Leaving thursday.

[RainAndSadness]

No, as I posted before Pam Reynold's brain was drained of all blood and cooled to 60 degrees. She had no heartbeat, was not breathing, had no brain wave activity, and had her eyes and ears fully covered. During this time, she accurately said what happened in her surgery during this time. Her consciousnesses never ceased throughout the hour that she was dead. This contradicts the theory that NDEs are merely hallucinations of the dying brain.

Already debunked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case#Reception

If you gave science at least a chance to explain these experiences. But you don't even listen!

 

[Deleted member 847]

Cultural differences could be explained by the fact that their consciousness creates what they experience, because the after life is an environment highly responsive to subconscious thoughts. Tom Campbell and Robert Monroe explain this pretty well.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Cultural differences could be explained by the fact that their consciousness creates what they experience, because the after life is an environment highly responsive to subconscious thoughts.

...or maybe they experience what their cultural surroundings tell them to experience. A much simpler explanation. Just reduce your sentence to: "their consciousness creates what they experience" and we're d'accord. For example: dreams are heavily influenced by your subconsciousness, right? Why would it be any different for NDE?

You also have to take into consideration that only a minority of people that come close to death experience NDE. Why aren't we talking about the majority of people that were about to die and didn't experience anything. Doesn't this hint that NDE only occur under very specific medical circumstances? Like, there are so many scientific explanations out there that debunk NDE as prove for an afterlife, why aren't we looking at that?

 

[shattered dreams]

Already debunked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case#Reception

If you gave science at least a chance to explain these experiences. But you don't even listen!

Two people who were not even there. I prefer to listen to her own neurosurgeon regarding the experience. Take note he follows a scientific approach and concludes that science cannot explain what happened to her. I will have to say what I have always said. NONE of us knows for sure what happens after death. You either believe in an afterlife or not. I choose to believe and you choose not to . No harm in that.

"Pam's NDE case is remarkable for a number of important reasons. Firstly the observations she made about what the doctors were doing during the operation are completely accurate and were later confirmed by the surgical team. Dr Spetzler has stated that her description of the bone saw and accessory box is entirely appropriate. " I might describe the saw as an electric toothbrush myself", he says.

And secondly throughout the operation Pam's brain functions were closely monitored. During the period of the operation when her heart was stopped and blood was drained from her body all electrical activity in the brain had ceased. The readings from her cortex and brain stem were completely dead. And yet during this period she is able to accurately describe the environment in the operating room. Skeptics claim that Pam's NDE was the result of a hallucination but Dr Spetzler knows this cannot be correct. " Hallucination is not the explanation," he states. "Because hallucination requires metabolic activity. Hallucination is a brain function. It may not function normally, it may give you aberrations that you normally wouldn't have, but it's still very much of a function of an active brain."

When asked how it was possible for Pam to accurately describe her environment whilst in a state of clinical death Dr Spetzler has no answer. " I don't have an explanation. I believe that Pam recalled things that were remarkably accurate. I do not understand from a physiological perspective how that could possibly have happened. So, I would say it's one of those things that I can't explain. I hope not to be arrogant enough to say it can't happen, but from a scientific perspective, there is no acceptable explanation to me."

As a scientist Dr Spetzler is cautious in his interpretation of the data in Pam's case. Yet he is clear that in this instance the usual skeptical argument that the NDE was a hallucination is completely wrong. And if this is so then what are the alternatives? For many researchers the only explanation is that mind and brain are different. That in some extraordinary way consciousness can exist independently of the physical body and brain. And that because of this consciousness can continue after death.

The Pam Reynolds NDE case offers us the best evidence to date that NDEs may indeed be a vivid glimpse into the afterlife.

http://www.timcolemanmedia.com/index.php/articles/life-after-death/71-pam-reynolds

 

[Deleted member 847]

...or maybe they experience what their cultural surroundings tell them to experience. A much simpler explanation. Just reduce your sentence to: "their consciousness creates what they experience" and we're d'accord. For example: dreams are heavily influenced by your subconsciousness, right? Why would it be any different for NDE?

You also have to take into consideration that only a minority of people that come close to death experience NDE. Why aren't we talking about the majority of people that were about to die and didn't experience anything. Doesn't this hint that NDE only occur under very specific medical circumstances? Like, there are so many scientific explanations out there that debunk NDE as prove for an afterlife, why aren't we looking at that?

I don't believe that dreams are created by the brain either. You don't answer my main question, because it's basically a checkmate. I'm out of this debate.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Two people who were not even there. I prefer to listen to her own neurosurgeon regarding the experience. Take note he follows a scientific approach and concludes that science cannot explain what happened to her. I will have to say what I have always said. NONE of us knows for sure what happens after death. You either believe in an afterlife or not. I choose to believe and you choose not to . No harm in that.

"Pam's NDE case is remarkable for a number of important reasons. Firstly the observations she made about what the doctors were doing during the operation are completely accurate and were later confirmed by the surgical team. Dr Spetzler has stated that her description of the bone saw and accessory box is entirely appropriate. " I might describe the saw as an electric toothbrush myself", he says.

And secondly throughout the operation Pam's brain functions were closely monitored. During the period of the operation when her heart was stopped and blood was drained from her body all electrical activity in the brain had ceased. The readings from her cortex and brain stem were completely dead. And yet during this period she is able to accurately describe the environment in the operating room. Skeptics claim that Pam's NDE was the result of a hallucination but Dr Spetzler knows this cannot be correct. " Hallucination is not the explanation," he states. "Because hallucination requires metabolic activity. Hallucination is a brain function. It may not function normally, it may give you aberrations that you normally wouldn't have, but it's still very much of a function of an active brain."

When asked how it was possible for Pam to accurately describe her environment whilst in a state of clinical death Dr Spetzler has no answer. " I don't have an explanation. I believe that Pam recalled things that were remarkably accurate. I do not understand from a physiological perspective how that could possibly have happened. So, I would say it's one of those things that I can't explain. I hope not to be arrogant enough to say it can't happen, but from a scientific perspective, there is no acceptable explanation to me."

As a scientist Dr Spetzler is cautious in his interpretation of the data in Pam's case. Yet he is clear that in this instance the usual skeptical argument that the NDE was a hallucination is completely wrong. And if this is so then what are the alternatives? For many researchers the only explanation is that mind and brain are different. That in some extraordinary way consciousness can exist independently of the physical body and brain. And that because of this consciousness can continue after death.

The Pam Reynolds NDE case offers us the best evidence to date that NDEs may indeed be a vivid glimpse into the afterlife.

http://www.timcolemanmedia.com/index.php/articles/life-after-death/71-pam-reynolds

Did you even read the source? You can describe me all the medical details, it doesn't respond to the scientific conclusion. I quote:

"[He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations.

The scientific term for her experience is called "anesthesia awareness" and that's not a new phenomena.
I think it debunked her case very precisely.

I don't believe that dreams are created by the brain either. You don't answer my main question, because it's basically a checkmate. I'm out of this debate.

Okay, that's your mentality. You see discussions as an intellectual fight and you need to win. Okay brother. You just exposed yourself as the close-minded person you are. "Checkmate" huh. As I mentioned before, all your experiences are already explained by science but because you can't address that, you have to resort to pigeon chess. Wow.

 

[Volatile]

So ALL the patients are lying? ALL the doctors and scientists that study this phenomena?

Are they biased in favor of there being an afterlife? If so, that invalidates their findings.

 

[shattered dreams]

Did you even read the source? You can describe me all the medical details, it doesn't respond to the scientific conclusion. I quote:

"[He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations.

The scientific term for her experience is called "anesthesia awareness" and that's not a new phenomena.

Here is a source to his full explanation to her case
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461722/m1/1/
I think it debunked her case very precisely.

That is his OPINION on what happened. Again, another skeptic who was not there conflicting with the accounts of the people who were operating on her. Jeez, this is from your own link that you posted above. I see no point in arguing anymore on this subject so I am done with discussing this issue. If you want to discuss anything other than the afterlife in the future, that will be ok.

"Furthermore, parts of the experience would seem to have occurred when no brain activity whatsoever was possible. Despite testimony to the contrary by the medical personnel involved, Gerald Woerlee has attempted to explain Reynold's experience as a result of auditory impressions combined with an anesthesia-induced fantasy. I argue here that Woerlee's attempted explanation is simply unsupported by the documented facts of the case. I also invite Woerlee to accompany me to the Barrow Neurological Institute to participate in an empirical test under the exact auditory conditions Reynolds experienced."

 

[Volatile]

I don't believe that dreams are created by the brain either. You don't answer my main question, because it's basically a checkmate. I'm out of this debate.

Brain activity indicates dreams

 

[Deleted member 847]

Brain activity indicates dreams

Brain activity indicates brain activity.

 

[RainAndSadness]

That is his OPINION on what happened. Again, another skeptic who was not there conflicting with the accounts of the people who were operating on her. Jeez, this is from your own link that you posted above. I see no point in arguing anymore on this subject so I am done with discussing this issue. If you want to discuss anything other than the afterlife in the future, that will be ok.

"Furthermore, parts of the experience would seem to have occurred when no brain activity whatsoever was possible. Despite testimony to the contrary by the medical personnel involved, Gerald Woerlee has attempted to explain Reynold's experience as a result of auditory impressions combined with an anesthesia-induced fantasy. I argue here that Woerlee's attempted explanation is simply unsupported by the documented facts of the case. I also invite Woerlee to accompany me to the Barrow Neurological Institute to participate in an empirical test under the exact auditory conditions Reynolds experienced."

I've meant to post this article: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461684/m1/19/ It's from the same university. The link I accidentally posted makes some horrific claims and tries to argue that telepathy or clairvoyance is a legit thing, on page 9 to be accurate. That's nothing else than parascience at this point and this doesn't belong to this discussion. I'm trying to solve this case with natural science, not with pseudo-science. In case you're interested to Gerald Woerlees response though, here is the link to his article: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461715/

The person that wrote the article you're referring to doesn't have an academic background in natural sciences. It's this person, apparently, he has a strong fascination with the afterlife and other paranormal phenomena: https://www.amazon.com/default/e/B003M3FR5K/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1?redirectedFromKindleDbs=true
As I said, it's not a credible source for scientific discussions. Please read the other 2 article to get an insight on the scientific explanation and natural possibilities in this case. There is no need to jump to paranormal speculation.

Anyway, we're kinda drowning in a lot of scientific papers now. My point is: you presenting this case as scientific evidence is just dishonest. It's not evidence. And the fact that all her experiences can be explained in a scientific way makes it very clear to me. Why aren't you accepting them?

 

[Ready2goGermany]

I wish you all the best and hope to follow you in the next few days

 

[Tiredman]

Holy moly lol. I'd just like to say that my personal truth is that there's just too many weird coincidences and occurances for me to totally dismiss everything paranormal. In my opinion it can't ALL be fake or people lying. There also seems to be an agenda behind mainstream science to dismiss these claims before any research is even conducted. Sure skeptics often say because there's no point in investigating something that doesnt have a scientific explanation but that's because they're often unwilling to accept any unfavorable form of evidence. In that way they are just as dogmatic in their way of thinking as the non-skeptics.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Holy moly lol. I'd just like to say that my personal truth is that there's just too many weird coincidences and occurances for me to totally dismiss everything paranormal. In my opinion it can't ALL be fake or people lying. There also seems to be an agenda behind mainstream science to dismiss these claims before any research is even conducted. Sure skeptics often say because there's no point in investigating something that doesnt have a scientific explanation but that's because they're often unwilling to accept any unfavorable form of evidence. In that way they are just as dogmatic in their way of thinking as the non-skeptics.

Exactly. Also the video I sent you above it's a real and genuine scientific experiment that proves that at least in some people the mind can separate from the body. And there was another one with a girl that read a 5 digit code number, you can find it on google. These are not anecdotes anymore, it's evidence.

 

[I want to end it]

Good luck with your ctb. I messaged you but if you don't respond before you ctb, I wish you peace.

 

[Deleted member 847]

Yeah good luck tiredman, when you leave your body remember to do not agree to reincarnate or you'll get back here with amnesia. There are better worlds to live in.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Holy moly lol. I'd just like to say that my personal truth is that there's just too many weird coincidences and occurances for me to totally dismiss everything paranormal. In my opinion it can't ALL be fake or people lying.

You're comitting a logical fallacy though. Very similiar to this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Simply because we don't know anything, that doesn't mean the right answer are paranormal or supernatural explanations. If we don't know something or we don't have a scientific explanation for something right away, that simply means we have no scientific explanation for now. Does it mean it will stay like that forever? Maybe. Probably not. But simply filling all open questions and mysteries in science - also regarding the afterlife - with a paranormal or supernatural explanation is logically flawed. I think that's very important to point out.

We didn't know the universe was around 14.6 billion years old over 100 years ago. Now we know the universe is expanding, galaxies are shifting away from each other. If we revert hat movement, it all leads to one central point in the universe. That's one of the reasons why we know about the big bang. Another hint that the big bang occurred is the cosmic microwave background, it's basically the leftover "heat" from the big bang. Did we think we could solve that question 100 years ago? I don't think so. We know it now. But we can't look behind the big bang. We don't know what happened before because we can't look past that time. We can't "pass" it, the same way we can't pass death and see what's on the other side. We also have no clue what's "behind" the observable universe. Does it mean we should resort to vague speculation? No, I don't think so. Some questions simply never may find an answer.

There also seems to be an agenda behind mainstream science to dismiss these claims before any research is even conducted. Sure skeptics often say because there's no point in investigating something that doesnt have a scientific explanation but that's because they're often unwilling to accept any unfavorable form of evidence. In that way they are just as dogmatic in their way of thinking as the non-skeptics.

The same way the mainstream science has an agenda in spreading the lie about climate change? Science has no agenda. There is something called the scientific method, which prevents that from happening. And if a majority of scientists agree on something, if the evidence confirms a certain idea, it means we can pretty much count on it.

 

[Lisa]

Im 90% sure my N got seized. I'll use my back up (hanging/dehydration) and ctb on Thursday so I won't be posting after that. Thanks everyone for being there for me in my final days when no one else would understand.

My young friend

May all goodness be with you wherever you are

 

[Tiredman]

My young friend

May all goodness be with you wherever you are

Still kicking around this plane of existence until sometime tomorrow but thank you Lisa, I appreciate your way of thinking and the discussions we had :)

 

[Lisa]

Still kicking around this plane of existence until sometime tomorrow but thank you Lisa, I appreciate your way of thinking and the discussions we had :)

Thank You Tiredman

I appreciate our talks too I'll miss you

Glad you're still around

 

[PhilistineEars]

Im 90% sure my N got seized. I'll use my back up (hanging/dehydration) and ctb on Thursday so I won't be posting after that. Thanks everyone for being there for me in my final days when no one else would understand.

Which country are you in? Just curious.

 

[Tiredman]

You're comitting a logical fallacy though. Very similiar to this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Simply because we don't know anything, that doesn't mean the right answer are paranormal or supernatural explanations. If we don't know something or we don't have a scientific explanation for something right away, that simply means we have no scientific explanation for now. Does it mean it will stay like that forever? Maybe. Probably not. But simply filling all open questions and mysteries in science - also regarding the afterlife - with a paranormal or supernatural explanation is logically flawed. I think that's very important to point that out

It's your personal truth to believe that we live in a purely physical reality and I admit it's perfectly logical to believe so. However it's my personal truth that metaphysical things are also possible. I don't claim that everything we don't yet understand is the will of a god, I'm just saying that it appears to me personally it would be statistically improbable to suggest that the millions of reports of Nde, ghosts, reincarnation and other related phenomenon are all scientific write-offs.

You're comitting a logical fallacy though. Very similiar to this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

We didn't know the universe was around 14.6 billion years old over 100 years ago. Now we know the universe is expanding, galaxies are shifting away from each other. If we revert hat movement, it all leads to one central point in the universe. That's one of the reasons why we know about the big bang. Another hint that the big bang occurred is the cosmic microwave background, it's basically the leftover "heat" from the big bang. Did we think we could solve that question 100 years ago? I don't think so. We know it now. But we can't look behind the big bang. We don't know what happened before because we can't look past that time. We can't "pass" it, the same way we can't pass death and see what's on the other side. We also have no clue what's "behind" the observable universe. Does it mean we should resort to vague speculation? No, I don't think so. Some questions simply never may find an answer.

I don't doubt the big bang happened but By this kind of logic what if a type of "afterlife" (whatever that may be) was scientifically proven in 100 years? There's no way to know but its my personal belief that theres something more.

The same way the mainstream science has an agenda in spreading the lie about climate change? Science has no agenda. There is something called the scientific method, which prevents that from happening. And if a majority of scientists agree on something, if the evidence confirms a certain idea, it means we can pretty much count on it.

Well I don't doubt climate change however I do want to point out that people like Al Gore, and David Suzuki sure made huge profits from exaggerating the severity of what we now call climate change. Not to mention the amount of financial donations made to more eco-conscious liberal leadership in the western democracies by oil producing nations like the Saudis. Large institutions certainly can sway scientific developement by not providing grants to certain things.

 

[Tiredman]

Which country are you in? Just curious.

Canada

 

[RainAndSadness]

It's your personal truth to believe that we live in a purely physical reality and I admit it's perfectly logical to believe so. However it's my personal truth that metaphysical things are also possible. I don't claim that everything we don't yet understand is the will of a god, I'm just saying that it appears to me personally it would be statistically improbable to suggest that the millions of reports of Nde, ghosts, reincarnation and other related phenomenon are all scientific write-offs.

I think we have a different understanding of truth in this case. I'm just going with empirical evidence, that's it. And there is none for all of these subjects. I think someone posted this video somewhere in this forum, I'm simply gonna repost it:



Because what he explains is exactly the stance of natural science. And as I explained before, even the craziest NDE and OBE can be explained scientifically. I have a question though: since we all evolved from some primitive species millions of years ago, and we're all connected to some way or another... do animals also have an afterlife? I mean, we're nothing else than very developed and evolved apes. What makes us different from others? If we have an afterlife, does a dog have one? Do fish have one? What about insects? What about microscopic organisms? I mean, we're all beings. We all started from the same point. What makes us different? And why? Just because we have better cognitive and intellectual abilities? If you think about the world, how it functions and why we're even here in the first place: do you think there is room for an afterlife?

Well I don't doubt climate change however I do want to point out that people like Al Gore, and David Suzuki sure made huge profits from exaggerating the severity of what we now call climate change. Not to mention the amount of financial donations made to more eco-conscious liberal leadership in the western democracies by oil producing nations like the Saudis. Large institutions certainly can sway scientific developement by not providing grants to certain things.

It is as bad as they're saying though. The Antarctic will be gone in a matter of years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ctic-ice-far-greater-than-thought-study-finds

And every few months we find out: "Opps, it's even worse than thought." I've been following scientific reports for quite a while now and I never fail to get surprised. I mean there is a reason it's considered the largest threat to humanity. Although, I'll be gone soon - not that it matters to me personally.

 

[Definitelyworried]

I think we have a different understanding of truth in this case. I'm just going with empirical evidence, that's it. And there is none for all of these subjects. I think someone posted this video somewhere in this forum, I'm simply gonna repost it:



Because what he explains is exactly the stance of natural science. And as I explained before, even the craziest NDE and OBE can be explained scientifically. I have a question though: since we all evolved from some primitive species millions of years ago, and we're all connected to some way or another... do animals also have an afterlife? I mean, we're nothing else than very developed and evolved apes. What makes us different from others? If we have an afterlife, does a dog have one? Do fish have one? What about insects? What about microscopic organisms? I mean, we're all beings. We all started from the same point. What makes us different? And why? Just because we have better cognitive and intellectual abilities? If you think about the world, how it functions and why we're even here in the first place: do you think there is room for an afterlife?



It is as bad as they're saying though. The Antarctic will be gone in a matter of years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ctic-ice-far-greater-than-thought-study-finds

And every few months we find out: "Opps, it's even worse than thought." I've been following scientific reports for quite a while now and I never fail to get surprised. I mean there is a reason it's considered the largest threat to humanity. Although, I'll be gone soon - not that it matters to me personally.

I'm not saying it's true or not, but according to the Bible animals don't have an afterlife only humans since animals were made for humans and humans were made in the image of God.
-These are the thoughts that cause pain in my mind, this is the kind of thoughts I have to deal with. Maybe it's the reason I'm so miserable. I'm crying out for help.

 

[Definitelyworried]

None the less this is Tiredman's thread, and I'm really interested in what he is feeling like and thoughts these days before his attempt.
As I fear that I myself will be in the same situation as he is.

 

[Definitelyworried]

Im 90% sure my N got seized. I'll use my back up (hanging/dehydration) and ctb on Thursday so I won't be posting after that. Thanks everyone for being there for me in my final days when no one else would understand.

Will you be attempting partial or full suspension?

 

[RainAndSadness]

I'm not saying it's true or not, but according to the Bible animals don't have an afterlife only humans since animals were made for humans and humans were made in the image of God.
-These are the thoughts that cause pain in my mind, this is the kind of thoughts I have to deal with. Maybe it's the reason I'm so miserable. I'm crying out for help.

Interesting. Well, I think the christian perspective on the world is very arrogant and elitist. But that's just my opinion. I have to say, I left church over 10 years ago so the whole religious approach on this topic isn't impressive for me anyway. Why are you miserable though? Because of the bible?

 

[Definitelyworried]

Interesting. Well, I think the christian perspective on the world is very arrogant and elitist. But that's just my opinion. I have to say, I left church over 10 years ago so the whole religious approach on this topic isn't impressive for me anyway. Why are you miserable though? Because of the bible?

Well I feel that the bible is making me feel worse about suicide. I feel very confused about reality, if I knew for sure there is no afterlife, I would have an easier time killing myself.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Well I feel that the bible is making me feel worse about suicide. I feel very confused about reality, if I knew for sure there is no afterlife, I would have an easier time killing myself.

I see. Suicide is a sin by christian standards, right?