Not wanting to get into the fray, but if the OP is real, then research has already shown consciousness can live after the death of the brain and body. This does point to an afterlife. Turn your search engines in that direction and discover science’s contribution to that of which you speak.
I tell you what. Instead of me sifting through 50,000 pages of moonbats parroting ignorant rubbish, why don’t you post the links to where science has shown consciousness independent of the brain and body? Please.
If you do not want to “get into the fray,” then do not post.
He has already posted various anecdotes in which people were reported to have experienced some sort of phenomenon either before or after (but never recorded during) a brain death event (such as in this threadup through this response) This path leads to a hijack and I suggest that it be dropped or opened in a separate thread.
[ /Moderating ]
I believe you have some very good points. I agree psychology is pseudo-science, and I was a psychology major in college. They only test behaviour, and each individual is unique in behaviour.
The fact that scientists tend to dismiss spiritual phenomenon out of hand is not right. But some scientists are investigating spiritual themes, especially in near death experiences. There is a growing consenses that consciousness does continue to live after the death of the body. I will leave a link to a story about such research, there are more.
You are correct in calling it a story. That’s all it is. No need for contempt, but it contains absolutely nothing in the way of evidence, much less proof, of your assertion.
I knew someone would say that. You see it’s a story about the research done by this doctor that was published in a scientific journal. It is valid. But so what else is new.
More “stories” about research. Someday these doctors will have the respect they deserve.
Your point would be much stronger if you linked to the research, rather than a story about the research. Stories prove nothing. And that story is merely about interviews.
I have already pointed out in an earlier thread the error you make with your claim:
I will try to lay this out as clearly as I can.
Consistent timeline for every reported episode:
Point A: Subject suffers trauma.
Point B: Subject enters flat-line state.
Point C: Subject exits flat-line state.
Point D: Subject regains consciousness.
Point E: Subject later describes an OBE.
We do not have any evidence that an OBE occurred between Points B and C and NOT between Points A and B or Points C and D (or even Points D and E). None. Not one. Take this nonsense to a separate thread.
Lancet publishes many anecdotes from doctors and I have no reason to question Dr. Sabom’s veracity nor do I intend to claim that he is wrong. However, you have not provided a single example of a “peer reviewed” case and your continued posting of that claim without ever bothering to provide any evidence is simply distracting to the discussion that is going on here. Disingenuously citing your own websiite to make an unsupported claim is not appropriate behavior in this Forum. Provide actual citations from peer reviewed studies from Drs. Sabom, Van Lommel, and Ring that actually describe what you claim for them, (as opposed to the timeline I outlined above), or refrain from interrupting these threads with your witnessing and stick to your own threads. Everyone else: these claims are a hijack of this thread and any further discussion of NDE/OBE matters will be removed from this thread. NDE/OBE claims are a legitimate topic to discuss, but it is not appropriate to allow this discussion to get derailed by one more tangent onto the personal beliefs of a single poster who resolutely declines to discuss the topic in an honest fashion.
Tom, we do have evidence that the OBE occurred between points B and C because the events described by the patient were events that happened between B and C. This is/was verified by the doctor present at the time it happened. If the OBE had occurred earlier then the patient would not have seen them because they wouldn’t have happened yet. If the OBE occurred between C and D the patient again would not have been able to describe the events because they were done before. And these research events would be nothing extraordinary, nothing to publish.
This thread is about science testing spiritual events which this is a part of and is not a hijack. I really don’t know why the extreme anger and hatred directed toward me. Perhaps an administrator could help here.
You have made this claim on numerous occasions without ever presenting a citation to a single instance in which it is supposed to have occurred. It has not been established in the case of Pam Reynolds. It has not been established in the cvase of the ER nurse who related her personal impressions of an event and it has never been established in any otrher venue that you have provided.
It might even be true and I really do not care what your beliefs are, but if you are going to drop that highly contestable (and never supported) contention into a thread as evidence of your position without providing the evidence, you are doing nothing but initiating a hijack by witnessing.
This research would have never seen the light of day if the evidence were not there. It was extablished in the Pam Reynolds case as with multiple others. These are not just my personal beliefs but the findings of research. The evidence is there, and witnessing is allowed. But I am not witnessing, I am presenting research by prominent doctors.
It has NOT been established in the case of Pam Reynolds (or anywhere else). Either stop posting that claim or provide a genuine citation for it from Sabom or someone else.
There is no reason to believe that the stuff that Ms. Reynolds believes she experienced could not have occurred either prior to or subsequent to her period of flat-line brain recordings.
Before you post that, again, provide the actual evidence. If you cannot do that, then you will be ruled out of line. (And I would advise you to post it in a new thread so as to not violate my injunction to take this hijack out of this thread.)
Yes, there is a timeline in this article, believing the timeline is tantamount to believing someone was reading Pam thoughts while she was lying dead on the table, completely impossible, only Pam knew what the timeline might be. This supposed timeline can’t be believed by any logical thinking person. Even after saying all this the timeline does not refute Pam’s NDE. Furthermore the surgeon performing the operation announced on national TV Pam was dead when the procedures were performed.
No. You leave us alone with your refusal to even read what I or anyone else has posted. Go back to the Wikipedia article, for example.
Timeline
Note that her “dead” period lasted no more than 25 minutes and that there is no event that is remembered by her during that period. All the claims for her death do not address the specific aspect of whether any of her memories were recorded during that 25 minute period.
To say otherwise (barring actual citations) is to ignore reality or to lie about it.
I told you Tom that timeline is false, no one could read her mind while she was out of her body and she did not validate it, I know, I asked her. I can put you in touch with her if you wish and she agrees. Tell me how someone would know the exact time she was having a certain experience while she was dead. It is a bunch of hooey. I think that is understandable to most people.
A quote from the timeline when you believe she was still conscious:
Now how could she “see” the saw behind her head without getting up and turning around, she was out of body at this time and observing the operation.
She saw the operation as well as heard it. This proves what you are saying is wrong.
While you may not be convinced that OBE’s are not real, many researchers are convinced they are real. They were convinced by the accurate accounts of the experiencers. As one who has been out of body I assure you it is very real and there are millions of examples of it on the Internet. This experience alone is enough to establish a non-local consciousness.