--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > consciousness beyond the brain - precisely; dead people with > > > subtle bodies. Likewise, Buddhas existing in varous Buddhalands > > > beyond the physical. You doubt the existence of life after > > > physical brain existence? How curious. > > > > This recent article from Salon.com reports on some of > > the latest and most conclusive evidence concerning near- > > death experiences: > > > > http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained > > I wouldn't go so far as to say it was conclusive.
Well, actually I said it was "most conclusive," by which I meant that it's the closest yet to being conclusive. For > instance, around a third of people who report meeting > relatives meet some who are still alive. Which gives it > away as an entirely subjective experience. And there > isn't much to the experience I haven't had from drugs > or meditating. The mind is capable of some weird shit. > > That said it's fascinating that these clear experiences > take place at times of serious trauma but only a very small > proportion who are near death have any sort of NDE which > has to go into the data. I suspect it's some kind of > illusion caused by the dying brain and the time correlations > are simply mistakes caused by the urgency of the situation. > > Tricky to test anything under those conditions, maybe some > people should volunteer to be killed so it could be put to a > rigorous test? If you read the Salon article, the first case related in the article fits that description. (Obviously the woman didn't expect to die permanently, but she consented to treatment that would result in clinical death for a short period.) But maybe you need to be in mortal fear to > generate enough adrenalin (or something) to mess up your > mind enough to trigger it. Except that NDE experiences tend to be very coherent: thought processes and perceptions are crystal clear, not what one would expect of a "messed up" mind. > The tennis shoe story is a good anecdote, if only the > plural of anecdote was data! Luckily it's being tested right > now (the OBE component anyway) with items being left on high > shelves in operating theatres in case a patient has an OBE. Yes, "anecdotes" that cannot be explained away are typically dismissed as "anomalous." But if you locate and document one black swan, you've disproved the premise that all swans are white. > > The final paragraphs: > > > > ----- > > The scientific NDE studies performed over the past decades indicate that > > heightened mental functions can be experienced independently of the body at > > a time when brain activity is greatly impaired or seemingly absent (such as > > during cardiac arrest). Some of these studies demonstrate that blind people > > can have veridical perceptions during OBEs associated with an NDE. Other > > investigations show that NDEs often result in deep psychological and > > spiritual changes. > > None of this proves the mind can live independent of the body. Depending on what you mean by "live." That "heightened mental functions can be experienced independently of the body" doesn't mean they continue to be experienced after the permanent death of the body. That would require a very different kind of evidence, i.e., some kind of communication between the dead person's still-existing mental functions and live human beings. > > These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that > > mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, > > such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their > > hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical > > information about objects or events remote from their bodies. > > Not yet, but it's too vast a jump to conclude life after > death from this. Yes, see my comment above. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to dismiss the evidence that mind and consciousness do not result solely from brain activity just because it doesn't prove life after death. If the evidence is strong enough to call materialism itself in doubt, that's of overwhelming importance even leaving aside the life-after-death question. > > NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness > > may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not > > accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is > > utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material > > world is the only reality. > > Terrible last paragraph, gives the game away. Well, no, the studies do *suggest* this. They just don't do anything more than suggest. Again, if the studies can successfully challenge materialism, that's a game-changer in and of itself. > All there is is the stuff of physics. If it doesn't fit in > with that, where is it? Your first sentence is the very premise that's being called in question. A better way to phrase what you're asking would be, "If the stuff of physics isn't all there is, where is the stuff that isn't physics?" That's a perfectly legitimate question, but let's see if it needs to be asked first.
