. . . 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 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.
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.
"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 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?
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 . . . .
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, 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?
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
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.
