0
   

Death Experience of Mellen-Thomas Benedict

 
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 07:25 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Yes, you have that correct, salima. Near Death Experiences (NDEs) [or NDE] is what such are called, and such can be set off for a number of reasons--one fairly common one due to simply going under anesthesia for surgery. In imaging and activity measuring studies during anesthesia, mid-line structures drop in blood levels and are thought (as the evidence points much more so in that direction) to trigger a kind of survival-based 'reboot-like' activity (so to speak).

In moments of clinical death, as when ones heart stops beating, for example, the rather sudden loss of blood to the brain most likely sets off the same thing in some cases (not all, though . . . not every person who experiences clinical death has NDEs). If the heart beat is successfully restarted, and maintained, somatic death will not occur. The brain cells consume the most, as a whole, and are quite sensitive; they start dying first. Hair and nail cells hang in there for a long time, so some while after somatic death, even, the hair will still be living, and even growing (for those who have it....hee, hee, hee...hint, hint, hint [looking in the mirror])①

Take the cells that deal with visual production and storage. It is because of these little living creatures, these individual cells which hang out and work together in numerious clusters (maps) that visual experience occurs at all--it is not so totally up to visual input from the eyes (although prying other sensory input into visual experience is not by any means a simple task). If these cells die, one will not have the ability to piece together synaptic required connection to produce visual experience. It is very thinkable that full visual memory cannot be accessed in such a state. It is for this reason that we have visual field neglect (a symptom due to brain lesions in one or the other hemisphere for visual processing).

With the understanding that we have regarding this, and with all the average understanding that there now is, added in, it is most clear that if all, the very total of those several billion neurons, die-I mean, actually are no longer alive--we have no processing of the bio-molecular material that gives rise to experience. There is nothing, then, to create thought (linguistic or not), sensation, memory recall, as these had been in that living, working system up to the point of total cell death (and not all these cells die at one time, they go, as any one can understand, at different rates). The aggregate of bio-molecular material which gives rise to conscious and consciousness, then, can no longer give rise to that continuum of brain cell activity.


① Which might show a weakness in how the term somatic death is used. Maybe we should wait until every single cell has died to say a being (or plant) is somatically dead? Well, maybe that's not so practical with beings (human and animal)
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 08:13 pm
@Alan McDougall,
this is great! someone with knowledge of biology or whatever this subject is called. i have some questions!

first: i have heard how touching certain parts of the brain will trigger nde-and scientists then tend to claim that if they can be triggered they are merely a reaction to some brain stimulus. in other words, imaginary or falsely perceived. do you think it is possible that they can be triggering a real experience? i dont see why not...

second: you seem to be limiting the process of experience to consciousness. you say without the firing of those neurons there is nothing to create thought-but suppose there was something else that creates the thought? something that isnt measurable? or suppose there was a way to be aware without having thoughts? if one were to reach that level beyond the neurons firing and have that awareness, then return to the level of thought...that is what i am proposing an nde does, the same as in the highest level of samadhi. then we come back to the level of thought and have to hurry up aand try and verbalize what it was we were of aware of when we were not our individual neuron-firing selves. our filters jump right back in and screw up everything we are trying to say, and we get different results from different people on some details, mainly because of the core beliefs of the person reporting.

what about what happens in samadhi from a medical standpoint? i know there have been studies on that...
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 09:16 pm
@salima,
salima;66994 wrote:
. . . first: i have heard how touching certain parts of the brain will trigger nde-and scientists then tend to claim that if they can be triggered they are merely a reaction to some brain stimulus. in other words, imaginary or falsely perceived. do you think it is possible that they can be triggering a real experience? i dont see why not...


Yes, creating sensory perception and other things can be verified during open brain surgery (OBS) because the patient will have to be awake and alert for the surgeon to pinpoint surgical removal range--I mean, there have been accidents in the past where too much had been cut out, and it still can happen anyway...very, very sensitive surgery that is. Not only these, however, but other studies during such settings have shown how somotisensory-motor-cognition works below the level of consciousness (for example when a probe of a certain spot with a cetain level of electric intensity causes the patient to make certain arm-wrist-hand movements which the patient will deny have executed).

However, out of body experiences (OBEs) have been reproduced in studies using rather simple visual input tricks, as well as during OBS, and can happen due to drug sedation as well. Some reports on OBEs have been really interesting (as this one Japanese person who claims (at least) to be able to control the occurrence of the events (make them happen) and talks about seeing some nude actress flying in the air with him...uh huh... Again, however, there is no mistake here; the brain has not died...it is working fully within that axis that pins emotion and memory reconstruction with cognition.

Now when you say 'a real experience,' I'd tend to say that you would talking about an 'external' experience (meaning not something that is real in brain material alone). I would answer in the negative. The reason for that is that we are dealing with solely the material of the brain. . . which will lead to that second matter.


salima wrote:
second: . . . you say without the firing of those neurons there is nothing to create thought-but suppose there was something else that creates the thought? something that isnt measurable? or suppose there was a way to be aware without having thoughts? if one were to reach that level beyond the neurons firing and have that awareness, then return to the level of thought...that is what i am proposing an nde does, the same as in the highest level of samadhi.


Yes, it is very clear, that on the more practical level--the real world (so to speak)--the firing of neurons is what is thought projecting (and not only thought, but also the other non-though cognitive processes). We could go down further and say that atomic molecules are what project thought, or that some form of energy it is, that projects thought. However, by looking at the universe at such levels, we cannot really get on with our daily work of surviving.

It has well been shown, nevertheless, that by closing down neuronal activity, cognition that is projected by that neuron (or group of neurons; within and without access by other brain systems) is lost. A fair amount can still be done with controlled syncro-firing states in the neo cortext, leaving just mid brain and brain stem systems working. The temporal lobes and hippocampal formation will give some vivid memory recall just on their own, drawing from internal synaptic structure.

There is, techniclly speaking, a way to be aware without having thoughts, and all levels of conscious activity below the consciousness threshold is considered awareness without thought (in the sense of cognition of accessable memory recall). Sleep walkers will be acting in such states. We cannot have awareness, however, without the living cells which project (lead to) such a state, anymore than a person who is brain dead can produce language or purposeful motion (other than those control by periphial nerves which do not go through cortical connections and can kind of just 'work on their own').

I'll see if I can check into any studies on samadhi, but have a gut feeling that I won't be able to find any in the source material I have (which is a fair amount, and of the best quality in the field, however). I will try. Please give me some time on that.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 12:12 am
@salima,
salima;66843 wrote:
it is usually called a neardeath experience...dont know why this mellen fellow has called it a death experience.

what is somatical death? is it more dead than clinically dead? just asking...i am not a doctor.


He called it a "death experience" instead of the usual "near death experience" because he was "clinically dead" or "brain dead" for more than an hour and half and claims to reincarnated into his own healed body


THE PAM REYNOLDS NEAR-DEATH
Ehttp://www.aspsi.org/feat/life_after/tymn/PAM_REYNOLDS.htmXPERIENCEMichael E. Tymn

Sources:
Pam Reynolds
http://www.iamshaman.com/reports/article.asp?faq=13&fldAuto=79
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 01:29 am
@Alan McDougall,
"Now when you say 'a real experience,' I'd tend to say that you would talking about an 'external' experience (meaning not something that is real in brain material alone). I would answer in the negative. The reason for that is that we are dealing with solely the material of the brain. . . which will lead to that second matter. "....Kaseijin

actually i believe there is an external world and an inner world. (i realize not everyone does believe that) so what happens in the inner world is also real to me. i guess the trick is to find out what is imagination and what is real, in that case. the way i would do that is by comparison-for instance all the people who had the same trip as me-why would imagination produce such a similar story?

anyway, thanks for the data and i will wait for your material on samadhi...
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 01:44 am
@salima,
salima;67028 wrote:
"Now when you say 'a real experience,' I'd tend to say that you would talking about an 'external' experience (meaning not something that is real in brain material alone). I would answer in the negative. The reason for that is that we are dealing with solely the material of the brain. . . which will lead to that second matter. "....Kaseijin

actually i believe there is an external world and an inner world. (i realize not everyone does believe that) so what happens in the inner world is also real to me. i guess the trick is to find out what is imagination and what is real, in that case. the way i would do that is by comparison-for instance all the people who had the same trip as me-why would imagination produce such a similar story?

anyway, thanks for the data and i will wait for your material on samadhi...



The brain is matter, sort of hard drive of our greater entity or being, the soul is pure energy and it boots into the brain all the time.

A stroke victim cant use their body correctly , like a driver inside a faulty car, the driver is alive and well but the car old and worn out

Our spirits or souls are potentially immortal, our composite being is not in the brain but resides in a quantum field hovering near the physical brain

Science is giving this hypothesis serious consideration right now
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 04:49 am
@Alan McDougall,
The problem is Alan that science has never been able to prove these experiences as anything other than hallucinations.Certain surgeons have written a sentence above the operating tables seeing if those who experienced leaving their body can recall the sentence.Uptil now none have.I have read about these different experiences but how do we collaborate them for our own benefit.
I believe we have a soul but to prove that i have no idea.My mother had an out of the body experience while choking and other strange events but she like me had trouble explaining these events against our other beliefs.
If we have experiences they are not proof of anything only of the fact we had an experience.We can try and understand them but in reality we just dont know.
My problem with science,in the main they try to discount these experiences rather than collaborate them.Its easier to explain them as they could be electrochemical neurons firing at low levels into cerebral cortex or some other highly imaginative scientific mumbo jumbo.
I find it strange they dont understand the spirituality of the experience,is it a bodily function that creates a type of half way house between life and death?before the soul is released, its informed and warned of the transition by the physical bodies.Its last employment is to inform.The body on occassions might be misinformed by chemical breakdown in the brain and instigate this message to us by mistake.Who knows, but it must be admitted by all the experiences are very similar and happen with regularity, why should the brain create these images?what evolutionary input eased our path into death?
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 02:17 pm
@xris,
xris;67053 wrote:
The problem is Alan that science has never been able to prove these experiences as anything other than hallucinations.Certain surgeons have written a sentence above the operating tables seeing if those who experienced leaving their body can recall the sentence.Uptil now none have.I have read about these different experiences but how do we collaborate them for our own benefit.
I believe we have a soul but to prove that i have no idea.My mother had an out of the body experience while choking and other strange events but she like me had trouble explaining these events against our other beliefs.
If we have experiences they are not proof of anything only of the fact we had an experience.We can try and understand them but in reality we just dont know.
My problem with science,in the main they try to discount these experiences rather than collaborate them.Its easier to explain them as they could be electrochemical neurons firing at low levels into cerebral cortex or some other highly imaginative scientific mumbo jumbo.
I find it strange they dont understand the spirituality of the experience,is it a bodily function that creates a type of half way house between life and death?before the soul is released, its informed and warned of the transition by the physical bodies.Its last employment is to inform.The body on occassions might be misinformed by chemical breakdown in the brain and instigate this message to us by mistake.Who knows, but it must be admitted by all the experiences are very similar and happen with regularity, why should the brain create these images?what evolutionary input eased our path into death?


Hi xris I assure you this phenomenon is being investigated by serious scientists and doctors, not coockoes out there weirdos .

I will look it up and return with more info, it is not an attempt to debunk these events but investigate then in a sane and scientific manner. The quantum mind I mentioned might equate to the soul, if they can find we survive death that would be really great and remove huge fear and bereavement from mankind

Unfortunately we had all the weirdo's in the last century claiming to speak to the dead in dark rooms. Harry Houdini hated these frauds with a passion

Why ghost only come out in the dark of night is luaghably idiocy.

Peace and light
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 05:07 pm
@Alan McDougall,
A large number of points that need to be delt with here exists. As expected, when wandering into the area that has to deal with brain, we'd be better of discussing it over on another thread, in a different sub-form; so maybe we should pick up that portion there. . . maybe? Any way, I will make a few short points here, and then maybe take up the explanation behind them to the other forum.

Firstly, to touch back with you, salima. Yes, what is in the brain experience is real, which is why I had worded it the way I had. (if one looks closely, I'm sure they'll catch it) It is for that very reason, therefore, that when one has some fomulation of a god, for example, that god is real to the extent that brain is real. That is not an external reality, however, and so when that brain tissue which houses that particular construction which is that experience dies, that once inner reality no longer exists. This, salima, is about as factual a truth as one can get when talking about brain things.



Alan McDougall;67015 wrote:
He called it a "death experience" instead of the usual "near death experience" because he was "clinically dead" or "brain dead" for more than an hour and half and claims to reincarnated into his own healed body . . . .


I'll just be straight here (to save time and space for now), this is incorrect, and is most likely due to ignorance on the subject. If a person is diagnosed as being brain dead, there is no retroactive cure--that brain is gone. If a person is in a stupor, or coma, or in a pre-vegetative state, there can be room, in cases, for a return to fairly normal mental activity to whatever degree.

Let me assure you all here, there are more likely extremely few neuroscientists, neurosurgeons, psychologists, and/or medical professionals looking into the matter of these phenomena, because the answer has already be elucidated well enough--there is no separate reality of conscious continuum to any ganglion and/or brain structure other than and/or beyond that individual ganglion/brain it very self.



And where do I get my information from? A small library of professional books and encyclopedias on the subject, and magazines and journals such as Scientific American, Scientific American Mind, Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Journal of Neuroscience, Trends in Neuroscience, Brain and Cognition, Consciousness and Cognition, Brain and Language, and Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, to name the ones I keep up with the most, off the top of my head.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 05:23 pm
@Alan McDougall,
He was in a state of "clinical death" flat line heart stopped etc.

But of course not protracted death up to the point his body began to decay
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:14 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan, while I do enjoy discussing things with you, and while I do appreciate your input and considerations, I cannot but help notice that you appear, at least as far as I can tell, to not read quite as carefully as might be more helpful and convenient for on-line discussions.

If you were to have paid careful attention to my responses above to salima, I am quite certain that you will have already gotten an explanation on the differences between being clinically dead, and somatically dead. I will, however, go to the trouble to spell it out one more time. If a person is clinically dead, they are not somatically dead. If a person remains in a state of clinical death process (because dying is a process) for a certain length of time, the number of cells that make up that person (and again, each and every single cell in the entire body of all animals and plants are actually individual living entities) that die will eventually reach a count and point so as to make it impossible to resuscitate that person.

Again, this is a process, and so there will be various stages (so to speak) and various conditions that affect the time length possible for being in a state of clinical death for different cases (although the range of difference, as far as I have knowledge of, is not so wide a spectrum, and the most common condition is heart failure). Also, the tissue does not begin to decay so quickly either, and depends (of course) on environmental conditions. (I mean, many of us put lifeless tissue in our refrigerators and keep them for some while, before eating them, and they don't decay--but they have been somatically dead for some good while (more often).)
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:23 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;67236 wrote:
Alan, while I do enjoy discussing things with you, and while I do appreciate your input and considerations, I cannot but help notice that you appear, at least as far as I can tell, to not read quite as carefully as might be more helpful and convenient for on-line discussions.

If you were to have paid careful attention to my responses above to salima, I am quite certain that you will have already gotten an explanation on the differences between being clinically dead, and somatically dead. I will, however, go to the trouble to spell it out one more time. If a person is clinically dead, they are not somatically dead. If a person remains in a state of clinical death process (because dying is a process) for a certain length of time, the number of cells that make up that person (and again, each and every single cell in the entire body of all animals and plants are actually individual living entities) that die will eventually reach a count and point so as to make it impossible to resuscitate that person.

Again, this is a process, and so there will be various stages (so to speak) and various conditions that affect the time length possible for being in a state of clinical death for different cases (although the range of difference, as far as I have knowledge of, is not so wide a spectrum, and the most common condition is heart failure). Also, the tissue does not begin to decay so quickly either, and depends (of course) on environmental conditions. (I mean, many of us put lifeless tissue in our refrigerators and keep them for some while, before eating them, and they don't decay--but they have been somatically dead for some good while (more often).)


You are absolutely correct I have spread myself too thin and I have diluted much of my inputs all over the web. I promise to read your posts more carefully and hopefully come back with a meaningful response or retort

Peace to you my friend

Alan
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 07:49 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;67236 wrote:
Alan, while I do enjoy discussing things with you, and while I do appreciate your input and considerations, I cannot but help notice that you appear, at least as far as I can tell, to not read quite as carefully as might be more helpful and convenient for on-line discussions.

If you were to have paid careful attention to my responses above to salima, I am quite certain that you will have already gotten an explanation on the differences between being clinically dead, and somatically dead. I will, however, go to the trouble to spell it out one more time. If a person is clinically dead, they are not somatically dead. If a person remains in a state of clinical death process (because dying is a process) for a certain length of time, the number of cells that make up that person (and again, each and every single cell in the entire body of all animals and plants are actually individual living entities) that die will eventually reach a count and point so as to make it impossible to resuscitate that person.

Again, this is a process, and so there will be various stages (so to speak) and various conditions that affect the time length possible for being in a state of clinical death for different cases (although the range of difference, as far as I have knowledge of, is not so wide a spectrum, and the most common condition is heart failure). Also, the tissue does not begin to decay so quickly either, and depends (of course) on environmental conditions. (I mean, many of us put lifeless tissue in our refrigerators and keep them for some while, before eating them, and they don't decay--but they have been somatically dead for some good while (more often).)


to make sure i understand, the meaning of somatic death is that point at which there is no possibility of resuscitation?

i had read about corpses' hair growing and it was always held up to be a miracle-thanks for clearing up that mystery!

so the term 'clinically dead' if it is being used as a criterion for when to pull the plug on the respirator etc should be defined a lot better i think. or do they use the term brain dead? and if you keep a person going without a brain it seems rather pointless. does science truly know what a brain dead person can perceive? is the brain a necessary part of the organism for perception? i mean can a brain dead body feel pain?

you are right, this sounds like it should be another thread...

and i found your comment interesting about the inner world ending when the person dies. that would mean ideas are housed or stored in the brain, but i thought and felt that ideas were bigger than the brains that conceived them-just as love is bigger than the heart that emanates it. but these things have so far to my knowledge not been measured.

you see no possibility of the brain being a doorway to another world, what i call the inner world? i believe my inner world is connected to yours and everyone else's. i believe i am now in both worlds and while the experience of being in this external physical world ends with death the other will continue. actually i believe i know that...but i am not sure it can be proved.

but if the brain is what thinks, then when it is dead there will be no more thoughts. so we are back to pure awareness, or do you see no possibility of that either?

could it be that the brain receives information, then translates it into thoughts and puts them into action? or that it creates thoughts after perception, desire, intention etc are registered at a still deeper level?
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 08:42 pm
@salima,
salima;67239 wrote:
to make sure i understand, the meaning of somatic death is that point at which there is no possibility of resuscitation?

i had read about corpses' hair growing and it was always held up to be a miracle-thanks for clearing up that mystery!

so the term 'clinically dead' if it is being used as a criterion for when to pull the plug on the respirator etc should be defined a lot better i think. or do they use the term brain dead? and if you keep a person going without a brain it seems rather pointless. does science truly know what a brain dead person can perceive? is the brain a necessary part of the organism for perception? i mean can a brain dead body feel pain?

you are right, this sounds like it should be another thread...

and i found your comment interesting about the inner world ending when the person dies. that would mean ideas are housed or stored in the brain, but i thought and felt that ideas were bigger than the brains that conceived them-just as love is bigger than the heart that emanates it. but these things have so far to my knowledge not been measured.

you see no possibility of the brain being a doorway to another world, what i call the inner world? i believe my inner world is connected to yours and everyone else's. i believe i am now in both worlds and while the experience of being in this external physical world ends with death the other will continue. actually i believe i know that...but i am not sure it can be proved.

but if the brain is what thinks, then when it is dead there will be no more thoughts. so we are back to pure awareness, or do you see no possibility of that either?

could it be that the brain receives information, then translates it into thoughts and puts them into action? or that it creates thoughts after perception, desire, intention etc are registered at a still deeper level?


Well salima we could use Lazarus as an example he was dead more than four days and was beginning to decay or rot

The problem is medical science are now able to resuscitate so called flat line brain flat line people, no EEG or EKG ETC

Just a few years ago these people would have been pronounced absolutely DEAD

So where is the real cut off point between life and death? , we can reanimate a single cell to become a composite clone of its host etc?
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 11:09 pm
@Alan McDougall,
That is correct, salima, on the matter of somatic death. In your (basically) third paragraph, you have asked some real tough questions that would actually have to go into a lot of detail to really do any responses the justice they deserve. I will, nevertheless, provide what a general response of what I have learned on these matters.

First of all, as you seem to know, being clinically dead usually doesn't refer to a matter of being on any life support system (machine). Being brain dead is an rather different matter (in the clinical field), and it must also be kept in mind that brain stem damage or certain spinal chord damage will cause a person to be on life support systems (Christopher Reeves, alias Superman, is one good example, though there are many, many more) but that such cases are not brain dead cases. There are cases where patients with certain midbrain or brain stem injuries or infections① have a brain stem area damage, thus causing locked-in-syndrome (LIS). In some LIS cases, the patient will only have eye movement (because of the difference of muscle control centers), and must learn to communicate through such means. Such cases are neither clinical dead cases, nor brain dead cases.

Before going into comas and other vegetable states, I'll touch on brain death. In clinical terms (and according to the contribution by James L. Bernat [Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, NH, USA] in The Neurology of Consciousness Academic Press, 2009, pp151~162, accepted by 'the world's principle religions') brain death is the death of the person although machines can keep the person, or what little area of brain pumped blood will still reach, alive. And, not to worry, there are clear, established test batteries which will be undertaken so as to not misdiagnosis. Arguments against the idea of brain death (such as by Alan Shewmon) do not tend to hold up under careful consideration and re-testing of data on paitents used in his arguments. One patient, a child, had been on machine ventilation for 16 years (surely at a great expense) only to show, at autopsy, to have no recognizable brain tissue--abolutely a brain dead being...no person at all, by common definition.

In the various vegetative states (which is one step downgraded from simply being in a coma), minimally conscious state, permanent vegetative state, there is a little less surety in some cases, and EEG will not always be so reliable, so other tests must be done (f MRI, MRI-deffusion tensor imaging, CT) as well as close observation by professionals with experience. What is very misleading, however, and yet is very important (and the Schiavo case highlighted this) is that patients who are clearly in a vegetative state (especially for mimimally conscious states) can have autonomic reflexes such as grinding teeth, crying, opening and closing eyes, smilling or grasping when the hand is touched. These are, it must be emphasized, not signs of consciousness, but only conscious (that state of having a certain degree and volume of working brain cells still living). If a patient is in any vegetative state for more than one year, full somatic death is always the eventual outcome in 99.9% of cases. (Which is basically why the courts agreed that the plug shoud be pulled in Terri Schiavo's case. . .and why her husband wanted to do so. . . it was very expensive to keep what had been left of working cells alive just to eventual die off one by one over the most-likely-would-be 10 years or so.)

Let me just post this much before touching on one point made by Alan, and then bring such up on another thread under which such would fit better--and then cross-referencing can take place at any time.

The story about Lazarus is very highly doubtful. First of all, it cannot be determined to be original--in that the work attributed to John (the only work that even mentions such an event) has had at least one additional hand in it.

Then, in face of what we today do know (the late first to early second century (and even a good time past that) was a very ignorant time) we can determine that such cannot happen--unless, it had in fact been some miracle performed by some source we know nothing of. This later idea, however, can be refuted by biblical text fallacies, so in the end, there is really no room to even consider the possibility of that story having any historical truth to it at all.





① In some cases of pressure alone, the healing of the injury, or reduction of the swelling has relived the LIS symptoms and the patient is back to normal, for the most part.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 03:59 am
@KaseiJin,
The idea that we could experience a spiritual reality for the individual is life changing and significant while the brain is at nearest to death without actually dying, is the question that should be asked.OBE experiences have not been proven by anyone although many have claimed to have experienced them.No one has come back from being clinically dead or really really dead to confirm the NDE to be an accurate experience of death.
What we have is worthy of examination, why the body or brain should choose the individual to have virtually the same experience as others is open for debate.Why it is so life changing and uplifting for the individual is also worthy of debate.We must accept that we have two alternatives one existence ceases when we die or two we enter another dimension with the soul as our means travelling.Is it wishful thinking or a desire to acknowledge our experiences are asking us certain questions.
We must acknowledge people do have these experiences but how we interpretate them and what causes them is the biggy.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 04:46 am
@xris,
xris;67301 wrote:
The idea that we could experience a spiritual reality for the individual is life changing and significant while the brain is at nearest to death without actually dying, is the question that should be asked.OBE experiences have not been proven by anyone although many have claimed to have experienced them.No one has come back from being clinically dead or really really dead to confirm the NDE to be an accurate experience of death.
What we have is worthy of examination, why the body or brain should choose the individual to have virtually the same experience as others is open for debate.Why it is so life changing and uplifting for the individual is also worthy of debate.We must accept that we have two alternatives one existence ceases when we die or two we enter another dimension with the soul as our means travelling.Is it wishful thinking or a desire to acknowledge our experiences are asking us certain questions.
We must acknowledge people do have these experiences but how we interpretate them and what causes them is the biggy.


I am quite ready to except for instance that the brain floods itself with endorphines to ease the process of dying. I can also accept the possibility that the NDE gives a person a real glimpse of a beautiful afterlife
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 05:13 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;67306 wrote:
I am quite ready to except for instance that the brain floods itself with endorphines to ease the process of dying. I can also accept the possibility that the NDE gives a person a real glimpse of a beautiful afterlife
Both are pretty amazing Alan,how could the unconscious brain conceive of a means to aid its own fear of death by instilling this process without the aid of the conscious brain.It requires those who oppose the idea of a soul to explain how this process could have evolved.Its not the individual by its own fears that creates this illusion of entering another dimension with a friendly spirit to guide them, surely?When does the brain receive this message to instigate this illusion,if that's what it is.If the individual is unconscious it has no idea of its imminent demise or proposed demise.Unconscious is unconscious there should be no reason to suspect we have another consciousness,is there????The chemical instigation of the illusion needs to be explained before the soul can be a discounted as a wishful thought.
salima
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 08:45 am
@xris,
xris;67307 wrote:
Both are pretty amazing Alan,how could the unconscious brain conceive of a means to aid its own fear of death by instilling this process without the aid of the conscious brain.It requires those who oppose the idea of a soul to explain how this process could have evolved.Its not the individual by its own fears that creates this illusion of entering another dimension with a friendly spirit to guide them, surely?When does the brain receive this message to instigate this illusion,if that's what it is.If the individual is unconscious it has no idea of its imminent demise or proposed demise.Unconscious is unconscious there should be no reason to suspect we have another consciousness,is there????The chemical instigation of the illusion needs to be explained before the soul can be a discounted as a wishful thought.


maybe it is because nobody is focusing on the conscious and the unconscious units-and i am still not clear on whether there is any difference between consciousness and awareness. i thought awareness was the basic element-and as soon as it manifests it becomes conscious of whatever it has manifested (or transcended itself into).

so let's say the unconscious is unaware of the conscious and each of these two parts are aware of different existences, one focusing on the outer world and one on the inner world, the rhizome where all the consciousness has access to its individual splinters. sometimes they spill over into each other's territory; ideally they would be working in unison. with our intellect we may be able to discover what both of them are doing. not to mention the part of the brain that controls the heartbeat and all the bodily functions...also, there is intelligence (another term, where does that one fit in the puzzle?) in every cell of the body-there is cellular memory, i suspect. wouldnt it be something if we knew everything each one of our cells knows?

(KJ-i know i am thinking like a cartoon explanation made for children now. with the background you have you can probably explain all my mistakes without even looking anything up.)

but on to the metaphysical part:
so let's say there isnt any such thing as a soul. does it matter? suppose we die and then our memory, our sense of i-ness, everything is gone. what is left is all the other people, animals, plants, minerals that still go on sharing the same intelligence unit. and eventually everything dies, and nothing will be left but the original awareness with nothing to be conscious of. does it matter?

i think the thing that made me change my way of thinking and made me feel at peace, and develop a much better moral character than i ever had, was the perception that all is one. that means the ego is only an illusion created by the apparent separation of bits of intelligence into separate vantage points. we are one, and whatever hurts you hurts me. whether or not there is anything that goes on after death doesnt really change anything for me. i can conceive of that being proved which is ok.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 08:53 am
@salima,
salima;67338 wrote:
maybe it is because nobody is focusing on the conscious and the unconscious units-and i am still not clear on whether there is any difference between consciousness and awareness. i thought awareness was the basic element-and as soon as it manifests it becomes conscious of whatever it has manifested (or transcended itself into).

so let's say the unconscious is unaware of the conscious and each of these two parts are aware of different existences, one focusing on the outer world and one on the inner world, the rhizome where all the consciousness has access to its individual splinters. sometimes they spill over into each other's territory; ideally they would be working in unison. with our intellect we may be able to discover what both of them are doing. not to mention the part of the brain that controls the heartbeat and all the bodily functions...also, there is intelligence (another term, where does that one fit in the puzzle?) in every cell of the body-there is cellular memory, i suspect. wouldnt it be something if we knew everything each one of our cells knows?

(KJ-i know i am thinking like a cartoon explanation made for children now. with the background you have you can probably explain all my mistakes without even looking anything up.)

but on to the metaphysical part:
so let's say there isnt any such thing as a soul. does it matter? suppose we die and then our memory, our sense of i-ness, everything is gone. what is left is all the other people, animals, plants, minerals that still go on sharing the same intelligence unit. and eventually everything dies, and nothing will be left but the original awareness with nothing to be conscious of. does it matter?

i think the thing that made me change my way of thinking and made me feel at peace, and develop a much better moral character than i ever had, was the perception that all is one. that means the ego is only an illusion created by the apparent separation of bits of intelligence into separate vantage points. we are one, and whatever hurts you hurts me. whether or not there is anything that goes on after death doesnt really change anything for me. i can conceive of that being proved which is ok.


I do have some difficulty with Mellens Thomas account that all souls are not inherently evil, yes maybe they are but I believe a should can become evil and this is observed in what we call demons

Do you think the light he saw was really God?? comment directed at all??
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 08:59:55