Your beliefs and state of mind shape your afterlife - let's have a look at this idea

reply to post by xEphon

The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

Yes, I stick by my use of the word anecdotal, and you can read about false memory that I linked to explain what people may or may not be seeing. Just because you are not awake does not mean your brain isn't functioning and taking in information.

Also, saying they are verifiable is a bit disingenuous. It's some people telling a story and it's being interpreted with a NDE / OBE bias. The only thing you could "verify" is a yes or no question of what they said was true or not, it doesn't automatically mean it's valid if it lacks any other evidence, not counting the evidence that what they "seen" can be explained logically.

The same anecdotal that sends people to jail?

I don't think the testimony of an unconscious witness was ever used in court. Besides that, there's a reason why a witness testimony has certain noted risks like identification.

when I get the flu it can replicate symptoms of schizophrenia, that doesn't mean the replication is the actual experience or event.

Are you suggesting what the people passing out from centrifuges are experiencing is different from same the symptoms as people that are "near-death" are experiencing, aren't actually the same?

If you get the flu, we know what caused it, if you experience symptoms of schizophrenia, we know what caused it, if you experience "OBE" experiences, we know what caused it.

Unless you're one of the people who say "science doesn't know everything" , blaming the symptoms of the flu and schizophrenia on supernatural interference makes as much sense as blaming the "NDE" symptoms on supernatural interference.

Even if we didn't have any knowledge of what caused these symptoms, saying it's something supernatural is groundless, unreasonable and illogical given what we know about the brain.

Originally posted by Whyhi

If you get the flu, we know what caused it, if you experience symptoms of schizophrenia, we know what caused it, if you experience "OBE" experiences, we know what caused it.

Unless you're one of the people who say "science doesn't know everything" , blaming the symptoms of the flu and schizophrenia on supernatural interference makes as much sense as blaming the "NDE" symptoms on supernatural interference.

Even if we didn't have any knowledge of what caused these symptoms, saying it's something supernatural is groundless, unreasonable and illogical given what we know about the brain.

But we really don't know much about the brain at all. Nobody knows conclusively how thought works or where it originates from, even with our detailed knowledge of neurons and synapses. Subjective awareness, experiences and feelings are also completely unaccounted for.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by AlphaZero]

Originally posted by AlphaZero
But we really don't know much about the brain at all. Nobody knows conclusively how thought works or where it originates from, even with our detailed knowledge of neurons and synapses. Subjective awareness, experiences and feelings are also completely unaccounted for.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by AlphaZero]

No, but we're learning more and more.

And we're finding that the more we look at the brain, the more of everything we think and are are products of the brain itself. Like emotions, Love, etc.

I don't see why because we can't answer a few questions, we should accept wild speculation based on anecdotal evidence.

reply to post by AlphaZero

But we really don't know much about the brain at all.

See my quote.

Nobody knows conclusively how thought works or where it originates from, even with our detailed knowledge of neurons and synapses.

Regardless, do you support the idea of incredibly small gnomes carry thoughts around the brain, or does that seem a little illogical? Even if we don't know something, you can't just put something supernatural in there because it tickles your fancy.

Given what we know already, there is no need to say something as silly as gnomes carry thoughts just as there is no need to say when you pass out, you enter a different world.

reply to post by Whyhi


Then you should've linked to another site.

And what do veridical NDE's have to do with false memories?

reply to post by Whyhi


Why do you think it's ridiculous for someone to believe that the mind is separate from the physical brain? The research relating to consciousness isn't conclusive, yet there's tons of evidence (anecdotal or not) that suggests that our soul/mind can exist independent of the body.

It's not "illogical" to think that at all. It all depends what evidence you look at and how open you are to subjects that are quite possibly outside the realm of science.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


Jesus said, once appointed we shall all die.
He does not say we can live, a flesh life again.
So, how many time must Jesus come back to life
to forgive us of our sins? Not only that but also take
the keys of hell.

So what would people say in answer to the problems with this theory? One of them being that it would send many many people into hell or a negative spiritual state in the afterlife. Anyone confused or who never was privy to the more positive theories. Many people see this theory as a good alternative to Christianity and Islam, but at the end of the day it's going to be good and bad for certain groups of people - just like other religions which send some to heaven and some to hell.

We understand that people suffer because of wrong views, wrong perceptions, and we accept it. But why do we accept it? Is it fair for someone to suffer who has never done anything wrong, they just haven't heard about the Dharma?

So really none of it is just. We apparently cannot judge any religion based on justice.