I think I had drawn the general line starting from 180 minutes. If a person has no heartbeat AND no blood being pumped by machine AND no air ventilation (that is no machine pumping oxygen into your body--which never happens anyway, if the blood is not being pumped . . . and we can drop the cell food...because basically, if your blood is not circulating [even if it's less blood volume], the cell food is gonna do extremely little good) , for a period of at least 180 minutes (that's at least 3 hours under those above conditions, please keep in mind) that person will most likely never be resuscitated. That is somatic death.
I recall your story (published on a different thread) and feel for you--as I know the circumstances and the tragaedy. My heart goes out to you on that.
It is true then, as you have shared with us, Alan, that you did not die. Your brain may have recieved some damage, but probably nothing so big as to notice (beyond normal brain build for Bipolar Disorder). What that then leads to, is not the conclusion that you have experienced death, but that you have never experienced death, just as not a single person living on the face of the earth at this moment has ever experienced death. It's a simple fact.
You had mentioned in your earlier post that you have seen your physical body from outside your body. I would like to ask if you would attempt an explanation of how a non-body can see; although it might also be best on that other thread.
I have not studied that much in that area, salima, but from the several cases I have come across and research tests on telepathic communication that I have read up on, the evidence shows a great deal of inconsistency. At the same time, methodological study formats don't seem to be so fixed (just like the 'benefit of unknown third party prayer) and study cases seem comparatively few, so my position is that no answer can be given, really. There may be something to information carrying particles that we have yet to really put a thumb on? It may all be a matter of cold reading mixed with pure random matching patterns? Who knows, really. I used to consider it much of a real phenomenon, but hold no opinion at the moment.
I am familiar with C.G. Jung's collective unconscious concept (which doesn't match with nature; most surely false) but am not familiar with any collective consciousness concept. However, if we use the standard definition of consciousness, I don't see how there could be any external, natural, factual truth to it. Regarding 'remembering past lives,' we'll run into problems fast, but that should be touched on later, I would suggest, and not here on this thread. Please help me keep it in mind.
Thanks for your response xris. I'm simply not sure what to think; I noticed that we had had some mis-cross communication on the Biblical Text thread too. Let me explain a point in case (and this is very to the point, but is an effort to clear up some seeming difficulties:[INDENT]In your #36, on page four, you had made the following statement, and I quote, "No one has come back from being clinically dead." However, I had quite clearly pointed out in my #21 on page three, and my #31 on page four, that a number of people are resuscitated from the state of clinical death; because by definition it is not real (somatic) death. Now why did you make that statement in light of the fact that the information had already been there? It appears to me that somehow, some things I am presenting are simply not getting across, and I'd like to get a handle on that (if at all possible).
One clue might be here: in your #51 on page 6, you stated the following, and I quote," We even have scientists in desperation making up silly stories to put value into their findings.The best one is "beam me up scotty" how and if you destroyed and individual and reconstructed him or her in another place exactly as the original,the copy would believe he was the that person and carry on as normal..what a load of silly nonsense..."
It appears that you are talking about the science fiction story Star Trek created by science fiction writers, and ascribing that story to scientists. How much credit would you tend to think that this type of error lends to statements which are obviously incorrect, such as, for example, your #47 on page 5, and I quote, "Science can not describe or even start to have knowledge of consciousness let alone the workings of the sub conscious?" I hope you'd be willing to try to help me get a handle on this (again, if at all possible). [/INDENT]Then, I'll just state this much here (before suggesting that if you (or Alan, or anyone else) would be interested in making arguments for consciousness being somthing other than a biological problem, to go there); consciousness is most evidently a result of the integration of a number of individually conscious structures and systems within the brain. Freud's ego concept was a bit off. Therefore it is due to many individual circuits working in unison and with other individual conscious areas that we have this emerging singularity-of-a-thing called consciousness. In that way, it is not something that one finds in a single area of brain material.
But to make sure that you actually have understood (since it was you who had asked me why I had highlighted the fact that these people who had reported NDEs had not died; as though you had not understood) I'll make it most clear.
It is far more intuitive to consider that just a person who has never been to, seen photos or movie scenes of, or read of, Kamikochi (a location in the Japan Alps) would not be able to truthfully claim to have experienced Kamikochi, a person who has never died, would not be able to truthfully claim they have experienced death. If one must actually die somatically, to experience death, then, one who has not actually died somatically will not have experienced death--and thus a claim to have done so would be false.
Trust me, xris, we are not machines with a separate driver in them, but if you wish to attempt to prove that idea, please do join in on the other thread (but please do be prepared to present harder evidence (which might have to be defended as well).
I disagree in the absolute, I have been where "you never have been",and yet you keep telling me I have not. It has nothing to do with my bipolar
Do my posts indicate a dysfunctional damaged brain to you?
I know what I know and there are something I know that you do not know, can you bring yourself to at least accept that as a fact? Of course the reverse must apply
The negative non body is a very wrong term , a non body is a nothing non existence thing. I existed in a body but an ethereal body with much higher sensory abilities than our material one. Think of it as a quantum field if you like, this field can see right down into the infinitesimal world for example
Just becuase you cant rap your mind around it scientifically does not mean NDE do not happen or are not peeks into the glory of what lays beyond physical death
A Neutrino are said to be ably to go through light years of lead , why then is an ethereal soul body so silly to your??
I appreciate your contributions to this thread it makes the whole thing so much more interesting, thank you!
(September 1, 2005)
On April 26, 2005, webmaster Kevin Williams received an email from near-death experiencer Alan McDougall informing him of a dream he had the previous night. The subject of the email was "Dream of a disaster from Alan" and this was the contents of the email (verbatim):
"Dear All, Last night the 26/4/2005 at 4 a.m. I dreamed of a disaster happening somewhere on the Earth at the time that the young peaches are still green in South Africa. This is between August and October. Love, Alan."
Alan also predicted the Tsunami Disaster that hit Indonesia on Dec. 26, 2004 (see Near-Death Newsletter Jan. 15, 2005).
Peace
Alan i think we have come to the point where Kj thinks he has nothing more to add.He thinks he has explained his position to the point that he can not advance the debate any further.He i am afraid assumes we are the only ones who dont understand his reasoning and we are beyond scientific redemption.I have read and reread his posts and for me his arguments stay the same whatever or however we try to change his perspective.He appears to believe he knows where the conscious mind abides and refuses that others who can not accept his reasoning have a valid opposing view.
You could produce a million examples but they would all be fraudulent or delusional in his opinion.If i am wrong i apologize but by his absence i assume this is his stand point.Thanks xris..
Alan i think we have come to the point where Kj thinks he has nothing more to add.He thinks he has explained his position to the point that he can not advance the debate any further.He i am afraid assumes we are the only ones who dont understand his reasoning and we are beyond scientific redemption.I have read and reread his posts and for me his arguments stay the same whatever or however we try to change his perspective.He appears to believe he knows where the conscious mind abides and refuses that others who can not accept his reasoning have a valid opposing view.
You could produce a million examples but they would all be fraudulent or delusional in his opinion.If i am wrong i apologize but by his absence i assume this is his stand point.Thanks xris..
