Cardiologist Pim van Lommel presents strong scientific evidence for the reality of NDE's

D'Alen, read dr van Lommel's research. He has come to the conclusion based on his evidence that NDE's is not caused by the brain. His first research on the subject has appeared in the Lancet and is peer reviewed.

It is solid scientific evidence IMHO.

Good find Bandit

As more data comes in, a lot of people are really questioning whether the brain is the source of our memories and identity. Usually the argument is that if there is trauma to the brain and people "forget" how to do something or lose memories, then that is evidence that the brain is where those memories and abilities lie. But that casual relationship may be too simplistic in that the brain seems to be the reciever of those abilites and not the source.

If our brains are not the source, as NDE's would presume, then life must have existed before birth and therefore would continue after death.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by xEphon]

This article is quite good, I love the point he makes that the idea that the brain is the localized source of cognition and theory is not scientifically proven - so true! If the brain is in effect a transciever of some kind, there must be a broadcast - so what is this consciousness broadcaster? Could it be a nonlocal field like Rupert Sheldrake discusses?

www.sheldrake.org...&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html

also - there are references in the article (not the linked article above) to magnetic tests being conducted on the brain in a noninvasive way, I believe he s referring to Micheal Persinger

www.geocities.com...

(Persinger also has done some interesting studies linking tectonic electromagnetic field strains to ufo sightings.)

I am left wondering if anyone has done a correlation study between NDE and abduction experiencers. I only mention this because there seems to be a correlation between ufo sightings and parnormal events.

Here is a good scientific paper on the mind-brain connections.

It uses modern quantum physics to describe how the mind interacts with the brain.

Interestingly they use the term "Human Agent" to describe what most of us would call the spirit.

The paper is 31 pages but a very good read.

It backs up what the OP paper has stated....so its good to see other scientific work being done to prove the existence of the mind/spirit as being separate from the brain/body

QUANTUM PHYSICS IN NEUROSCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY: A NEUROPHYSICAL MODEL OF MIND/BRAIN INTERACTION
www.newdualism.org...

"what we do in life... echoes in eternity" -maximus from the movie Gladiator

this information brings new meaning to the above quote. Thanks for posting bandit.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by curiousbeliever]

I have this hasty though just now that maybe the only reason SOME people deny the existence of life after death or reincarnation is because they need an excuse to live this life like there is nothing else. They feel like they need to come out on top and ahead of everyone else just to make themselves, as they are in this lifetime, feel important and remembered by all they've accumulated or accomplished (not saying there's anything wrong with that when you think death is all there is, if you're that type of person)... but from anyone that knows the true nature of death (or at least the important part, that we DON"T die, and that we do have many different lifetimes or energy states)... it would be a little silly to want to make this life seem extraordinary, if you are one of billions of souls here on earth, each having perhaps an infinite number of lifetimes...
but then on the other hand, if you had an infinite number of lifetimes, what would you do with all of them? you'd probably do anything and everything that's ever been done, including evil and selfish deeds, because there's a lesson to be learned in all of them. So I guess the real question to ME at least is not IF there is life after death... but what makes one life positive and what makes one life negative, and is there really a difference between the two? If it's all just energy in different states of being, can one state be considered "bad" or "good"? That's a little off topic.
But my initial statement was just a random thought. I dunno if I could be evil or selfish in any lifetime, because I'm not now.... but I can't say anything for certainty because I'm not really who I think I am. Philosophy is SO tiring to the mind, because you can g in circles all day asking and answering your own questions, but in the end come out with more questions than you started with. I guess the only thing that is for certain is nothing at all.

Author Kenneth Ring is among the foremost researchers on NDE. I suggest getting a hold of one of his books if you're curious about the validity of these experiences.

Originally posted by indierockalien
I have this hasty though just now that maybe the only reason SOME people deny the existence of life after death or reincarnation is because they need an excuse to live this life like there is nothing else.

That's a good theory. I also think some people deny it because they don't want to live more than one life. If you think about it, eternal consciousness IS a little overwhelming.

I can't seem to find it, but there was one famous quote that went something like this:

"Believing there is nothing after death is the ultimate optimism."

I don't get how the me survives. We lose our memory as we age. If you aren't able to be self aware as you die, then what are we really talking here? How do you explain memory loss?

How do you explain static and noise if the tv is unable to properly receive the signal??

Same thing IMO. The brain just receives and processes the signal (consciousness) It does not generate it.

Interesting thread!!! I really did enjoy it, small yet satisfying




Best Regards,

richie

reply to post by TheBandit795


In regards to this, a tv set receives a signal that is generated by some other source. In order for this analogy to work, consciousness (really just an ability to be self-aware, a mirror of empathy) would also need to be generated by an outside source and then 'transmitted' by some means to the brain.

This raises a serious issue in my opinion, from when is a species ability to be self-aware comes into play here? Is it always there, before birth? Does it first initiate when the sperm and egg merge? Is it after birth? What outside source is generating self awareness also?

Another aspect of this to consider is, why should self awareness have to be generated by an outside source and not from within? Where is this outside source? What transmits this ability to be self-aware? What medium does it pass through? Can we measure it's transmission and frequencies? Does it transmit on the same 'frequency' for all self-aware species or does each of us get our own 'channel'?

This raises more questions then it answers. First of all, everyone who experiences an NDE isn't dead, nor has ever died and come back to life. The body is still alive, but just barely.

There is another issue not being addressed either, only a small percentage of a population will even experience an NDE or OOBE. With populations increasing exponentially, it only makes sense that this percentage also increases exponentially and thus gets reported more often.

I've done alot research on nde's over the past 5 years, including this report. Now I can't find the research, its buried in so many pages of other things pertaining to '___', but I remember the papers that discussed the conclusions "certain" scientists were making alluding to '___' being responsible for nde's, and it had to do with a certain dictianary definition of nde's being met with experiences, in a barest of ways, whereas taking the data into the norms of the experiencers showed vast differences. '___' experiences felt like hallucinations, and some were far-out psychodelic trips, some were you floated outside your body but were still connected and your arms and legs were distorted. In nde's, not one of them felt it was an hallucination, or felt drugged. There was no distortion. At the precise moment where there was no brain activity, they were having super-conscious, super-aware, super-cognitive experiences. Heightened consciousness. And those born blind could see and describe what was occuring around them.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by TheBandit795

 

In regards to this, a tv set receives a signal that is generated by some other source. In order for this analogy to work, consciousness (really just an ability to be self-aware, a mirror of empathy) would also need to be generated by an outside source and then 'transmitted' by some means to the brain.

This raises a serious issue in my opinion, from when is a species ability to be self-aware comes into play here? Is it always there, before birth? Does it first initiate when the sperm and egg merge? Is it after birth? What outside source is generating self awareness also?

Science is only recently started to study this (consciousness studies), after ignoring it for hundreds of years.

This raises more questions then it answers.

It does, that's why there are the consciousness studies in which the researchers try to answer these questions.

First of all, everyone who experiences an NDE isn't dead, nor has ever died and come back to life. The body is still alive, but just barely.

That's up to interpretation, IMO they are dead. No heartbeat, no brain activity. Dead. Yet with veridical NDE's, at the time that they were dead, they were able to see and observe events in the direct area or in nearby places that they could never have seen or heard due to them being dead, and/or due to them being physically remote from the area or people that they observed.

There is another issue not being addressed either, only a small percentage of a population will even experience an NDE or OOBE. With populations increasing exponentially, it only makes sense that this percentage also increases exponentially and thus gets reported more often.

If NDE's are caused by the brain, they should be repeatable, and happen with a much higher percentage of pacients with cardiac arrests, than just 18%.

Do NDE's pick and choose who see's them then,i know a few people who have died and been resuscitated...and never saw anything...much like being asleep and waking up....So i really dont hold any credence to NDE's afterlife etc...I think its just chemical reactions and its really luck or cahnce if you experience any flashing lights...tunnels...apparitions etc...

reply to post by Lethil


That doesn't explain the veridical NDE's.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by Lethil

 

That doesn't explain the veridical NDE's.

No it doesnt...but since most humans that im aware of are conscious...and not all people have NDE's when they have died and been brought back...kinda shoots a hole in the theory that the conscious tunes into something else etc...unless like i said its only certain people...in which case how does it have anything to do with conscious?

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Lethil]

I think if it happened to everyone with a cardiac arrest it would be more easily reproducible, and there probably would've been some process in the brain that activates it. Just as a psychoactive substance will always and repeatedly alter the brain function.

ok well another thing...he says we would still have self,surely to know ones *self* you would have to have memories etc....how does that survive death...many people after strokes and lack of oxygen to brain(dying) have memory loss...why would it be any different when you physically die? memory still resides in hippocampus etc...other places we probably still dont understand...but still...if that dies memory dies...so how could you have self? im speaking hypothetically of course as skeptic..

I'm not sure the scientific community would accept this as scientific empirical evidence though, and I say that as someone who thinks there IS something to NDE's. A few tests carried out in hospitals to try and prove that consciousness can still perceive and report back hidden objects placed around the room, when the person has been brought back to physical awareness have failed so far to come up with any positive results.

I personally don't think that's proof of absense of aware functioning consciousness but I'm pretty sure the mainstream scientific community will do.

Great post though Bandit. Much food for thought.