There are numerous NDE studies. They show that consciousness does survive the death of brain and body.
This link branches out into about a hundred links to studies and research on near death experiences.
If you are really interested most of it is good science that has been done at universities and published in science journals. Good Reading.
This is a debating board and the subject is near death experiences. No one cares if you believe or not. The truth is the truth, whatever you choose to believe doesn’t matter.
“Unless there is a gigantic conspiracy involving some thirty University departments all over the world, and several hundred highly respected scientists in various fields, many of them originally hostile to the claims of psychical researchers, the only conclusion the unbiased researcher can come to must be that there does exist a small number of people who obtain knowledge existing either in other people’s minds, or in the outer world, by means as yet unknown to science.”
Prof. H. J. Eysenk, Chair of the Psychology Department, University of London
I thought this was an interesting account of the subject.
I have no intention of going back to your site-I’ve had quite enough of anonymous anecdotes, woo puff piece book reviews, people having a bad dream and calling it an NDE, and You Tube speechifying, thank you very much.
Could someone who actually understands what a peer-reviewed scientific study is please provide a link to one that supports the premise of the OP?
Not so much an account of the subject, as it is a speculative essay peppered with anonymous anecdotes.
Saying, “You are misrepresenting Einstein - a common tactic of believers” is a common tactic of pseudoskeptics. They try to diminish, minimize, deny or to reject out of hand so you don’t have to address a very problematic issue. Many scientists, doctors, etc. along with some of the greats perceive things very differently than you. By your own logic and statements in this thread you are calling Einstein a fool and saying his perceptions on metaphysical/spiritual matters is, “Garbage”.
MORE EINSTEIN QUOTES ON SPIRITUALITY:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/einstein.htm
MARCELLO TRUZZI (I assume you’ve heard of this guy?)
in Reflections on the Reception of Unconventional Claims in Science
"Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal
. . . . The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers. . . .
And to the extent he actually bought into mysticism, he WAS a fool. As is anyone else who does.
Not that it matters. Like believers often do, you try to treat unbelievers as if we were like you; uncritically drinking down the pronouncements of gurus and prophets and “wise” men. So you either try to tear down or co-opt people like Einstein, under the theory that will undercut our worldview. However, I don’t base my views on Einstein, or Darwin, or Stephen Hawking, or any other person; I base it on the facts. Quote/misquote them all you want, or demonize them all you want; that doesn’t make your worldview any more plausible.
It was talking about a subject that the vast majority of mainstream scientists refuse to believe in; how could it be anything other than speculative?
By producing actual evidence.
And mainstream scientists don’t “refuse” to believe in it; it’s that they have no reason to. If you are going to make claims that violate known physical law, you need clear evidence to get a competent scientist to take you seriously.
Wouldn’t it first have to be accepted as a genuine area for research, instead of being labelled as the realm of cranks and crackpots?
No. You get labeled a “genuine area of research” by coming up with evidence. You can be a “crank” in any field.
So, evidence precedes research now, does it? How can you accumulate evidence without beginning research, may I ask?
And who but a ‘competent scientist’ would be trusted to gather said evidence? You do realise how circular that sounds, don’t you?
You don’t, nor did I say you did. You keep trying to claim that scientists ignore mysticism because they are dismissing the “field” as the domain of cranks. I’m pointing that they ignore mysticism because it IS the domain of cranks; not of people being unfairly dismissed, but who are dismissed because they can’t produce.
If they came up with scientific evidence that they are right - or at least evidence that their claims are possible - they’d be taken seriously; they haven’t, so they aren’t.
Don’t be silly; it’s not “circular”. It’s simply the obvious fact that you have to actually know what you are doing to be considered a serious professional.
But you keep saying that anyone who even considers such “mysticism” must be a “crank”. Unless a “non-crank” is prepared to investigate the subject with an open mind, how can it ever gain credence, or be dismissed entirely?
What makes you think they haven’t ?
Hey, I never said I’d read all the literature, so I’m open to persuasion. Do you have anyone in mind?
But by that rationale, if you don’t have to die, shouldn’t you have a NDE every time you lose consciousness? Every time you fall asleep could be a NDE if you don’t have to die to experience it. Otherwise, how else would your body know to produce it?