Near-death experiences are real and we have the proof, say scientists

reply to post by The Vagabond

...you probably have a preconcieved notion about death and will probably think about it if you have any idea you are about to die before it happens... Maybe after the fact you filled in some of the gaps subconsciously with your preconcieved notions about the afterlife...

These are very reasonable suggestions, in theory. However in many instances what people experience is the very antithesis of their preconceived ideas. (See the video at the end of this post, for example!)


For the one or two who insist on sticking to their "minds don't go floating about" hypothesis, you are, I believe, in danger of holding to preconceived ideas that fly in the face of masses of evidence. Evidence that contravenes your world-view and must be denied at all costs, as deconstructing the framework which has boxed your thinking to date might be akin to a self-admission of being wrong all along. Could it be that shutting eyes to evidence is just preferable to leaving the comfort zone?



(Acknowledgements to Explosions in the Sky)


The evidence added by admriker444 on page 6 is typical of what could be repeated times without number by masses of emergency doctors alone:

There was another story where an ER doc told me that they had a patient die on them. They announced the time of death and left the room. 2 rooms down the same Doc and nurse were working on a patient that was in a car accident. They were chatting about plans for the holidays and what kind of xmas tree to get. Meanwhile, the dead patient's heart restarted. The first thing the man said to the doctor was he should reconsider a real tree as theyre more of a fire hazzard than the fake ones.

There are many more incidents where there was no chance the patient overheard the doctor and yet was able to recall his conversation.

I know 2 ER docs personally and both swear that something happens beyond death and you survive. They've heard too many patients recount the same experience and things that wouldnt be possible...

And again:

...They're working on a patient that died briefly twice. While the doc was working on the patient, his wife the nurse was in the break room where on-call docs sleep and eat. She was warming up food in the microwave and got a can of Mr. Pibb soda out of the fridge.

Later the nurse is changing a dressing on the patient and asks if he'd like anything. He asked if he could have a Mr. Pibb. He noticed that there was one left in the fridge.

By sticking to a "that's just unreliable anecdotes because the evidence wasn't collected within the confines of a study" - attitude melatonin in particular is in danger of fulfilling his own signature: "to be ridiculous is tragic".


reply to post by melatonin


Hi mel. Gloves off & all that, (but only for intellectual sparring - I trust when we meet on the other side you won't hold it against me )

I actually respect the integrity of your assumption that "minds don't go floating about" - within the confines of a materialistic world-view, which to some feels like an unassailable perspective.

You guessed it, here comes my second assault on that world-view.

(The first, asserting that the scientific method cannot ascertain the veracity of events that cannot be repeated, i.e. historical events, such that first-hand and eye-witness accounts are often the only means available for assessing whether something actually occurred in the past, you largely skirted. You did claim that in court cases forensics take precedence. In the real world forensic evidence is often just the icing on the cake - if available at all. Forensic evidence is actually subject to interpretation, just as witness accounts are, and cases can collapse due to the unreliability of either.

What counts when it comes to building a case is the weight of the evidence, which is a human, subjective consideration. The decision on whether there is sufficient weight of evidence to decide a case in court or in history is often dependent on the degree to which evidence has accumulated.

In the case of NDEs the accumulated evidence of, as you like to put it, 'floating minds' is gargantuan.)


Point number 2:

I'm more interested in someone undertaking a controlled experiment that can show whether minds float about and that this floating mind has the ability for emotions, cognition, and memory - all processes well-known to be physical and brain-based.

No. Assumed to be physical by those with a materialistic outlook.

As for 'brain-based', the same critique applies, except that those who accept that the mind/soul is distinct from the brain also accept that the brain is involved in the above-said processes, while also acting as an interface with the immaterial self.

Therefore what seems impossible to the materialist is easily explained by the one who accepts a spiritual dimension: the brain dies and the spiritual separates and continues - except it is no longer confined/limited by physical constraints.

memories are not some sort of word file or jpg.

Herein lies the crux of the matter. Although you said this yourself you do not appear to have realized that this is the very reason scientific trials are always going to be limited in their ability to adjudge the weight of the evidence. Skeptics will always fall back on "but it's just memories". This relates to why I said that the NDE is one of several spheres in which science cannot operate as effectively as a witness-based method of appraisal of the evidence, more akin to a court case.

Total reliance on the scientific method alone inevitably prevents some from accepting aspects of reality that cannot thereby be ascertained or measured.


reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

I was declared dead that is "Brain Dead" by doctors.

After 30 minutes I was checked and was confirmed Brain Dead!

The next stage I was going to be put through was embalming!

Nice to speak to one of the 'temporary death experience' "cases" I referred to initially. Did you claim on your life insurance?

I can assure you that many neurologists are now convinced that the Mind and the brain are two entirely different entities!

The proof of the pudding is in the... dying. First-hand witness testimony with corroborating eye-witness expert testimony. Pity you are just an 'anecdote'.

in truth you Shall find out the Truth of the mater when it is your time and you shall know first hand as you are unable and powerless to escape your fate!

It is only a matter of time maybe 1 day, maybe 1 week, maybe 1 year, but I can guarantee you shall find out as each second you live is one second closer for you to experience death and you do not know when your time of death shall be experienced!

It is marvellous what a little death will do to your understanding!

Whatever you think you can only come to know the truth in its due time.

What You expect to happen, Shall Not happen and what You do Not expect, Shall happen!

That was precisely the challenge of a lot of people in the following video who went through the same experience, hardened atheists included. There are some very very intelligent - and very surprised - people in this. Some may mock. Others may realize this is no laughing matter.

Google Video Link

[edit to fix code]

[edit on 10/11/08 by pause4thought]

Originally posted by pause4thought
Hi mel. Gloves off & all that, (but only for intellectual sparring - I trust when we meet on the other side you won't hold it against me

)

Aye, don't worry. I hold no grudges. Not worth the waste of energy. Indeed, I appreciate those who hold their own

I actually respect the integrity of your assumption that "minds don't go floating about" - within the confines of a materialistic world-view, which to some feels like an unassailable perspective.

Problem is, it's more a case that I reject the hypothesis of 'minds floating' due to lack of reliable evidence. Just like I reject many others. So, I would say it's unlikely that minds float about the place, but NDEs don't really come into it as noted earlier. We need some real evidence.

Also, it doesn't assail my world-view. Even if minds do float around the place, it wouldn't mean much more than minds may well float about the place and may survive biological death. As I noted earlier, an atheist like David Chalmers would be chuffed with such findings. It wouldn't be necessarily irrefutable evidence for dualism or any theology.

Would be a stunning finding, of course.

You guessed it, here comes my second assault on that world-view.

(The first, asserting that the scientific method cannot ascertain the veracity of events that cannot be repeated, i.e. historical events, such that first-hand and eye-witness accounts are often the only means available for assessing whether something actually occurred in the past, you largely skirted. You did claim that in court cases forensics take precedence. In the real world forensic evidence is often just the icing on the cake - if available at all. Forensic evidence is actually subject to interpretation, just as witness accounts are, and cases can collapse due to the unreliability of either.

Of course. Just like in science. Unreliable data isn't of great weight.

The scientific method can assess historical events. We can make retrodictions from theories and hypotheses. Indeed, forensics does so (if johnny did x, then we expect y).

What counts when it comes to building a case is the weight of the evidence, which is a human, subjective consideration. The decision on whether there is sufficient weight of evidence to decide a case in court or in history is often dependent on the degree to which evidence has accumulated.

Fair enough. But yet again, we know very well that eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. And we are talking about experiences under neural stress.

In the case of NDEs the accumulated evidence of, as you like to put it, 'floating minds' is gargantuan.)

Not so. The fact that people perceive their minds floating about under neural trauma is not evidence that minds actually do float about any more than me perceiving a beast-like demon under neural 'stress' is evidence that beast-like demons exist outside my mind.

As for the veridical issue, I covered that earlier. This is essentially the crux of the issue, and one that Parnia might eventually bother testing and placing before the scientific community.

Uncontrolled anecdote and testimony are insufficient. They readily lead to Big-foot suits in freezers.

No. Assumed to be physical by those with a materialistic outlook.

Evidence supports this claim. Real experimental evidence, not unreliable personal testimony.

Of course, you can add any old unfalsifiable stuff on top. For example, the planets are pushed around space by invisible trolls which appear to look like the natural force of gravity. The eat invisible fairies. However, they are simulations. Indeed, the whole universe began 5 minutes ago, and our discussion yesterday is an implanted memory from interdimensional beer-elves, we are no more than brains in the beer-elves' laboratory vats. That was revealed to me by the top beer-elf just now. It scratched a B.E. on my face, heh.

Show me otherwise.

The fact that a proportion of people feel themselves folating about during near death is not evidence that this was more than brain-based. A number of personal testimonies collected under uncontrolled conditions verifying conversations etc, are again, not reliable evidence, and potentially nothing more than these people processing such information, post-hoc constructed knowledge (i.e., unreliable).

That's why we need controlled data.

As for 'brain-based', the same critique applies, except that those who accept that the mind/soul is distinct from the brain also accept that the brain is involved in the above-said processes, while also acting as an interface with the immaterial self.

Aye, you plop stuff on top of science. Thus the brain is a receiver for a disembodied immaterial mind. Unfalsifiable and readily removed by Ockham. However, on the mind being distinct from brain, hopefully Parnia can go some way to produce some data. Unless he deems it not worthy of the scientific community.

Therefore what seems impossible to the materialist is easily explained by the one who accepts a spiritual dimension: the brain dies and the spiritual separates and continues - except it is no longer confined/limited by physical constraints.

Aye, you can explain anything and everything, completely unconstrained by the real-world. Therefore it's worthless.

Herein lies the crux of the matter. Although you said this yourself you do not appear to have realized that this is the very reason scientific trials are always going to be limited in their ability to adjudge the weight of the evidence. Skeptics will always fall back on "but it's just memories". This relates to why I said that the NDE is one of several spheres in which science cannot operate as effectively as a witness-based method of appraisal of the evidence, more akin to a court case.

My beast-like demon is now a memory. But it did exist in my mind, afterwards it was a memory open to embellishment, alteration, and/or degradation.

Total reliance on the scientific method alone inevitably prevents some from accepting aspects of reality that cannot thereby be ascertained or measured.

Heh, of course.

But you don't know they are part of reality or a phantom of your mind. That's what science is for. You are pushing people to accept invisible dragons and mental demons on little more than anecdote and personal testimony. And even better, not any mental demons, your mental demons.

[edit on 10-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Many thanks for the full reply. We've both presented our cases at some length. Perhaps we should now leave the readers to weigh up what we've said & continue the discussion, lest our tete-a-tete go overboard.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Many thanks for the full reply. We've both presented our cases at some length. Perhaps we should now leave the readers to weigh up what we've said & continue the discussion, lest our tete-a-tete go overboard.

No problem, I think we are just going over old ground really.

In sum, you accept personal anecdote and testimony as reliable enough evidence for accpeting mind/brain separation. I have higher standards of evidence.

Cheers.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by pause4thought
Many thanks for the full reply. We've both presented our cases at some length. Perhaps we should now leave the readers to weigh up what we've said & continue the discussion, lest our tete-a-tete go overboard.

No problem, I think we are just going over old ground really.

In sum, you accept personal anecdote and testimony as reliable enough evidence for accpeting mind/brain separation. I have higher standards of evidence.

Cheers.

yes,but what evidence would you be willing to accept? As far as I know,we have no instruments that can measure into other dimensions. So,what else is there but personal account? And what else will there ever be,but personal account.Appart from overwhealming numbers of people saying the same thing,over and over again,you've got to start listening to them at some point. Maybe it's one of them things that some people will never believe unless they have their own one. (I'm not wishing this on you btw,as that would infer some sort of life threatening situation,and that's bad karma dude) Anyway,yeah,so,what would you as someone who is skeptical over NDEs,accept as evidence?

reply to post by melatonin


(Chuckle.)

Those who've read this thread know full well I have said repeatedly that my conviction that there is conscious existence after physical death is based entirely on the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the writings that foretold all these events.

That is because I studied these issues for many years before ever becoming aware of the amount of personal testimony that has accumulated with respect to NDEs.

Nevertheless I believe the testimony of tens of thousands of witnesses is also worthy of consideration, as it is for some the first opportunity they have had to be presented with evidence of the reality of life beyond this life, and for others it may just be another piece in the puzzle that has resulted from OBEs and other experiences/testimonies that have made them wonder whether this life is all there is.





[edit on 10/11/08 by pause4thought]

Originally posted by Acidtastic
yes,but what evidence would you be willing to accept? As far as I know,we have no instruments that can measure into other dimensions. So,what else is there but personal account? And what else will there ever be,but personal account.Appart from overwhealming numbers of people saying the same thing,over and over again,you've got to start listening to them at some point. Maybe it's one of them things that some people will never believe unless they have their own one. (I'm not wishing this on you btw,as that would infer some sort of life threatening situation,and that's bad karma dude) Anyway,yeah,so,what would you as someone who is skeptical over NDEs,accept as evidence?

Well, what Parnia is proposing (yet again) is a start.

OK, so people saying the same what? That they float about during NDEs? That's evidence that people feel themselves floating about during an NDE.

That people see dead relatives or theological superstars? That's evidence that people mentally perceived dead realtives and theological superstars.

But I'm not sceptical about NDEs, I think they are real experiences. Just like my beast-like demon was a real experience. I question whether it is anything more than a product of a brain.

(please read my posts so far - can't be doing with a to b to a to b).

Originally posted by pause4thought
(Chuckle.)

Those who've read this thread know full well I have said repeatedly that my conviction that there is conscious existence after physical death is based entirely on the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the writings that foretold all things events.

That's cool, man. You're entitled to believe whatever floats ya boat.



[edit on 10-11-2008 by melatonin]

Some people might appreciate the NDE testimony of an ATS SuperModerator:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

(A good discussion ensued too.)

sorry, i don't buy it. its a flood of serotonin to the brain, much like taking a lot of ecstasy. i've taken a lot of ecstasy and something strange happens. suddenly the people around you become people you KNOW. you believe it's them and feel this sudden happiness and "wow, what are you doing here?" feeling.

when we die our nearly die, our brain floods with serotonin. that combined with the loss of oxygen to the brain can make for some super-trippy experiences.

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet,but brain death is irreversible.

There are states that may mimic brain death exactly such as alcohol intoxication,hypothermia,coma's and chronic vegetative states.But the brain is not totally dead.This means the exams taken to determine brain death must show complete absence of all brain function's.

If these rigorous tests have zero brain function then the condition is irreversible;there is no coming back.

And if these people witnessed doctor's trying to resuscitate them,then they were not dead.Their body functions did not shut down completely,the tests were not done to prove total brain death.


From the article,

According to modern medicine all of these patients were effectively dead. Their brains had shut down and no thoughts or feelings were possible. There was certainly no possibility of the complex brain activity required for dreaming or hallucinating.

This is not conclusive.
Many coma patients claimed to have experienced dreams and,as recent tests show,some even respond to pain.

Belgian doctors discovered that some comatose patients develop the same "pain matrix" in the brain as healthy individuals do when subjected to pain stimuli. This gives further justification to medics administering painkillers to patients previously believed to have had no functioning pain receptors. Caregivers have been employing such measures in hospitals worldwide for years, but only in the treatment of those suffering from minimally conscious state (MCS) coma.

news.softpedia.com...

Related link.
www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by jakyll


Hi jakyll.

I don't have time for a full reply.

Suffice it to say a coma is a different kettle of fish. The patient's heart has not stopped, and the array of signs that lead to a determination of clinical death are not observed either.

Originally posted by pause4thought
These are very reasonable suggestions, in theory. However in many instances what people experience is the very antithesis of their preconceived ideas. (See the video at the end of this post, for example!)

Going to hell for someone who believes in both Heaven and Hell is hardly antithetical to that person's preconcieved notions. The Bible itself says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Who believes in heaven in the Western sense who didn't at some point say to themselves, "gee, I really dont wanna go to hell"?

And the thing about this story is that the modern concept of hell was a relatively late addition to judeo-christian beliefs. Even if I were still a Christian (and I know a thing or two about the Bible- I spent 3 years being groomed for a baptist seminary before I lost the faith, then another 2 giving skeptical review to the Christian apologetics that I had been been trained in) I would consider that gentleman's hell experience to be a strong indication that he had a bad dream based on and amplified by his brush with and expectation of death.

And let's also examine the charge that some of us feel we must deny at all costs, despite any evidence. If I had the slightest notion that death was going to be anything but The Big Sleep, what motive could I possibly have for not seeking knowledge about that? Rational self interest dictates that I always be prepared to act on solid evidence about something that might happen to me.
However rational self interest also dictates that I avoid making decisions based on inconsistent anecdotal evidence, which despite its raw volume represents the experience of only a very small percentage of the population. And yes I said inconsistent. My grandfather had a near death experience, and he said when you get to heaven you go fishing with your dad. Now maybe that's just some kind of special heaven for Texans, and that's why nobody else is warning me to make sure I am burried with my tackle box, but for some reason there are such inconsistencies in the stories.

So don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be in this thread if the very notion of an afterlife pissed me off. Just consider me the voice of caution.

reply to post by pause4thought


Howdy.

I know coma's are different.
I was just responding to the line in the article about what people in that state can and cannot feel/do is conclusive.

When your heart stops beating you can remain alive for 3 minutes after,this is classed as clinically dead not legally dead.

The legal definition of death requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brain stem.

Therefore these people have not experienced death in the 'true' sense.



[edit on 10-11-2008 by jakyll]

Melatonin i had been reading your posts and really you are a materiallistic one, but anyway i think you are ignoring some facts calling them "anecdotes" when really it is FACTS.

With just 1 proven case in which a subject is capable of telling something that was out of his senses even if we cannot repeat it will be enough to discredit your viewpoint, it's a qualitative proof not an anecdote, and we dont need more proofs because qualitative subject and no more a quantitative one. Sciencie need to repeat hundreds of times a experiment to accept it, but is uncapable to reach with phenomena that are real but are not repetible.This DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S NOT REAL.This only means that we are no capable to control it.

There are two qualitative events that discredit your viewpoint:

a) There are reported cases in wich subjects speak about things they cannot perceive, such as: with the eyes closed, and dead, see what doctors were doing. Corroborated later by the doctors. Just to began...

b) The second is that if you dont breathe for 5 minuts your brain will suffer irreparable damage, but in this cases patients are dead even for hours, (and some even days) and they show no brain injury. I think that modern science can detect easily if a lung is breating or a heart is pumping blood, their hearts were not pumping blood and their lungs were not breathing, but their brains are not damaged, i call it a miracle. You can argue that maybe brain have a letargic state in wich oxigen needs are reduced, but then i ask you why if someone is suffocated for 5 minuts does not enter automatically in this state?, and how is possible to not suffer ANY brain damage even after being 1 day without breathe, cold, and with the heart stopped? using what science know we can conclude that this have no explanation, is a miracle.

Just to end, im sorry but i have had some experiences in my life that have no possible explanation in the modern frame of scientific theories, im speaking of knowing things before it happend, even seconds before it happened. You can argue me that im lying or what you want, but i know that for me it WAS REAL AND HAS HAPPENED and your materialistic view point is not capable to give me a satisfactory explanation, at least for my experience.

Originally posted by REIKUKI
Melatonin i had been reading your posts and really you are a materiallistic one, but anyway i think you are ignoring some facts calling them "anecdotes" when really it is FACTS.

I am a materialist. I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. However, it's not a dogmatic position.

Unlike some, I am open to evidence and my positions shift with evidence.

With just 1 proven case in which a subject is capable of telling something that was out of his senses even if we cannot repeat it will be enough to discredit your viewpoint, it's a qualitative proof not an anecdote, and we dont need more proofs because qualitative subject and no more a quantitative one. Sciencie need to repeat hundreds of times a experiment to accept it, but is uncapable to reach with phenomena that are real but are not repetible.This DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S NOT REAL.This only means that we are no capable to control it.

Not really hundreds of times. To really accept it as a valid viewpoint I would hope to see a few controlled scientific studies confirming the presence of sentient floating minds. One would be a start, though.

I've seen controlled studies showing the production of OBEs in the lab and as the result of brain lesions. Seem quite mundane really. Is quite an experience from a personal POV, of course. So is swimming with dolphins.

There are two qualitative events that discredit your viewpoint:

a) There are reported cases in wich subjects speak about things they cannot perceive, such as: with the eyes closed, and dead, see what doctors were doing. Corroborated later by the doctors. Just to began...

Again, we can see the assumptions coming through. Dead? Really? How do you know this?

Secondly. I could guess fairly well right now what a doctor would be doing whilst resuscitating me. Blame House MD. And, again, Memories are not some sort of uncorruptable data file.

Controlled studies are needed.

b) The second is that if you dont breathe for 5 minuts your brain will suffer irreparable damage, but in this cases patients are dead even for hours, (and some even days) and they show no brain injury. I think that modern science can detect easily if a lung is breating or a heart is pumping blood, their hearts were not pumping blood and their lungs were not breathing, but their brains are not damaged, i call it a miracle. You can argue that maybe brain have a letargic state in wich oxigen needs are reduced, but then i ask you why if someone is suffocated for 5 minuts does not enter automatically in this state?, and how is possible to not suffer ANY brain damage even after being 1 day without breathe, cold, and with the heart stopped? using what science know we can conclude that this have no explanation, is a miracle.

However, many people in these cases, and certainly in the best NDE study were undergoing resuscitation. That's the thing where someone pumps oxygen into your lungs and blood round your body.

In other cases you want to make extrapolations from some average (i.e. ususally within 5 mins brains are dead/pickled) and apply it to every case even without evidence that the brain was dead/pickled. Exceptions to the norm are the norm. On the cold thing, when the body is cold it reduces cell damage.

Just to end, im sorry but i have had some experiences in my life that have no possible explanation in the modern frame of scientific theories, im speaking of knowing things before it happend, even seconds before it happened. You can argue me that im lying or what you want, but i know that for me it WAS REAL AND HAS HAPPENED and your materialistic view point is not capable to give me a satisfactory explanation, at least for my experience.

OK, sorry about that.

Anyway, like p4thought, believe what you like. I just have a different level of expectation. Sorry about that as well.

[edit on 10-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mmariebored

I'm not saying there are no legit cases and that it's completely impossible, but it's one of those studies where 90% of the cases will undoubtedly be playing up their life-long imaginations as REAL.

If someone dreams of Heaven all their life, based on what they hope it will be, what kind of dream do you think their brain will produce when it thinks it's going to die? Your brain knows when it's under duress and near death and it searches any and every possible corridor on it's way out to save itself...corridors you yourself created.

I would agree with that. To a point. What you experience up to the gate, or point of no return is indeed color by your experience. Who and what you see are the minds programmed links or ideas about the experience you are having, the experience itself is unrelated to memory or the "mind."

I prefer to call what survives the Consciousness, not the "mind." Once you go through the "gate" that some perceive as a point of no return, there isnt thought, just experience, or awareness without thought, and only when you return do you "think" about it and assign meaning to it.

So yes, your life experiences and beliefs do influence the way you interpret the experience, however the experience itself can include bits the mind could not have imagined, and that even after you are back, when thinking about it, you cannot make your mind recreate satisfactorily.

There is something to it. I disagree that it is your mind that survives death, if you go far enough, but consciousness itself does. It simply isnt as personal as your mind is.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Hi Vagabond. I need some sleep, but I want to reply to at least some of the questions you've raised.

And the thing about this story is that the modern concept of hell was a relatively late addition to judeo-christian beliefs.

I have debated such a claim here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...quoting sources hundreds, even thousands of years before Christ. I don't mean to give you short shrift - it's just that the discussion was very in-depth in that instance.

Going to hell for someone who believes in both Heaven and Hell is hardly antithetical to that person's preconcieved notions.

No, clearly not. But what about the atheists who have had these experiences? There are several testimonies in that video.

And let's also examine the charge that some of us feel we must deny at all costs, despite any evidence. If I had the slightest notion that death was going to be anything but The Big Sleep, what motive could I possibly have for not seeking knowledge about that?

People are not always logical. I heard of a (local) couple who had both professed to be disciples of Christ, but left their spouses in favour of each other. One of them openly admitted his greatest hope was that there was no life after death, and ensuing judgement. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you have openly stated that you once sought to follow Christ, then left the road. I do not know your state of mind or your heart, I merely wish to answer your direct question by illustrating that some have reasons to recoil from the expectation of life after death, and so willfully turn a blind eye to the evidence. Like I say, it's not logical. Especially in view of the fact God as revealed in the Bible offers compassion, mercy and forgiveness.

Rational self interest dictates that I always be prepared to act on solid evidence about something that might happen to me.

Jesus taught on this very subject (Luke 16:19-31). A man entering eternity without his sin forgiven begs God to let him go back and warn his family about the reality, convinced they will then realise what he tells them is true. He says:

'...if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' (= turn from living our way to God's way) But he told him: 'If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets (=the Old Testament), they will not be pursuaded if someone rises from the dead.'

(Luke 16:30-31)

This was primarily demonstrated when Christ Himself rose from the dead after three days in the grave. That is the evidence God himself has decided should be sufficient for us, when combined with millennia of prophecies, coupled with Christ's miracles and sublime teaching. Jesus clearly teaches in this passage that NDEs are not going to provide a solid basis for a faith strong enough to lead to true, self-denying, God-loving discipleship.

don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be in this thread if the very notion of an afterlife pissed me off

I accept what you are saying. However, are you seeking to discover what it may really encompass, no matter if it represents all that you have previously forsaken?

I would rather provide a serious-minded challenge than tickle your ears. Those who always say what people want to hear are spineless, and unreliable. Not watering down what Christ said opens one to unpopularity and scathing attacks. But guiding even a single human soul to the truth makes it well worthwhile. They will be blessed in this life and for all eternity.

Originally posted by melatonin

I am a materialist. I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. However, it's not a dogmatic position.

Unlike some, I am open to evidence and my positions shift with evidence.

I too am interested to see how the study plays out.

I have had the experience. One due to a physical "death" and again years later in a dream that took the whole thing further.

Of course I am predisposed to believing it was a "real" event. I also am scientifically minded, and can accept that it may just be the kicks of a dying brain. It sure didnt seem that way, but I do know things arent always what they seem.

I am open to evidence, and my positions shift with evidence as well. Until then, I have to say that of all my life experiences, those two were the MOST real, subjectively of course, experiences of my life. (Though I dont know if the first could be called a "life" experience, lol) Since nothing else I have experienced to date feels subjectively more real, I am going to stay on the "there is something to it" side of the fence until persuaded by evidence otherwise.

At the very least, I dont fear death. That makes life more enjoyable.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
At the very least, I dont fear death. That makes life more enjoyable.

That's the way to be. I was lucky to only experience the onset of 'death' in the non-life threatening way, but it certainly changes your viewpoint.

So, I agree wholeheartedly.

All these type of experiences, whether we cheat a bit or get the real deal, can affect us deeply. They can take people various routes, we interpret them different ways.

But that's the way it should be.

I see my psychic journeys as reflective of my self, rather than some outer phenomena. If others see something different, then that's cool as well.

But from a scientific POV, lets just see where we go. This next century is gonna be a significant one for neuroscience.

Click here for more information.