life after death, your view

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet

Yeah... hungry, achey, and a little gassy.

Man Queef?

[The Edit King]

Life after death, my view:

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Giantrobo

Man Queef?

Okay just stop that whole thing man.

[Eddie W]

I remember the quote from Night of the Living Dead, that the dead outnumber the living by a million to one. If there is an afterlife, I'll bet it's really really crowded.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

Okay just stop that whole thing man.

It happens....

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted by Giantrobo

It happens....

It certainly does... but not to me.

[jfoobar]

Originally Posted by Jason

I voted for annihilationism just because it sounds so appealing.

Ditto. That sounds like the name of a really cool WWE wrestler.

[rw2516]

Originally Posted by whoopdido

Not necessarily trying to start or continue a debate...I happen to believe in an afterlife, but that's not really the point of my post I guess.

Personally, I think people who say there's nothing after we die are too quick to say that and seem to not be bothered by it. I know everybody dies and there's nothing we can do about it, but I don't see how people can be so la-de-da about it. Not so much about actually dying but the fact that I simply can't fathom the concept of nothing. It's kind of like in the Neverending Story, when the rock dude says a hole would be something, but this was nothing. Human beings can't comprehend the concept or feeling of nothing because we haven't experienced it. We close our eyes and we see black...well at least black is something. If we die and that's it, then there's nothing. Yeah I know our brain impulses stop and we cease to exist. I've heard that, but it's more of a spiritual/mind/consciousness thing.We've lived our whole lives with a conscious and for that to just suddenly stop simply boggles my mind.

Never been unconscious, blacked out, has surgery?

Let's say you have heart surgery. They put you out. Later you come to in recovery room. But, if you had died on the operating table you'd never know it. After you died would be no different than how it felt while you were out and still alive. That's my take on it.

[Senor Javi]

Originally Posted by whoopdido

Personally, I think people who say there's nothing after we die are too quick to say that and seem to not be bothered by it.

Or maybe they spent their whole lives thinking about it, arrived at the conclusion that an afterlife is nothing more than wishful thinking, and figured there is no use wasting the only life that they've got worrying about this being the only life they've got.

I know everybody dies and there's nothing we can do about it, but I don't see how people can be so la-de-da about it.

Accepting a harsh reality as true is not being "la-de-da." Wishing something that is unproven really hard without acknowledging the massively problematic nature of the concept, however, is.

Not so much about actually dying but the fact that I simply can't fathom the concept of nothing. It's kind of like in the Neverending Story, when the rock dude says a hole would be something, but this was nothing. Human beings can't comprehend the concept or feeling of nothing because we haven't experienced it.

You not being able to fathom something has no bearing on whether it is true or not or whether other people believe it is true or not. That's the argument from personal incredulity.

I've heard that, but it's more of a spiritual/mind/consciousness thing.We've lived our whole lives with a conscious and for that to just suddenly stop simply boggles my mind.

There is no reason to believe that there is a spirit/mind/consciousness beyond the fancy electrical system that is your brain. So, throw that out the window and how does an afterlife make sense?

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by Senor Javi

There is no reason to believe that there is a spirit/mind/consciousness beyond the fancy electrical system that is your brain. So, throw that out the window and how does an afterlife make sense?

It's a religious thing, man. There isn't always a rational basis for the beliefs. Just like alien life. No proof of that and nothing to even suggest there is life elsewhere in the universe, but the belief isn't about religion, so people don't mind having that belief because there is no "consequences" to being wrong.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by rw2516

Never been unconscious, blacked out, has surgery?

Let's say you have heart surgery. They put you out. Later you come to in recovery room. But, if you had died on the operating table you'd never know it. After you died would be no different than how it felt while you were out and still alive. That's my take on it.

Actually very strange experiences of people who are 'dead' during heart surgery are run of the mill and common, well known, and reported widely. Including talking with dead relatives, all manner of experiences, and what are called 'post op hallucinations' by some. I've had long talks with a Dr friend about his experiences after his heart was stopped for surgery. He was troubled by his experiences. Some of these people tell the hospital staff what occurred during their surgery in detail, saying they watched it from above.

Surgeons who have a lot of experience with this stuff are sometimes 'converted' by their patients' experiences, some have written detailed books.

Soul-searching doctors find life after death

By Jonathan Petre
Published: 12:00AM BST 22 Oct 2000

THE first scientific study of "near-death" experiences has found new evidence to suggest that consciousness or the "soul" can continue to exist after the brain has ceased to function.

The findings by two eminent doctors, based on a year-long study of heart attack survivors, could provoke fresh controversy over that most profound of questions: is there life after death?

Related Articles

Reports of "near-death" experiences, in which people close to death have vivid encounters with bright lights and heavenly beings, date back centuries, but the phenomenon has been treated with scepticism by most academics.

The new study concludes, however, that a number of people have almost certainly had these experiences after they were pronounced clinically dead. This would suggest that the mind or consciousness can survive the death of the brain - a conclusion that was hailed by clerics last night as supporting religious faith.

Bishop Stephen Sykes, the professor of theology at Durham University and chairman of the Church of England's Doctrine Commission, said the findings were "absolutely fascinating". He added: "I do not find them surprising, however, as I believe life is much more mysterious than we usually think it is. For theologians, the soul is far more than consciousness or the mind. But these findings challenge the crude idea that when a person's brain dies, that, as far as the person's existence is concerned, is that."

The Bishop of Basingstoke, the Rt Rev Geoffrey Rowell, another commission member, said: "These near-death experiences counter the materialist view that we are nothing more than computers made of meat."

Based on interviews with survivors of heart attacks at Southampton General Hospital's cardiac unit, the new study is to be published in the respected medical journal Resuscitation next year.

The study's authors, Dr Peter Fenwick, a consultant neuropsychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Dr Sam Parnia, a clinical research fellow and registrar at Southampton hospital, stress that more research is needed.

Dr Parnia said: "These people were having these experiences when we wouldn't expect them to happen, when the brain shouldn't be able to sustain lucid processes or allow them to form memories that would last. So it might hold an answer to the question of whether mind or consciousness is actually produced by the brain or whether the brain is a kind of intermediary for the mind, which exists independently."

Dr Fenwick said: "If the mind and brain can be independent, then that raises questions about the continuation of consciousness after death. It also raises the question about a spiritual component to humans and about a meaningful universe with a purpose rather than a random universe."

During the study period, 63 cardiac arrest patients survived and were interviewed within a week. Of those, 56 had no recollection of their period of unconsciousness, a result that might have been expected in all cases.

Seven survivors, however, had memories, although only four passed the Grayson scale, the strict medical criteria for assessing near-death experiences.

These four recounted feelings of peace and joy, time speeded up, heightened senses, lost awareness of body, seeing a bright light, entering another world, encountering a mystical being and coming to a "point of no return". Three of them described themselves as non-practising Anglicans while the fourth was a lapsed Roman Catholic.

By examining medical records, the researchers said the contention of many critics that near-death experiences were the result of a collapse of brain functions caused by lack of oxygen were highly unlikely. None of those who underwent the experiences had low levels of oxygen.

Researchers were also able to rule out claims that unusual combinations of drugs were to blame because the resuscitation procedure in the hospital unit was the same in every case.

Dr Parnia, who was trained at the Guys and St Thomas' medical school, University of London, said: "I started off as a sceptic but, having weighed up all the evidence, I now think that there is something going on. Essentially, it comes back to the question of whether the mind or consciousness is produced from the brain. If we can prove that the mind is produced by the brain, I don't think there is anything after we die because essentially we are conscious beings.

"If, on the contrary, the brain is like an intermediary which manifests the mind, like a television will act as an intermediary to manifest waves in the air into a picture or a sound, we can show that the mind is still there after the brain is dead. And that is what I think these near-death experiences indicate."

Christopher French, a reader in psychology at Goldsmiths College, University of London, said he had not seen the new study but remained sceptical. "Near-death experiences could be pointing towards the soul or the mind leaving the body, but they could just be the brain trying to make sense of what is a very unusual event," he said.

I remember one surgeon recalling a story about a man who was dead on the operating table, you know dead with monitors hooked up that rather made it a medical thing and not some person telling a story about ''one time out in the woods or the like. The dead patient cried out "save me" in the operating room. They managed to start his heart again after a period of time they thought would insure brain damage, and he came back with a story of descending into a fiery place he was sure was hell where dead relatives were telling him "don't come here!!". The patient and the doctor converted to Christianity after that. I wish I could remember the documentary I saw that on. It wasn't some History channel nonsense, just a doc on what people have reported and the medical situation where they knew people had died.

[Senor Javi]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

It's a religious thing, man. There isn't always a rational basis for the beliefs. Just like alien life. No proof of that and nothing to even suggest there is life elsewhere in the universe, but the belief isn't about religion, so people don't mind having that belief because there is no "consequences" to being wrong.

I understand it is a religious thing, but I figure if you belief in something, you believe in something for a reason. I would really disagree with the bit about alien life though. No one can say that there is alien life, but it is relatively easy to say that there is likely alien life. You would have to travel at 671 million mile per hour for 13.73 billion years to move across the known universe. It's likely there is at least one little strain of bacteria hanging around somewhere outside of Earth just through the sheer numbers. So, it is much easier to say that there is likely something that is very probable then it is to suspend all of science for something that might not even make sense when viewed through its religious context.

[Senor Javi]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

Actually very strange experiences of people who are 'dead' during heart surgery are run of the mill and common, well known, and reported widely. Including talking with dead relatives, all manner of experiences, and what are called 'post op hallucinations' by some. I've had long talks with a Dr friend about his experiences after his heart was stopped for surgery. He was troubled by his experiences. Some of these people tell the hospital staff what occurred during their surgery in detail, saying they watched it from above.

Surgeons who have a lot of experience with this stuff are sometimes 'converted' by their patients' experiences, some have written detailed books.

I remember one surgeon recalling a story about a man who was dead on the operating table, you know dead with monitors hooked up that rather made it a medical thing and not some person telling a story about ''one time out in the woods or the like. The dead patient cried out "save me" in the operating room. They managed to start his heart again after a period of time they thought would insure brain damage, and he came back with a story of descending into a fiery place he was sure was hell where dead relatives were telling him "don't come here!!". The patient and the doctor converted to Christianity after that. I wish I could remember the documentary I saw that on. It wasn't some History channel nonsense, just a doc on what people have reported and the medical situation where they knew people had died.

Crackpots and anecdotes are worthless. You will always find the "I was skeptical until I saw it for myself" scientists and bizarre hallucination/delusion/"experience" for every paranormal b.s. meme around. Surely, you aren't suggesting they are all real.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by Senor Javi

I understand it is a religious thing, but I figure if you belief in something, you believe in something for a reason. I would really disagree with the bit about alien life though. No one can say that there is alien life, but it is relatively easy to say that there is likely alien life. You would have to travel at 671 million mile per hour for 13.73 billion years to move across the known universe. It's likely there is at least one little strain of bacteria hanging around somewhere outside of Earth just through the sheer numbers. So, it is much easier to say that there is likely something that is very probable then it is to suspend all of science for something that might not even make sense when viewed through its religious context.

The numbers argument doesn't hold up when you only have one example of life. It is like saying that because there are so many people on the earth, there just has to be another kvrdave, Patrick Swayze, etc. Some things are unique to the universe, and there is no evidence or good reason to believe in life elsewhere. The idea that there has to be because the universe is so enormous is just silly. It is like saying that because pi is so enormous there must be a pattern in there somewhere.

And people that believe in an afterlife do believe it for a reason, it just isn't a reason you would accept (most likely), which is no different that the fact that people can believe in alien life for a reason, but they aren't reasons I accept.....because they are crap.

But religious talk (like any life/death topic) evokes a lot of emotion. Alien life doesn't. It just evokes a lot of nutjobs.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Senor Javi

Crackpots and anecdotes are worthless. You will always find the "I was skeptical until I saw it for myself" scientists and bizarre hallucination/delusion/"experience" for every paranormal b.s. meme around. Surely, you aren't suggesting they are all real.

"The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." - H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Papers have been written in medical journals, studies done, statistics of the incidents studied, etc for decades now. Doctors tell patients about these experiences, and to possibly expect them, before surgeries at hospitals all over the world. I wasn't discussing anything like anecdotal incidents or the like, just how common and well known these things are in the medical community and how widely reported they are.

They don't happen all the time to every patient, but this stuff had been studied for years.

"Crackpots and anecdotes"... come on.

Did you even read the one article I posted? Which one of those docs was the "crackpot"?

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

The numbers argument doesn't hold up when you only have one example of life. It is like saying that because there are so many people on the earth, there just has to be another kvrdave, Patrick Swayze, etc. Some things are unique to the universe, and there is no evidence or good reason to believe in life elsewhere. The idea that there has to be because the universe is so enormous is just silly. It is like saying that because pi is so enormous there must be a pattern in there somewhere.

And people that believe in an afterlife do believe it for a reason, it just isn't a reason you would accept (most likely), which is no different that the fact that people can believe in alien life for a reason, but they aren't reasons I accept.....because they are crap.

But religious talk (like any life/death topic) evokes a lot of emotion. Alien life doesn't. It just evokes a lot of nutjobs.

The afterlife and aliens all wrapped up in one post.

[Senor Javi]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

The numbers argument doesn't hold up when you only have one example of life. It is like saying that because there are so many people on the earth, there just has to be another kvrdave, Patrick Swayze, etc.

No, not at all. Specific people are unique, no question, but the idea of life isn't. So bunny rabbits, fungus, viruses all different forms of life with life not referring to one specific form. I'm not saying there is or needs to be life identical to ours somewhere else, I'm saying it is likely there is something that we can consider life regardless to how similar it is to us (carbon-based optional).

Some things are unique to the universe, and there is no evidence or good reason to believe in life elsewhere. The idea that there has to be because the universe is so enormous is just silly. It is like saying that because pi is so enormous there must be a pattern in there somewhere.

Again, no, not at all. Again, I'm not saying there is alien life, I'm saying it is a likely possibility. There is no evidence, but probability in a complex system is a good reason. Just consider the size of the universe. Also, I made a mistake, the age of the universe is 13.73 billion years, the distance is 93 billion. Even more mind-boggling. It would be much more incredible the there is only a single, incredibly tiny rock where there is life than it would be to happen at least twice during the course of 13.73 billion years and a distance of 93 billion light years. To not see the logic in that is...short-sighted. Also, pi doesn't work here as a retort. The universe is a complex system, pi is not. The complex system has an infinite number of characteristics and possibilities. Pi is just one long number.

And people that believe in an afterlife do believe it for a reason, it just isn't a reason you would accept (most likely), which is no different that the fact that people can believe in alien life for a reason, but they aren't reasons I accept.....because they are crap.

I just wish someone would give their justification. They say they believe because they just do or because they are religious. Well, why? Why are you religious? Why do you believe this one part of your religion, but not another part of it? If you are a "buffet" (choose what you like) religious person, why? Also, the alien thing, really doesn't make for a good equal. The afterlife is by its very nature unprovable/unfalsifiable, not born from logic, and based entirely on what could potentially be based on the raving of mad men. The idea of alien life can potentially be proven, falsified (admittedly, this would be nigh impossible to do), is based on the logic of probability (within a complex system), and doesn't require throwing out science. I don't like this example though, primary because I don't care about it and because even if the universe was buzzing with alien life (relatively speaking) we aren't likely to see any in our lifetime. I'd use homeopathy as an analogy. It requires lots of wackiness and there's plenty of testimonials.

But religious talk (like any life/death topic) evokes a lot of emotion. Alien life doesn't. It just evokes a lot of nutjobs.

UFO chasers and anal probes storytellers, yeah, but if we're talking using the incredibly broad strokes I'm using, I think the consensus among scientists (as in, not individual quacks) is that alien life is totally unproven, not likely to be proven in our life times, but probable in some form, somewhere, at some time. Hell, some people even think DNA and RNA based creatures were two totally different forms of life that merged somehow which is why mitochondria are so funky. I couldn't care less though.

[Senor Javi]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

"The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." - H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

So, the solution is to except everything uncritically? No standards at all? Good thing too. That might challenge my belief in magic, alchemy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Eh, who knows, I guess I should have just used a pithy saying from a quote whore that doesn't really stand up.

Papers have been written in medical journals, studies done, statistics of the incidents studied, etc for decades now.

Where? Science? Nature? Don't think so. The International Journal of Yoga doesn't count as I've seen someone used before for a non-Yoga related matter.

Doctors tell patients about these experiences, and to possibly expect them, before surgeries at hospitals all over the world.

That what? They're hallucinate or that they'll get dragged down to hell for a second where they'll see decreased family trying to talk to them? I have a feeling it isn't the latter.

I wasn't discussing anything like anecdotal incidents or the like, just how common and well known these things are in the medical community and how widely reported they are.

"These things" are anecdotes.

They don't happen all the time to every patient, but this stuff had been studied for years.

OK. So? Go see There Men Who Stared at Goats. Paranormal activity studied for years by the U.S. government. Does that give it any sort of credibility? How do you know if something isn't real if you don't study it?

Did you even read the one article I posted? Which one of those docs was the "crackpot"?

The ones with the religious titles in front of their names.

[KillerCannibal]

Once this sack of flesh and bones ceases to function, that's it, folks!

[arminius]

My view? I believe I will be looking down.

[emptysky]

Originally Posted by whoopdido

Personally, I think people who say there's nothing after we die are too quick to say that and seem to not be bothered by it. I know everybody dies and there's nothing we can do about it, but I don't see how people can be so la-de-da about it.

I think there's nothing after we die... it does bother me and I wish there was something more, but I don't think there is. It would make me happy to think that my grandparents were somewhere in the sky looking down to see my daughter who was born after they died, but I don't believe they are. It's not la-de-da, in fact it makes me pretty sad... but I can wish all day, it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by whoopdido

If we die and that's it, then there's nothing. Yeah I know our brain impulses stop and we cease to exist. I've heard that, but it's more of a spiritual/mind/consciousness thing.We've lived our whole lives with a conscious and for that to just suddenly stop simply boggles my mind.

There was no "you" conscious before you were born either, yet now you're here... you can accept that this conscious can start from nothing, but not that it can stop and go back into nothing?

[statcat]

my view - nobody knows so I won't even speculate

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by Senor Javi

No, not at all. Specific people are unique, no question, but the idea of life isn't. So bunny rabbits, fungus, viruses all different forms of life with life not referring to one specific form. I'm not saying there is or needs to be life identical to ours somewhere else, I'm saying it is likely there is something that we can consider life regardless to how similar it is to us (carbon-based optional).

That doesn't work either. Life is diverse and abundant on one single orb that we know of. Don't look at it as specific people or specific life, but as specific location, the earth. You are saying there is likely to be something for which there is absolutely no data to suggest that there is because it is only known to exist in one place. My main point is not about alien life, but about how these discussions are emotional specifically because they deal with religious ideas. If were were having the same conversation about alien life, it is unlikely people would get bent out of shape and be as rude and nasty as they tend to be.

Again, no, not at all. Again, I'm not saying there is alien life, I'm saying it is a likely possibility. There is no evidence, but probability in a complex system is a good reason. Just consider the size of the universe. Also, I made a mistake, the age of the universe is 13.73 billion years, the distance is 93 billion. Even more mind-boggling. It would be much more incredible the there is only a single, incredibly tiny rock where there is life than it would be to happen at least twice during the course of 13.73 billion years and a distance of 93 billion light years. To not see the logic in that is...short-sighted. Also, pi doesn't work here as a retort. The universe is a complex system, pi is not. The complex system has an infinite number of characteristics and possibilities. Pi is just one long number.

probability in a complex system in this does not make it more feasible. I took stats in grad school. We are still dealing with an N of 1. That is not a basis for being able to conclude anything because there isn't enough data for life. I understand how large the universe is, but I also understand that we are becoming more aware of what is required for life and most of the universe is a non starter. Even if that still leaves lots of space for life, we still have a population sample of 1, and drawing a conclusion (or even a inkling) based on that is dubious. And it isn't short sighted if you understand the requirements for life. If you don't it will seem short sighted because you can hold a belief that life just happens so it must be likely, but that is a position from ignorance.

As for Pi, no analogy is perfect, and they all have their flaws, but I think it is a good analogy. Making the system more complex does not give way for more life. If you think it does, please articulate why without using the earth as an example.

I just wish someone would give their justification. They say they believe because they just do or because they are religious. Well, why? Why are you religious? Why do you believe this one part of your religion, but not another part of it? If you are a "buffet" (choose what you like) religious person, why? Also, the alien thing, really doesn't make for a good equal. The afterlife is by its very nature unprovable/unfalsifiable, not born from logic, and based entirely on what could potentially be based on the raving of mad men. The idea of alien life can potentially be proven, falsified (admittedly, this would be nigh impossible to do), is based on the logic of probability (within a complex system), and doesn't require throwing out science. I don't like this example though, primary because I don't care about it and because even if the universe was buzzing with alien life (relatively speaking) we aren't likely to see any in our lifetime. I'd use homeopathy as an analogy. It requires lots of wackiness and there's plenty of testimonials.

I don't get the buffet style religiousness myself. But I also wouldn't say that religious belief has no logic or reason behind it. To many very smart people have come to the idea of a "creator" to have just stumbled upon the belief without reason and logic.

UFO chasers and anal probes storytellers, yeah, but if we're talking using the incredibly broad strokes I'm using, I think the consensus among scientists (as in, not individual quacks) is that alien life is totally unproven, not likely to be proven in our life times, but probable in some form, somewhere, at some time. Hell, some people even think DNA and RNA based creatures were two totally different forms of life that merged somehow which is why mitochondria are so funky. I couldn't care less though.

Those scientists tend to be in fields that you wouldn't get into if you didn't believe in the possibility of alien life, so that isn't surprising. Plus, they tend to be sci-fi nerds (of which I am one) and they want to believe it. Hell, I want to believe it, but I recognize that logically I can't support the idea based on anything other than what I want.

And RNA life falls out of favor every few years only to re-emerge when other road blocks are stopping the current flavor-of-the-month theory. It is like Panspermia in that regard.

But that is my point. You couldn't care less. Because it doesn't affect your life. Nobody gets into screaming matches because of this. But make it about something semi-religious and people forget to be decent, on both sides. Generally condescending.

But I also don't care anymore about this subject, so back to USC vs UO

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by whoopdido

Not necessarily trying to start or continue a debate...I happen to believe in an afterlife, but that's not really the point of my post I guess.

Personally, I think people who say there's nothing after we die are too quick to say that and seem to not be bothered by it. I know everybody dies and there's nothing we can do about it, but I don't see how people can be so la-de-da about it. Not so much about actually dying but the fact that I simply can't fathom the concept of nothing. It's kind of like in the Neverending Story, when the rock dude says a hole would be something, but this was nothing. Human beings can't comprehend the concept or feeling of nothing because we haven't experienced it. We close our eyes and we see black...well at least black is something. If we die and that's it, then there's nothing. Yeah I know our brain impulses stop and we cease to exist. I've heard that, but it's more of a spiritual/mind/consciousness thing.We've lived our whole lives with a conscious and for that to just suddenly stop simply boggles my mind.

Well, I understand what you're saying.

I know many people who think life would be totally pointless if there was no afterlife - I strongly disagree. To me, if there is no afterlife, then that makes life itself much, much more precious.

I know movielib has quotes from atheists, but quotes from Robert G. Ingersoll really has had made me really think about hell and it's convinced me to believe hell simply is a twisted fantasy of man.

[Anubis2005X]

I'm rather surprised that so many here don't believe in any afterlife at all. Is it that you don't believe it's at all possible, or just that you don't know?