger visions, as it often a damaged brain does during recovery

The Harvard study still does not prove or disprove NDEs.I

oh my. The point of the study was to show that consciousness arises from our mind...

The radio receiver theory is not proven or disproven by this.

Our brain waves range spans from 0.1 to 100 Hz, that means that I could easily thwart my own thoughts by simply sticking my head to a cathode ray tube

 

[creatureoflight]

Blind people can experience phosphenes, for example, the fact that they cannot see because they're retinal damaged doesn't mean that their cerebral cortex is insensitive to light

Solitary neurons firing is not going to explain the complexity and richness of what blind people experience in NDEs. Some blind people who have been blind since birth and whose cerebral cortex never had a chance to actually develop still see during NDEs and actually understand what they are seeing-a feat that would have been impossible in the body.

lol. Misdiagnosis of death have always been popular back in the ages because physicians used to declare dead people who fell into coma and suddenly wake up, they were not dead

Again as I said, this is more anecdotal evidence and to be taken with a grain of salt. Some of these cases were in the 1950s or 60s, so not that far back. See the site near-death.com for such cases and more NDE info


Slow down, please. Clinical death doesn't equal death and that is medical praxis. So it is obvious that the undergoing state of coma might trigger visions, as it often a damaged brain does during recovery

During clinical death and the stages after it, EEG readings are flat and it gets very difficult to explain such rich and real experiences from the dying throes of a damaged brain.

Fylobatica, I really advise you to read the book by Chris Carter on the subject-it is an excellent scientific book written by an Oxford-educated scholar which debunks all your arguments much better than I can. It contains all the standard explanations and has arguments for and against and also case studies.

 

[Fylobatica]

Solitary neurons firing is not going to explain the complexity and richness of what blind people experience in NDEs.

"Study With Totally Blind People Shows How Light Helps Activate the Brain

Oct. 28, 2013 — Light enhances brain activity during a cognitive task even in some people who are totally blind, according to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Montreal and Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. The findings contribute to scientists' understanding of everyone's brains, as they also revealed how quickly light impacts on cognition.

"Light doesn't just allow us to see, it tells the brain whether it's night or day which in-turn ensures that our physiology, metabolism and behavior are synchronized with environmental time." "For diurnal species like ours, light stimulates day-like brain activity, improving alertness and mood, and enhancing performance on many cognitive tasks," explained senior co-author Julie Carrier. The results indicate that their brains can still "see," or detect, light via a novel photoreceptor in the ganglion cell layer of the retina, different from the rods and cones we use to see.

These specialized photoreceptors in the retina also contribute to visual function in the brain even when cells in the retina responsible for normal image formation have lost their ability to receive or process light. A previous study in a single blind patient suggested that this was possible but the research team wanted to confirm this result in different patients. To test this hypothesis, the three participants were asked to say whether a blue light was on or off, even though they could not see the light. "We found that the participants did indeed have a non-conscious awareness of the light -- they were able to determine correctly when the light was on greater than chance without being able to see it," explained first author Gilles Vandewalle.

The next steps involved looking closely at what happened to brain activation when light was flashed at their eyes at the same time as their attentiveness to a sound was monitored. "The objective of this second test was to determine whether the light affected the brain patterns associated with attentiveness -- and it did,"

Some of these cases were in the 1950s or 60s, so not that far back

Actually there were a lot of misdiagnoses even in that era.

it gets very difficult to explain such rich and real experiences from the dying throes of a damaged brain.

This doesn't prove anything. Electroencephalographs aren't meant to show the visual imagery that occurs in the brain. Dreams can reach high level of vividness too

an excellent scientific book

No scientific books (at least those who aren't written by "experts" who want to capitalize on people's gullibility and wishful thinking) support the views on "afterlife", because there's a great deal of evidence that all of the epiphenomena that lead to the generation of dreams, hallucinations, NDEs, let's call them whatever we want, happen in a physical brain that needs a specifical connectome to express its main functions in a continuous timeframe

 

[creatureoflight]

Just because a book does not agree with the mainstream view of science doesn't mean it is unscientific.
Many great scientists were ahead of their time and were laughed at by their peers. It's exactly the same with NDEs.
I'm not here to dissect every argument. To me, the afterlife is 100% real and no matter of discussion is going to sway my mind. I have been reading about the topic for around 8 years now and to me, the matter is settled, however probably an agnostic standpoint is the wisest.

 

[Fylobatica]

Many great scientists were ahead of their time

Not so ahead of their time, if there's substantial proof that NDEs are biological phenomena.

An actual empirical study has been run and here's the paper regarding it. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/08/08/1308285110.full.pdf

It was 2013 but there was already the first evidence that what happens in our mind can be traced back to physiological phenomena with no exception. We can believe that we're the sun, the clouds, a random source of uranium that's ready to split open a building following a chain reaction, whatever we want, but evidence is evidence.

To me the matter is settled as well. Greetings

 

[Lisa]

Well there's certainly no proof, only ideas. I think that if we could understand everything from the start of the universe to the end, we would still only grasp a tiny fraction of the truth. I think there is so much more than we can probably ever perceive and this is relevant to the concept of an afterlife. I wouldn't claim to know anything, just to have more questions than answers...

Modern physics is convincingly postulating the existence of many more dimensions than the three that we live in. Maybe our lives really are the 3D outcrop of sub-atomic strings of energy/matter vibrating in the 10th dimension and collapsing out through the rest as probability density functions. Sure, it may sound like nonsense, bu then all the stuff that sounds reasonable doesn't seem to go very far to explaining things. Our maths show that a huge chunk of matter in the universe is simply... missing, and completely fails to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

And what is life anyway? consciousness also? We give things labels in order to try and understand them, but does that make those labels accurate? A human is alive and has consciousness and some would argue has a soul. A dog too. An ant? Does that have consciousness? If we kill one we don't grieve for months. So... it has less consciousness? And a tree or a lawn of grass, they are alive by our definition, but are they then less alive? And a rock or a river, surely they are not alive. But they have energy, they exist. Its a struggle to suggest the have consciousness by our definition, but they still have a place in the continuum of life.

Nature organizes things in progressively more refined and complex ways, from the combination of base elements into stars and planets, the formation of chemical compounds, the formation of geology, the evolution of life, the growth of consciousness. In living creatures we call this evolution, but it still appears to be the same pattern expressed in different media, from those sub-atomic strings to the modern day ape driving a car down the street.

But we have to label things because that's what we do...

So either,

A. Life is a process, the expression of an underlying pattern in a living creature. It has a beginning, a duration and an end. When it ends, its over. What we think of as life is the way matter and energy interact at a local level for a limited amount of time.

or

B. There is something after this life for us, as indeed there may have been something before it. We can express that in religious or philosophical terms because that is traditionally have human societies have viewed things.

or, in the words of Dumbledore when asked by Harry if this is real or only a dream: "Why can't it be both?"

I used to think that our (and our ancestors) need for life after death was a basic fear of the eternal dark. Its inconceivable to imagine non-existence. But even though my logic tells me that, my intuition yells at me that there is more. That when I die, I will certainly be gone, but maybe there is a more fundamental me underneath that will continue in some way. My individual consciousness may be gone, but could there be something even more fundamental than consciousness, this matter/energy interaction that is continually happening? An understanding of this concept (if it isn't all bollox that is) may be entirely beyond us because we only experience existence in a limited set of dimensions.

TL;DR: There may be more going on than we can ever realize or get evidence for and it may not be as simple as yes there is an afterlife or no there isn't.

Thank you for that thoughtful reply I totally agree. Also, I don't understand how some can claim to know the answer to this and either direction.

 

[Ampsvx123]

None of us asked to be here, yet we are, how many times did it happen and in how many different world, can one truly ever reach death or oblivion? There is likely no end to this nonsense, we exist to suffer, to be thrown out against one another, for pain to be everlasting, perhaps to redeem our accursed self from a million lives ago.

Some unknown force does not want this nonsense to ever stop, it has made this universe out of nothing and who know how many others. It has made it so big as to guaranteed that our questions remain unanswered. For some reason, nothingness can never be reached, there has to be something, there has to be life, there has to be suffering.

Afterall, We are all parasites, nothing can live by itself nor can it last forever, Otherwise we would be at peace, something this unknown force does not want to.
It is our world's laws, stillness or peace do not exist nor can they ever be reached. Whatever they be animals, plants or any other living organism, only through their very lives and suffering can one feed its hunger and delay its own miserable death.

We may have been but a single entity long ago but we've been cursed, life is forced upon you and it is likely to be again. It's a perpetual cycle of suffering. Doesn't matter how many years have passed or which era, world or universe you are thrown in, none can remember its past life or its time in eternal slumber, just that one day, we are there.

Our only possibility of ever understanding this senselessness is through death. Hopefully there is peace to all this madness called life.

 

[sadmuneca]

If there is an after life, I hope to see my mom there. She was my absolute everything.

 

[misanthrope1]

From what we know as a collective species, there is no evidence or proof that an afterlife exists. I for one do not believe in anything supernatural because nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated or scientifically validated. Religions, ghost, etc are all man made concepts. My guess is when we die, we just die, our consciousness does not exist any longer, its tough for a lot of people to believe this because most people are hopeful and have wishful thinking towards an afterlife. Survival instincts kick in.

 

[Lisa]

People have had NDEs who have actually been clinically dead or have known details they simply couldn't have known if they hadn't had an NDE.Obviously, research is ongoing, however there is simply no other explanation.

Our brains do in fact have our consciousness, but it is like a radio receiver-they are not the cause for it. They merely control it but are not its true origin. Like a TV is not the origin of the sound and color coming out of it.

Perfect

 

[KCN]

The amount of wishful thinking and unproven "facts" going on in this thread is no less than astounding. Though luckily a couple users are in their sound mind

 

[Justanotherconsumer]

I'm really affected by nitrous oxide in the dentist office, first time I died don't remember anything not even the hospital stay and I only know about it because other people have told me. 2nd time wasn't death but my eyes rolled back and I had an out of body experience, now whether this is just something that is not understood by science, and the mind is capable of, could be. But it is very real experience and your consciousness separate from your body, and unless you've had one is probably impossible to believe.

 

[KCN]

your consciousness separate from your body

your consciousness stays in your brain, just as when you dream. The activity in the prefrontal cortex and the visual cortex is though way more intense, hence the illusion that you are anywhere else

 

[saffron]

There's definitely an afterlife. Sorry.

 

[Justanotherconsumer]

your consciousness stays in your brain, just as when you dream. The activity in the prefrontal cortex and the visual cortex is though way more intense, hence the illusion that you are anywhere else

We'll there was a piece of orange construction paper on top of one of the filing cabinets the kind that nearly go to the roof, and when I got up I checked and it was there, so I will disagree.

 

[KCN]

We'll there was a piece of orange construction paper on top of one of the filing cabinets the kind that nearly go to the roof, and when I got up I checked and it was there, so I will disagree.

Your subconscious notices more things that you're aware of, and during stages of anaesthesia can be brought up to the attention of your conscious mind

 

[Justanotherconsumer]

Your subconscious notices more things that you're aware of, and during stages of anaesthesia can be brought up to the attention of your conscious mind

We'll it would have been impossible to see in this case, unless you were above it.