ddd wrote:This is indeed interesting.

But not totally without bias. Then again, I guess nothing is without bias in practice.

Yeah, unfortunately you will find bias in just about every topic, as with this one. But it's a bias that can be supported... to a certain extent.

From near death. com evidence #3

Dr Greyson

"People on drugs who have NDE's see fewer deceased relatives when they travel out of body. This suggests that people who do see relatives are clear minded, not hallucinating."

It could also suggest that these experiences are the result of last seconds of brain activity, considering drugs effect the way the brain does business, which is why many take them in the first place. Drugs affect the biochemistry of the brain. If NDE's were the product of some self-preservation instinct coming online in the brain, then is easy to assume the experience is dampened to some degree by the presence of these agents.

Actually, as you'll discover as you research, most people who are on drugs (anesthesia) do not remember if they had an experience or not. As mentioned previously, anesthesia tends to induce a type of amnesia. If I remember correctly, only 18% of those who have clinically died remember an experience. Even during recovery people forget things. Every time I had an endoscopic procedure I was knocked out with anesthesia. During recovery either the doctor or nurse would be talking to me as I was coming out of the effects and I could never remember the contents of the conversation nor that the conversation even took place. I guess this explains why a family member needs to be present?

If Dr. Greyson is talking about someone who may be on a hallucinogenic, this could be due to the person not actually dying. There is a plethora of literature of those who have spiritual experiences while hallucinating. The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge immediately comes to mind.

Why would they affect a life energy of some sort when it is no longer connected with, the host body.

I do not believe the anesthesia is affecting someones life energy, but rather, ones memory of an experience when returned to the body.

But...and Ill say that a lot here no doubt, just above the piece i included here, the doctor mentions all the verifiable information that can be...bugger...is collected in these experiences.

You've only just begun to scratch the surface. Wait until you get to the experiences of those who are blind but can see during their NDE, and accurately describe what they see (to the best of their limited visual knowledge)!

I've always made sense of things like this in terms of animal behavior. All life is geared for survival. Fight or flight and such. It's the only 'purpose' life has in my opinion (in the big picture anyway, we all have personal purposes to our lives, without them we are nothing - I've only recently pulled myself out of a depression based on (parts) this um 'atheistic existentialism')

I’m glad to see you were able to pull yourself out depression. I understand how debilitating it can be. Anyway, I don’t see how the fight or flight animal behavior fits in with the NDE…

Anyway, we humans evolved a much deeper and broader sense of self and intelligence compared to the other animals, because it was (at first anyway ) beneficial to our survival. We are capable of complex or abstract thought, and reflection upon these thoughts.

…Nor do I see how an NDE would be an evolutionary benefit for someone who is dying. What would the purpose of it be? In what way would it be beneficial for our survival? Especially considering it is not survival, but rather, death! I also do not see the benefit of reflecting (life review) on ones life at the moment of death. You would believe something of this nature would occur if someone had a close brush with death. For example, I almost died from blood poisoning (more on this later). I was stuck in the hospital for 7 days hooked up to an anti-biotic drip and had nothing but time to reflect. After I was released from the hospital, I had no desires to drink or take drugs anymore. The only habit I was not able to quit was smoking cigarettes. Nasty and addictive little buggers!

Every culture in history came up with some kind of religious or spiritual dogma. The one thing that seems to be shared among them all, is life beyond death. Obviously that's no co-incidence, but you could draw two conclusion - one of the validity of faith, or one of the evolution of the human mind based on instincts programmed through natural selection.

True. But you would think that before drawing a conclusion all evidence would be taken into consideration. And while I can see the possibility of the brain evolving an escape mechanism to convince itself of its survival at the moment of death, it does not support nor can it explain all the aspects of the NDE. So in my estimation, one would need to dig further for an answer if they support a biological explanation.

Survival is the first and foremost requirement for life, so is it not just a little interesting, that all human spirituality provides an escape, or alternative, to death?

Very good point! However, as you mention above, every culture in history had/has some kind of religious or spiritual dogma. The key word here being culture. While some aspects of the NDE are culturally influenced, for the most part, the core of the experience is virtually identical regardless culture.

I read these cases, and I am sorely tempted. As a human being I want to believe, there are even a number of good reasons to base it on. I wouldn't go as far as postulating our place in a holographic universe just yet.

I would! Physics has shown that matter is both particle and wave. What form it takes depends on the test method and/or observation. So when matter is not being particle, it is being wave. And according to theory, matter only takes on the tangible aspects that we are familiar with when observed. So if wave before observed, by default, this would also have to include our bodies (brains). I used to believe that the universe always remained as particle because God was doing the observing. But newer and more recent discoveries forced me reevaluate this belief.

I've read a bit about it by the way, and heard about the gravity wave experiment 'noise' at the predicted frequency a couple of months ago. But I feel it's early days yet, though Ill follow the news on this as it comes in. At least it came from the caltech rather than Stichen

Yeah, Caltech is definitely a better and more reliable source than Stitchen!

Where did you hear about the gravity wave experiment? I actually read it in New Scientist magazine and just about freaked! All the hairs on my arm stood on end. Although theoretical physics claims our universe is holographic in nature, finally, hardcore evidence through experimentation. And it’s repeatable! I can’t wait until they build a more sensitive measuring device and confirm the findings. Because if they do, it’s going to revolutionize our way of looking at things and will stand physics on its end. Hardcore materialists will have to eat crow and admit there is more to our so-called reality than they give it credit for. And I honestly believe this is just the beginning.

I hope its right, in that we'll be able to study the structure of space-time for real.

Of this I have no doubt! And don’t be too surprised when they determine it’s holographic.

I fully understand the importance of not getting too comfortable in any dogma, even science. But, of course, faith has always seemed irrational yet all too obvious to me, and the practice of it has given me every reason to question it's worth. I see a bunch of people without a clue as to what's going on.

I honestly believe faith, in and of itself, is beneficial. And there is plenty of supporting evidence to back this up (see the research of Larry Dossey, MD). Religion, on the other hand, is usually dogmatic and acts as a divider. It is the cause of so much hatred and violence and radicalizes the fundamentalist. Had religion been a drug, it would have been outlawed.

Whereas, science makes all the sense in the world, and requires only tangible things to explain the incredible. I mean, evolution is so elegant. And look at the amazing organisms it can explain.

Not entirely. We know the wave function exists and it is not tangible. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is also very real and it states an electron occupies all possible locations at the same time until measured. Quantum entanglement is also very real but is not tangible. But I do understand the point you are making and agree with it.

This topic will remain of interest to me, I do not doubt the experiences people have. If this energy can be proven - and i think that if it is real and a part of life in our universe - it will be sooner or later. So I will keep my mind open on this one, not in the typical religious sense, but in a 'not by any means understood universe' sense. Sooner or later Ill punch out, and well I guess I'll find out then.

I couldn’t ask for anything more. Nor would I. While I personally see spiritual qualities in quantum physics, I would never ask anyone else to make the same leap of faith. However, I do believe further evidence will come to the forefront that will eventually force our hand. For example, I just read the following (regarding dark matter) in the 4 March 2009 edition of New Scientist:

The bonanza of evidence suggests that dark matter might be far more complicated than we had ever imagined. For starters, the theoretician's favorite dark-matter candidate is falling out of favor, with the latest experiments making the case for new, exotic varieties of dark matter. If they are right, we could be living next to a "hidden sector", an unseen aspect of the cosmos that exists all around us and includes a new force of nature.

Such hidden worlds might sound strange, but they emerge naturally from complex theories such as string theory, which attempts to mesh together the very small and the very large. Hidden worlds may, literally, be all around us. They could, in theory, be populated by a rich menagerie of particles and have their own forces. Yet we would be unaware of their existence because the particles interact extremely weakly with the familiar matter of our universe. Of late, physicists have been taking seriously the idea that particles from such hidden sectors could be dark matter.

And…

Given this rap against neutralinos, many, including the ATIC team, are leaning towards another candidate: something called Kaluza-Klein particles (Nature, vol 456, p 362). These arise in theories from the 1930s that attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism by positing the presence of an extra dimension of space.
According to the theories, known particles such as electrons can enter the small, hidden extra dimension where they can move at different speeds. The energy of motion in the extra dimension manifests itself as mass in our world. So an electron moving in a higher dimension would appear to us as a much heavier Kaluza-Klein electron, except directly detecting one is impossible. These heavy particles are short-lived and decay to lighter varieties which, like neutralinos, are stable and have the right properties to be dark matter.

You can read the article in its entirety here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126981.600-a-bizarre-universe-may-be-lurking-in-the-shadows.html?page=1

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

ddd wrote:Pardon me - I thought the holographic idea was something new. So it probably did not originate at caltech.

No, it did not originate at Caltech. The theory has been around for quite some time now. I don't know exactly when it was first proposed, but it was a theory first proposed by theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft to explain the black hole information paradox. Physicist Leonard Susskind also had a hand in it through string theory. It's also supported by David Bohm and Karl Pribram. Actually, Pribram believes memories are stored in the brain holographically!

There is an excellent book by Michael Talbot titled The Holographic Universe that may help put everything into perspective. At the least you'll gain a better understanding why I believe the way I do. You may be able to find single web pages with a brief synopsis. Just google Michael Talbot and/or the title of his book.

There is another excellent web resource from a physicist that escapes me at the moment. Since I'm at work it will have to wait until I get home. I'll post the url later.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

ddd wrote:Pardon me - I thought the holographic idea was something new. So it probably did not originate at caltech.

As promised, here is the other website I told you I would post:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Wavefunction.htm

This is written by Noel Huntley who apparently holds a few doctorates. During a discussion I had with Scott (EyeInTheSky), he told me that he met Dr. Huntley and that he holds doctorates in physics, parapsychology, and one other discipline that I can't remember. Anyway, as you will note, Dr. Huntley's discussion on the wave function was written for the scientific minded. And don't just stop with this page! Check out his home page for a rather long list of other (and related) topics. I have barely scratched the surface of this site. Anyway, here's his home page:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/

Let me know your thoughts after you read his page on the wave function.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

Thank-you fuzoid, this helped me a lot. My mother i a little bit out of ordinary. Sometimes my father and I would think shes crazy but she is very nice, and lovable person, she sacrifices things for others; and believe it or not, she has dreams that sometimes come true. I don't know a lot about the topic but I think it is very interesting.

Another point that is interesting in my family is my grandfather who has different point of view on death than other people. He claims that, "There is nothing to be scared of, we live then we die." He always told me that there is nothing scary about it.

I like your opinion on every birth is significant.

Thank-you!

Hi lokus0100!

lokus0100 wrote:Thank-you fuzoid, this helped me a lot.

Glad to be of help! Don't forget to check out the near-death.com website for more detailed information. And I still believe that if you have any other questions, Linda Stewart is the one you need to speak with. Have you checked out the Yahoo! NDE forum?

My mother i a little bit out of ordinary. Sometimes my father and I would think shes crazy but she is very nice, and lovable person, she sacrifices things for others; and believe it or not, she has dreams that sometimes come true. I don't know a lot about the topic but I think it is very interesting.

As mentioned, these traits of your mother are usually a side effect of the NDE. Why? Science has no answer. But if the researchers and experiencers themselves are to be believed, it is because they come to realize what's truly important. What do you believe is more important, taking first place in a sporting event or landing that dream job.... or helping a child who fell off their bike and skinned their knee? The answer is obvious, the dream job. Only kidding. The one theme that continues to come up in every experience is love. After you read enough experiences you'll soon discover there is one question that is asked over and over, and that is, How Much Have You Loved in this life? All of your accomplishments in this life mean nothing in the after life if they are not performed with an attitude of love.

No, your mother is not crazy. Precognition is another side effect some experience. There are many cases of an NDEr either returning form the experience knowing the future or having dreams that come true.

Another point that is interesting in my family is my grandfather who has different point of view on death than other people. He claims that, "There is nothing to be scared of, we live then we die." He always told me that there is nothing scary about it.

When your grandfather speaks of death, does he mean non-existence or an after life? In any event, if all the literature I've read is to be believed, your grandfather is correct, there is nothing to be scared of. While some do experience negative NDEs (usually because of their own expectations), the majority describe it as stepping into another room full of light, love, and loved ones, including deceased pets.

Another important point to make is on the subject of suicide. While I have read very few cases of individuals being punished for an attempted suicide (punishment is also due to ones expectation), they always return from the experience with the understanding that suicide is never an option. In other words, no matter how tough life is or can be, suicide should never be considered as an easy way out. We are here for a purpose, and if some are to be believed, we chose this life we are living. So checking out before our time defeats the reason we chose to live this life and would only force you to return to do it over.

I am not implying that you would ever consider such an option. But I do believe it is important to point out that according to the other side, suicide is never an option because it does not resolve the issue and it is like throwing the gift of life back into God's face.

I like your opinion on every birth is significant.

Thank-you!

You're welcome! And my beliefs regarding birth are tied in with the above. In my opinion, life is a gift from God. So all life, human, animal, insect, plant, whatever... is significant. It is ALL sacred! And not just on this planet, but throughout the universe!

Good luck with your search and don't forget to check out the NDE site and forum. And if you have any questions that you would prefer not to make public, feel free to send me a private message and I will do my best to answer them.

One final piece of advice. Individuals such as yourself who are searching for answers are vulnerable to those who claim to have all the answers. If you're not already a member of an organized faith, don't get suckered in. Follow the evidence (including science) wherever it may lead and make your own decision. While being a member of an organized faith can make you feel accepted, they are usually too restrictive, dogmatic and have an agenda. Avoid any faith that would have you believe you are more special than anyone else or that they have the only way to God. It is not the faith that matters, but what's in your heart. Follow your heart by doing what you know is right and you will not go wrong.

Just my two cents worth...

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

fuzoid wrote:http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Wavefunction.htm


http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

I read the other link, and frankly WHOOOSH! I'll go over it for awhile. At the start it sort of reminded me of string theory, which says everything is made up from different vibrations of these strings that are the base of space time.
But, whilst I'm interested, I have no degree, haven't been to university at all, just love pondering.

Noel's write-in to this website is well....I don't think science should be ashamed of 'being dependent on scientific proof' considering that is the goal post they are aiming for. In history the 'open minded' approach has probably worked best within scientific methodology, to garner an Idea. If said idea is a good one, why not proceed with scientific methodology? How will anyone ever agree on anything? It might allow us to get creative, sure. Noel seems to think this could advance scientific knowledge by several thousand years, but would it? Such ideas, without the need for scientific proof, would remain just that...ideas. (and do you really expect all the idea men and women would agree with each other on these super advanced ideas?)

Aside from that, I haven't touched the actual site yet, will do. And I'll take it slow so my head doesn't drop off trying to understand it all.

Hey, and one of science's key strengths (you're gonna hate this ) Is keeping the bias out of its study. I consider that a strong point. NDE's or an afterlife and how that should work, should be approached in this manner. If the church had run all science over the last few hundred years, I wonder where we would all be now. Darwin would've been hanged for starters, I bet. We NEED the scientific method, to keep us at least a little honest - don't you think?

Anyway, I'll report whether I'm understanding this site at all a little later, cheers.

I should also say, now that I think about it, that there exists a narrow line between a healthy amount of skepticism and a doggedly held viewpoint unopen to new ideas or inquiry. And I guess science is plagued with that problem. I've debated with people about the possibility of alien life in the galaxy. It's amazing how many continue to hold up drake's equation like a cross as the be all and end all on the issue.
So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle ground, trying to walk the line. Free thought should be encouraged, but there's got to be some framework in place, or I think we'd just end up impeding the progress of science, not jumping ahead like a thousand years.

No, I still haven't read the site - getting there. Promise!

Well, I've read some. I can see much of it will probably escape me so I can't really judge it's validity.

I must say though, that the further we have come in the last century, the wierder the universe seems to be getting. I read Noel's mention of quantum states, and thought that was incredible. I'd never heard of them before. I've heard of 'virtual particles' which pop in and out of existence, or the idea that every particle is connected or entangled with another. I mean, imagine that time is relative to the observer! It's an incredible universe we're in and I appreciate we have only just begun to scratch the surface.

So my thoughts are divided. This theory of one, is an (opposing? I guess it must be) alternative for the sought after theory of everything. See, I'm confused. But what I do know is that (unscientifically) I am definitely biased here. I can envisage a whole, yet not a conscious universe. There's something about the idea (my atheism ) that makes me balk. Noel theorises he can break down any event to fit this scenario, yet he seemed to dismiss evolution all too easy I think. I know there are many key aspects of Darwinism that have yet to be proven. But as a whole, it seems a strong theory, and much empirical evidence seems to sit well within it. There are indeed organisms that seem to defy the logic of evolution, but it fits so many species like a glove. I haven't read about gravity and inertia yet, but well, perhaps it's impossible to try and understand what this consciousness would be like. How all these forces around us that I have spent my entire adult life assuming to be very, very unconscious... I simply can't do it, it all seems so very improbable to me.

But, like at the start of this rant, I don't think - I'm sure of this. Another 1000 or 2000 years from now, I'm gonna look like one of the guys that laughed derisively at the proposal that the world was round. We simply know better all of what is out there or within ourselves to be known.

So, a couple of questions for you fuzoid.

Do you consider this a strong theory, are there aspects of it you find dubious?

Do you think you are influenced somewhat by your faith on this idea?

Please don't take the last question the wrong way. Since I first started reading your posts, my respect for your viewpoints has grown. You've had an interesting history to draw upon when talking upon these matters, and you do it with a healthy sense of logic and reason, a much more open approach to others views than I, and with more experience in both science and religion than I bring to the forum. (There! For any ddd subtractors who might read this, yes I can be humble!)

cheers

ddd wrote:

fuzoid wrote:http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Wavefunction.htm


http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

I read the other link, and frankly WHOOOSH! I'll go over it for awhile. At the start it sort of reminded me of string theory, which says everything is made up from different vibrations of these strings that are the base of space time.
But, whilst I'm interested, I have no degree, haven't been to university at all, just love pondering.

I've been following the holographic universe for quite some time now and even I had to read through his page on the wave function multiple times to understand what he is talking about. And I'm still not convinced I understand it all.

Noel's write-in to this website is well....I don't think science should be ashamed of 'being dependent on scientific proof' considering that is the goal post they are aiming for.

Correct. However, ones dogma in science can also prevent a scientist from seeing the answer staring him in the face. Strict materialism is a perfect example. Even though some scientists know that matter has a dual nature, they continue to maintain a strict materialistic approach. This is a major hindrance to science.

In history the 'open minded' approach has probably worked best within scientific methodology, to garner an Idea. If said idea is a good one, why not proceed with scientific methodology? How will anyone ever agree on anything? It might allow us to get creative, sure.

An open mind works in more than just science. It is the key to understanding and acceptance. It is also the scientific path which leads to epiphany.

Noel seems to think this could advance scientific knowledge by several thousand years, but would it? Such ideas, without the need for scientific proof, would remain just that...ideas. (and do you really expect all the idea men and women would agree with each other on these super advanced ideas?)

Personally I believe Noel's idea about the advancement of science to be overly optimistic. But he is right about an open minded approach. However, this does not preclude the idea from being subjected to the scientific method.

Aside from that, I haven't touched the actual site yet, will do. And I'll take it slow so my head doesn't drop off trying to understand it all.

I've barely begun to go through his site myself.

Hey, and one of science's key strengths (you're gonna hate this ) Is keeping the bias out of its study. I consider that a strong point.

As do I. But as I've pointed out above, scientific dogma has its own bias to deal with.

NDE's or an afterlife and how that should work, should be approached in this manner.

Actually, the scientific study of the NDE is primarily without bias. While there are researchers who approach the subject with a pre-existing belief, many others became involved from a skeptical or neutral position. Read Closer To The Light by Dr. Melvin Morse to see what I'm speaking of. His first experience with the NDE was a little girl who had drown in a pool and was later resuscitated. While he was talking to her about her current medical condition, she mentioned sitting on the lap of Jesus. Dr. Morse' first reaction was, "Whoa... where did that just come from?" Thus began his path researching the NDE. But his study is unique as it deals exclusively with children. And study has shown that their experiences tend to be more pure, without most of the trappings of social conditioning. Most of them also claim the experience was no big deal. It's just something that we do! Perhaps it was no big deal to them because they still retained some residual memories of our life between lives?

If the church had run all science over the last few hundred years, I wonder where we would all be now. Darwin would've been hanged for starters, I bet. We NEED the scientific method, to keep us at least a little honest - don't you think?

Agreed.

Anyway, I'll report whether I'm understanding this site at all a little later, cheers.

Take your time because there appears to be a lot to digest.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

ddd wrote:I should also say, now that I think about it, that there exists a narrow line between a healthy amount of skepticism and a doggedly held viewpoint unopen to new ideas or inquiry. And I guess science is plagued with that problem. I've debated with people about the possibility of alien life in the galaxy. It's amazing how many continue to hold up drake's equation like a cross as the be all and end all on the issue.
So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle ground, trying to walk the line. Free thought should be encouraged, but there's got to be some framework in place, or I think we'd just end up impeding the progress of science, not jumping ahead like a thousand years.

No, I still haven't read the site - getting there. Promise!

So, it appears we are in agreement after all! The only real difference is I believe the empirical evidence points towards something beyond the physical.

And while I do believe Drake's Equation makes a very good case for the existence of alien life in our galaxy, it is not evidence nor should it be used as such. But I have seen something... twice... when I was a teenager (early 70's). The first time I had two other witnesses and the second time there were around 10 or 12 of us. We all saw the same thing. And if what we saw was not a super secret military project, then it was not from this planet. And since more than 30 years have passed and what we saw still has not made another appearance (that I'm aware of), I have to assume it was not a secret military project.

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid