Death Is Not Final

Debates / Upcoming Debates

Hosted By John Donvan Add to Calendar Streaming Live in

2014-05-07 20:00:00

8:00 pm - 11:00 pm EST

Kaufman Center

CAST YOUR VOTE

Have a question? Ask us

Vote
Comment

Sort comments by

Newest

Upvotes

IQ2

Edgar Mkhitaryan

16 October 2020 - 16:52 PM

There are two separate questions raised here. For physical death to not be final, there has to be some metaphysical self. This is the question that is dismissed so quickly…

There are two separate questions raised here. For physical death to not be final, there has to be some metaphysical self. This is the question that is dismissed so quickly by mainstream science but embraced by philosophers and supported by dualists. The second question is, given that there is a distinct, metaphysical self in existence while a person is alive, can that metaphysical self persist after death and further? What information can it pass on? If the answer to both questions is yes, the curious will raise yet further questions. Can this metaphysical self act independently from the brain while the person is alive?

Read more Read less

IQ2

Malcolm Caldwell

9 January 2020 - 04:34 AM

It was presupposed that consciousness exists at all. That could simply be a noun that humans made up to describe the processes by which the body and brain work to…

It was presupposed that consciousness exists at all. That could simply be a noun that humans made up to describe the processes by which the body and brain work to perceive and make sense of the world around it, which include self awareness. Some species have higher brain functioning than others, which is why some animals are able to be more "aware." That's probably why higher level mammals tend to react to themselves in a mirror. A cockroach, on the other hand, probably has less awareness. Conciousness could simply be a noun describing these higher level brain functions, and not some separate, mysterious entity.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Malcolm Caldwell

9 January 2020 - 04:21 AM

Can you say that there is a distinct metaphysical self though? And if you cannot affirm or deny that, isn't that a problem?

Read more Read less

IQ2

Malcolm Caldwell

9 January 2020 - 04:16 AM

A more simpler explanation could just be that the afterlife, justice, and karma are all made up human concepts that don't actually mean anything. A serial killer may or may…

A more simpler explanation could just be that the afterlife, justice, and karma are all made up human concepts that don't actually mean anything. A serial killer may or may not get away with killing someone, may or not not be socially punished by other humans, and then we all just die either way. It could just be that simple. In fact, I would need to see substantial evidence to the contrary to think otherwise.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Jeremy Anderson

21 December 2018 - 16:12 PM

I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately. First, I think I need to recognize the arguments in favor of the idea that there is. Most people of…

I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately. First, I think I need to recognize the arguments in favor of the idea that there is. Most people of the religious bent are of the opinion that the rewards and punishments of the afterlife are the only reason people arent running around raping and murdering each other st all hours of the day. Supposedly, it is only the fear of eternal torture in fire and brimstone combined of course with the carrot, er hope, of heavenly reward, that enables the beastly human being to resist his worst impulses.

I have been looking at it the other way. It seems clear that the only reason we tolerate abuses of authority and social and income inequality is the deeply rooted idea that there is some ultimate justice that we can ALL look forward to. That the bad will suffer and the good be rewarded, so its ok or even beneficial to you to suffer injustice without complaint. That any effort to upset the system could land you in hell if god decides you acted wrongly.

If there is no afterlife then most people in the world have had their short opportunity to experience joy severely curtailed by a small number of people who are not going to be punished because they killed journalists or comitted genocide or terrorized their countrymen. Likewise there is no reward for the innocents butchered for money or religion, they had their existence ended in pain and fear for the short term gain of another.

So turning your back on any other person is not excused because god will cover your ass and make sure nobody suffers from eternal injustice.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Anghel Alexandru

10 May 2018 - 10:34 AM

Whell..if first law of themodynamics says energy cant be destroyed...human brain is an organic storage device and allso processor...it emites energy and radiation...what if when you die .ur consciousness you as processing lower you die but the storage sistem transfer energy to "lets say cloud or so called heaven" ....and for example those who "meditate" budists some study states that they produce more gamma rad..what if the more u "evolve" the bigger the chance of not "dying" as processing power and just transfer to a different state...so called "paralel universe"??????????

Read more Read less

IQ2

Stephen Campbell

1 May 2018 - 16:26 PM

Carl SaganAt the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study:1) that by thought alone, humans can (barely) affect random…

Carl Sagan

At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study:

1) that by thought alone, humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers

2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them, and

3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation

I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true.

The Demon-Haunted World, p. 302

Read more Read less

IQ2

bob barges

22 April 2018 - 02:00 AM

Maybe a person is like a Computer - That is a really neat idea.I wonder - Maybe a person's conscience is like a form of energy or current of electricity. …

Maybe a person is like a Computer - That is a really neat idea.

I wonder - Maybe a person's conscience is like a form of energy or current of electricity. What if our energy could always exist until it is turned into another form of energy

Read more Read less

IQ2

Jeremy Anderson

15 August 2017 - 22:30 PM

Look, science cant prove god against his will and god doesnt need a drop of scientific evidence to prove he exists to every living thing, if he chooses to do…

Look, science cant prove god against his will and god doesnt need a drop of scientific evidence to prove he exists to every living thing, if he chooses to do so. But even if science proves that we float around as collections of cosmic energy after our bodies die, the religious would just say that there is another step beyond that, because knowledge is the enemy of faith even though the faithful spend so much time "knowing" things.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Randy Martin

9 March 2017 - 13:42 PM

I've never met anyone who was able to exist without a physical platform to operate on. Most of the people I know use brains to perform this trick and strangely…

I've never met anyone who was able to exist without a physical platform to operate on. Most of the people I know use brains to perform this trick and strangely enough, the people I know who've lost use of their brains don't seem to be around anymore. Sometimes I miss them and sometimes it might be nice to imagine that we all keep on existing even after the machine shuts down, but inconvenient truths are a part of life and denial or wishful thinking only get you so far in dealing with them and they don't work for everybody. The conclusion seems obvious, death is the price any living creature pays for the opportunity to live and we should make the most of our brief moment on the stage.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Ellie Dempster

24 December 2016 - 05:42 AM

◄ Hebrews 11 p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 2.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #454545} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #454545} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #454545; min-height: 15.0px} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #454545; min-height: 14.0px} span.s1 {color: #e4af0a} span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre} New International Version HOLY BIBLE Faith in Action —————————————————————————————— 1Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for. 3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— By faith the Jewish people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Ellie Dempster

24 December 2016 - 05:26 AM

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son Jesus, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16 Holy Bible

Read more Read less

IQ2

shahid ali

29 November 2016 - 12:17 PM

PART 1.Dear all, first you have to find where you are exist in your body? yes in your brain- somewhere in shape of just a dot, a transparent dot of energy to control…

PART 1.Dear all, first you have to find where you are exist in your body? yes in your brain- somewhere in shape of just a dot, a transparent dot of energy to control and command your whole body. it is the reason we can think against our mind too, because body and soul(rooh-aatma) are different, body is like a tool to interact and watch this world only. soul needs tools of eye, hand etc to enable itself to touch and feel and react to command mind to do as soul want.Imagine there is infinitive souls in environment and continuously trying to find a mind and when an animal or human goes toward pregnancy than a battle begun among them to get the mind so some got human minds some got animals and became animal. soul is limited and restricted by mind shapes so a dog mind baby got by any soul can think and respond by predetermined functions of dog mind although soul tried to much more than its mind limitation and that is the reason to surprise us when a dog act unusual things because soul is more capable but limited by mind shapes.Every thing is Depreciate-able and wind is a tool to depreciate everything. Body also depreciated and we called old age and toward death. It is also true and believable that if medical science could repair body parts than age can be surely defeated and proof of it is artificial heart to make remain circulation of blood and body live. Blood is actually liquid messenger tool of soul. All the memory chips in our mind exist with the body not soul. and after death may be no memory exist for last life of any soul. Soul does not need any oxygen water or any demand like body. it is immortal and exist in mind till after death for time until brain damaged completely than it goes to environment. from here two concept and two way .One- soul goes to God for result of what it did in its life.(most of religion believe in it) Two- again join the competition to get a body.(Hinduism believe but only seven time limits) Question is that why it is going on?everything has a meaning nothing is meaning less we see.Science told that human came from evaluation process from monkey but i object this by my statement that if human has came from animals by evaluation than why this process does not repeat and no any evidence for repeat process of evaluation among monkeys and whatever source . It must be repeated!!One Other thing that here are Four worlds1. Water world and soul called here fish etc.2.Ground world and soul called here human-animal (fish of Ground Gravity)3 Air world and soul called here birds (Fish of air)4 Space world Soul called here soul actual soul home cant see by these ground limited body eyes.(fish of space)Again i want to say that nothing is without meaning.WILL BE CONTINUE IN OTHER PART OK DEBATE WITH ME.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Legacy IQ2US

11 March 2016 - 13:48 PM

On 2016-03-11 08:48:54, Andy wrote:I think that idealist philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup have clearly shown that there is no reason whatsoever to default to the idea that consciousness is a…

On 2016-03-11 08:48:54, Andy wrote:
I think that idealist philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup have clearly shown that there is no reason whatsoever to default to the idea that consciousness is a function of a material brain, and by extension there is no reason to assume that consciousness ceases with the death of the brain. Logic and reason side against physicalism.

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 March 2016 - 18:35 PM

On 2016-03-10 13:35:30, Tilak wrote:'Death is not final' is true. Because of this reason, we can guess the human population is increasing in this natural world. Everything is happening in…

On 2016-03-10 13:35:30, Tilak wrote:
'Death is not final' is true. Because of this reason, we can guess the human population is increasing in this natural world. Everything is happening in a cyclic way and it should be same to humans & all other living beings as well. Consciousness differs from person to person and could pass memories from one life to another. Each and every living being possesses their own deeds. In this regard, it's very difficult to find exactly same two people in this world. Consciousness is some kind of energy which cannot explain by quantum physics or any other scientific methods yet. I believe it's in an experimenting stage and the science will find the reality soon. As per the Buddhist scriptures, there are 31 worlds surrounded by us including human world & the animal world etc. All living beings are subject to reincarnate within these worlds temporarily depending on their deeds in their eternal life cycle.

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 January 2016 - 22:11 PM

On 2016-01-01 17:11:42, Zach wrote:Having experienced death for a short time I feel obligated to leave feedback. What happened to me I don't say because I hate to recall. But…

On 2016-01-01 17:11:42, Zach wrote:
Having experienced death for a short time I feel obligated to leave feedback. What happened to me I don't say because I hate to recall. But simply put I experienced nothing except dread and darkness creeping from around my vision till that's all there was dread and dark and then nothing except darkness. No feeling no memories nothingness. Sad but truly honest. I wish I had experienced something and always firmly believed in an afterlife but I did not. Death is a subjective experience no two exactly the same but often sinilar. To say that everyone will experience the same thing would be ignorant and the facts support this. NDEs are similar but no two exactly the same. Which is what one would expect if its simply a reaction of physical function or lack of. No one can know for sure but science and experience seems to point to no afterlife. Sad but true.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Legacy IQ2US

28 November 2015 - 20:08 PM

On 2015-11-28 15:08:54, Nicola Benson wrote:There are two separate questions raised here. For physical death to not be final, there has to be some kind of metaphysical self. This is…

On 2015-11-28 15:08:54, Nicola Benson wrote:
There are two separate questions raised here. For physical death to not be final, there has to be some kind of metaphysical self. This is the question that is dismissed so quickly by mainstream science but embraced by philosophers and supported by dualists. The second question is, given that there is a distinct, metaphysical self in existence while a person is alive, can that metaphysical self persist after death and further what information can it pass on? If the answer to both questions is yes, the curious will raise yet further questions. Can this metaphysical self act independently from the brain while the person is alive?

Read more Read less

IQ2

24 November 2015 - 11:00 AM

On 2015-11-24 06:00:41, frankie klein wrote:Having died fading in and out for 40 minutes after having my scalp ripped off my skull and losing an estimated 70% of the blood…

On 2015-11-24 06:00:41, frankie klein wrote:
Having died fading in and out for 40 minutes after having my scalp ripped off my skull and losing an estimated 70% of the blood in my body I should not be here. 90% of the out of body experiences we hear about as people's heart stop as they are on the operating table are totally ridiculous to me! Duh!!! They see a bright light and a tunnel because a bright light is shinning in their faces!!!! And how to you feel when you simply stand up too fast depriving your brain from a bit of oxygen? Ignorance is bliss! and Exuberant ignorance or nativity, simply becomes comfortable complacence for 95% of the educated populous! Yes, I died, and medical science says I should be dead now for several different reasons. The religious would praise the lord as they do in any similar situation, and that disgusts me. When you stop breathing and you are in the back of an ambulance stolen by two lumber-jacks as the fire-house was unmanned when we arrived. We are still 20 minutes away from the hospital we I stop breathing and my twenty-five year old mother must supply my brain with the oxygen to survive; the weight of that situation is indescribable! But here is the way I try to articulate what I felt when I died and the dreams that followed for the next twenty-five years. When we try to comprehend the universe and the unbelievable vastness, the distances in the deep field photo, or the size and weight of an entire galaxy. From what we know of a black hole is what I felt I was being dragged into, surrounded by the mass of a collapsed star, captured by its gravity there is no escape, the blackness and crushing pressure that was enveloping me was my experience of death outside of the ICU or an operating room. No drugs, no EMT's, no nurses and no doctors for 25 more miles.... It's not the pretty story that gets picked up and disseminated by the believers, and its not the story that gets exploited and run over and over on the 700 club or by the televangelists distorting it to deprive the desperate of what little they do have. It's an honest objective experience of a just, ethical and moral person who has lived all over the world. Lived and worked in war zones on multiple continents as well as the war zones they call the Ghetto in the US. I live grounded in logic and reason and find joy in seeing others prosper emotionally. This is the truth I lived through.

Read more Read less

IQ2

18 November 2015 - 23:43 PM

On 2015-11-18 18:43:47, trina wrote:Eben Alexander is not a scientist, he was a surgeon with pending law suits against him prior to his experience.

On 2015-11-18 18:43:47, trina wrote:
Eben Alexander is not a scientist, he was a surgeon with pending law suits against him prior to his experience.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 October 2015 - 21:47 PM

On 2015-10-11 17:47:20, Jesse Blair wrote:While I think the skeptics overall argued their case a little better I think the evidence for the other side is greater than it came…

On 2015-10-11 17:47:20, Jesse Blair wrote:
While I think the skeptics overall argued their case a little better I think the evidence for the other side is greater than it came across in this debate. 1. It’s an awfully big coincident that dying brains create a vivid experience that so closely resembles a journey to another dimension, meeting a higher being, and reviewing the merits of your life. People will argue that it’s our brains creating what we expect to see but regardless of peoples’ culture, beliefs (atheists included), and time period the similarity in their experiences is remarkable. The only counter argument I see is that the brain just happens to create this experience as a result of its dying process. What a big coincidence! One could argue that this evolved because people that had this experience gave more hope to their tribe than those who did not. But I think that is weak because near death experiences were less frequent long ago because medicine could not bring people back to life as easily. Plus – how much of an evolutionary advantage would this really offer? I think this evolution theory is a weak one. Skeptics also like to hang their hat on the fact that drugs can mimic a near death experience. I’ve read some of these accounts and the experiences are not as closely aligned as the skeptics would have you believe. This explanation would have to tie into the evolution theory to explain how big of a coincidence this is and it has its own flaws as well. Just because we can manipulate the brain to mimic an experience does not mean that the original experience wasn’t real. 2. I think their rebuttal of Moody’s “shared death experiences” was very weak. They claimed that this is just personal stories and therefore if we don’t discount it we have to believe all types of wild personal stories. Why didn’t they just use that argument from the beginning to discount all near death experiences? The reason is that there are enough people having the same experience to be taken seriously. Why is this not also true for the shared death experiences? Dr. Moody has interviewed hundreds of people having this experience and I trust his judgment over someone who dismisses it without even looking into it. Hundreds of people having shared experiences that seem to agree with the near death experiences seems to me to be worth further investigation. 3. I agree with one of the audience members that asked that the question be better defined. “Death is not final” is not a clear black or white issue. Here are just a few possibilities I can imagine: a. We retain our memories after death as we continue to exist in another realm. (I believe this is the position held by Moody and Alexander). b. The consciousness that we are ceases after death and “we” never experience anything else. (I believe this is the position held by Novella and Carroll). c. If consciousness is a process of the brain like the skeptics proposed, then perhaps we live wherever there is consciousness. We might not have any memories of our other individual lives but this certainly doesn’t mean that death is final. The fact that we arrived in our current state of consciousness suggests that it is just as plausible that we will arrive in a future state of consciousness. If we find ourselves in a new state of consciousness and have no recollection of the previous one, that doesn’t mean we cease to exist, it just means we don’t remember. d. Perhaps there is some mixture of the above possibilities or something we have not thought of. “Death is not final” allows for more possibilities than “Death is final” and therefore seems more likely considering all the unknowns on this subject. 4. Skeptics like to argue that they are not bias and that those that believe in life after death are. This argument does have some weight but I would argue that they are often bias as well. Believing there is no life after death is more desirable to some than the idea of living on for an eternity (as Carroll himself admitted). Believing in life after death can be much scarier than no life after death, depending on what that existence would be. I personally think this argument is pretty evenly matched and that people on both sides often choose what they want to believe. Our universe has some serious depth to it. Where we once saw emptiness in the sky we now see galaxies going on for as far as we can see. The more we look inside an atom the more we see. It seems to me there is a pattern emerging. Wherever we look, we find more to explore and learn about. I think consciousness and life after death will be no different.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 September 2015 - 17:20 PM

On 2015-09-15 13:20:40, Jack Graham wrote:If science is understood as a search for physical causes only, and rests on the premise that only physical causes are possible, then he only…

On 2015-09-15 13:20:40, Jack Graham wrote:
If science is understood as a search for physical causes only, and rests on the premise that only physical causes are possible, then he only possible cause for consciousness is the brain. But science is not confined to the search for physical causes, nor is cognitive experience limited to sensory experience or physical instrumentation, least of all is cause limited to physical explanation. Descartes is one of the fathers of modern science, yet rightly maintained that meditation upon consciousness yields knowledge clearer and surer than sensory experience. Empirical experience is not limited to sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Study of the paranormal, including of study of the afterlife, is as empirical as physics or chemistry. The case against the afterlife is built upon a simplistic and false view of what science is.

Read more Read less

IQ2

13 September 2015 - 08:12 AM

On 2015-09-13 04:12:27, Jack Graham wrote:
Carroll and Novella have effectively defined science as an inquiry based exclusively on sensory experience and/or physical instrumentation (with the aid of logic and mathematics). In this view, science is a search for physical causes only, and assumes nothing but physical reality. If only physical causes operate and only physical reality exists, God does not exist, death is final, life is an accident of nature, and the meaning of life is making the most of here and now, nor can consciousness derive from any source but the brain, as must be held whether we understand the causal mechanism or not. The problem here is that Carroll and Novella have eliminated higher dimensions and reality by arbitrary fiat upon a simplistic view of science. Consciousness, as empirically examined in meditation, includes features which physical reality does not contain, and so is a higher state of being, inherently incapable of a mere physical cause or explanation. Consciousness can no more generate from the brain than a solid is contained in a surface or plane.

Read more Read less

IQ2

9 September 2015 - 16:53 PM

Both sides took a very narrow minded approach, as if they were debating the existence of the soul. Even if there were no soul we would still live on after…

Both sides took a very narrow minded approach, as if they were debating the existence of the soul. Even if there were no soul we would still live on after death in the memory of others and in the effects of our actions. St. Augustine in the Confessions writes that God and the soul exist in eternity, which he claims is _beyond_ time, not for all time. So even if we don't come back as ghosts after our physical death, death might still not be final once you go beyond our current perception of time.

Read more Read less

IQ2

23 June 2015 - 16:53 PM

On 2015-06-23 12:53:18, Froggy wrote:
Eban Alexander: Carl Sagan "admitted that past-life memories in children, the evidence for that is overwhelming," for which he specifically cites p.302 of Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World." Indeed Sean Carroll is right in calling this out as complete baloney. Sagan says nothing even remotely resembling what Alexander characterizes as his position.

Read more Read less

IQ2

18 May 2015 - 16:42 PM

On 2015-05-18 12:42:03, dice wrote:I am for the motion. I think a lot of question that was not brought up that could of change the result for the motion. Like…

On 2015-05-18 12:42:03, dice wrote:
I am for the motion. I think a lot of question that was not brought up that could of change the result for the motion. Like atom being particle wave which is pure science with full evidence. Atom itself is not solid matter because it is 99.999999999 empty space and it basically a wave particle and the only thing that is holding it together is a conscious observer. If our brain is made of atom and it self is a wave particle than how can it observing create solid particle? Unless the conscious mind is different from the brain than it observing can make all thing solid as the Buddha believe.

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 April 2015 - 10:00 AM

On 2015-04-01 06:00:24, s.kumar wrote:This question seems to have been extensively researched by sages In India where there are literally tons of literature . ( eg. Brahma sutra and may…

On 2015-04-01 06:00:24, s.kumar wrote:
This question seems to have been extensively researched by sages In India where there are literally tons of literature . ( eg. Brahma sutra and may tamil sidhar's poems) ) All of them suggest that on death one takes along the "vasana" loosely translated as desires or tendencies and the good and bad deeds one does in one's life time. Life then is incorporated into another body where these are seen as the new person's abilities, tendencies and he reaps the fruits of his efforts according to the good and evil he/she had accumulated. This is very comfortable to explain away the huge differences in life standards one encounters and also seemingly different results of almost identical efforts to achieve by two different individuals. When someone says almost all the functions of mind can be simulated by triggering the brain regions, it is quite the same as saying one can bring about what the software does in a computer by shorting of selected leads of a micro processor chip, While this corresponds to the effect, it still does not explain what causes this to happen. you cannot physically touch the software. So may be the mind is like the software and the brain is like the hardware.

Read more Read less

IQ2

2 March 2015 - 07:08 AM

On 2015-03-02 02:08:45, nakayama wrote:PRESENT, TIME & SELF 1. The present is a special (moving) point in long length (long segment) of time. 2.“To me”, existence of I is a…

On 2015-03-02 02:08:45, nakayama wrote:
PRESENT, TIME & SELF 1. The present is a special (moving) point in long length (long segment) of time. 2.“To me”, existence of I is a special (peculiar, unique, only one) existence. 3.“To me”, the span of years in which I live (my lifetime) is a special span. 4.“To me”, overlap of 1 and 3 is unthinkable, unimaginable (if life is only once). 5. Answer to 4, after death, existence of I will revive. Thus, life will be eternal. Also it must be the same for all. P.S. Sorry, I cannot receive E – mail. I don’t have PC.

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 January 2015 - 04:54 AM

On 2014-12-31 23:54:31, Shirah wrote:I think social influx made this debate too black and white. Collectively as a society we tend to consider the term "life after death", to be…

On 2014-12-31 23:54:31, Shirah wrote:
I think social influx made this debate too black and white. Collectively as a society we tend to consider the term "life after death", to be the individual continuation of human experience, particularly from a religious perspective. However, this does not take into account the dynamic nature of consciousness. In order to effectively answer the question of "what happens when we die", we need to determine whether consciousness exists elsewhere in the universe and in what form. If consciousness can exist independently of the brain, this is evidence to suggest that perception can exist independently of brain function, regardless of whether that is before birth or after death. However, this still does not indicate, or suggest, that the individual, or ego, continues. Personality, moods, and thought processes are products of mind, so if consciousness does indeed continue, it would furthermore be reasonable to assume that consciousness is an integral, elemental component of the universe, and is collective, rather than individual in nature. We are barely scratching the surface of this issue, thus to draw definitive conclusions in either way I think is somewhat naive. I think it will require the eventual synthesis of quantum mechanics and Psychology/Neuroscience to fully explore this fascinating philosophical question

Read more Read less

IQ2

14 December 2014 - 11:01 AM

On 2014-12-14 06:01:02, Art Colaianni wrote:If you argue against scientific methodology you admit to lack of critical thought. That is why I am surprised by the scientists taking such a…

On 2014-12-14 06:01:02, Art Colaianni wrote:
If you argue against scientific methodology you admit to lack of critical thought. That is why I am surprised by the scientists taking such a rigid stance against life after death. How can you be so doctrinaire about your knowledge when you don’t even know the fundamentals of your subject: quantum physics? They have categorically proven to themselves that consciousness changes the playing field of the physical universe on subatomic level - throwing out many of the classical laws of physics. Similarly, the placebo effect is mandatory in most critical testing, but they have no idea how it works - something else that consciousness is doing. They admit to not fully understanding gravity, nothing really about most of the universe in dark energy and dark matter, completely adrift when asked to explain the leap from chemistry to biology, inanimate to animate, and haven’t gotten to first base with consciousness. And where was the definition of “mind” they so doggedly argued with? Try to find in science, specifically the psych fields, a non-associative definition of mind that actually defines what IT IS - not it’s manifestations. They don’t really understand psychosomatic illness. Notice that when science runs into life, it tends to confuse its classical laws. Is that why quantum mechanics hasn’t substantially advanced for almost 100 years? They need not take the route of conventional religion in assigning everything they don’t know to the gap god of Higher Darwinianism or something. Situations like this is where scientists actually earn the term, hubris.

Read more Read less

IQ2

14 December 2014 - 04:53 AM

On 2014-12-13 23:53:28, Paige wrote:
This was utterly painful to watch. The gentlemen for the motion were, to me, babbling endlessly. No verifiable evidence to support their beliefs, whatsoever.. They consider hearsay and "experience" to be their evidence. They are not critical thinkers, they are wishful thinkers.

Read more Read less

IQ2

12 December 2014 - 01:41 AM

On 2014-12-11 20:41:55, Herschel wrote:This was a discussion not a debate; it is almost impossible to debate as issue when both sides are arguing from difference presumptions of what constitutes…

On 2014-12-11 20:41:55, Herschel wrote:
This was a discussion not a debate; it is almost impossible to debate as issue when both sides are arguing from difference presumptions of what constitutes the definition of "reality". Dr. Moody alluded to this issue in his opening statement. To me, Sean Carroll seemed to be the one who was less an authentic scientist compared to other panelists in this discussion. I do think the panel highlighted the issues on this topic for both philosophers/mystics and data based scientists. For me, it is a both-er; science only serves as the empirical vehicle to one's experience of the mystery of life.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 December 2014 - 10:39 AM

On 2014-12-11 05:39:37, Lagorce C. wrote:Never doubt of one thing : Science is an unfinished and incompleted Art. It's a world built on "no end of evolving" assumptions at best…

On 2014-12-11 05:39:37, Lagorce C. wrote:
Never doubt of one thing : Science is an unfinished and incompleted Art. It's a world built on "no end of evolving" assumptions at best partially demonstrated. Science is a view of the mind. Science is not a source of absolute certainties but rather a source of beliefs based on evidences subjectively interpreted as highly relevant. There is no better than a scientist to know that, so it is sad to note that they are very few among them to recognize it - these last ones are called "true skeptics" - if you really search you can find some of them generally among very high level one's). Humanity consists of two categories: - Those who lived NDE or Out of Body Experiences. These ones know that it's true. They can no longer doubt (even the most ardent "former skeptics" among them). - And those who will live it one day or another. These can not yet know. So either they believe, or they doubt it, or they convince themselves that this is impossible, despite the absolute lack of scientific evidence in support of their belief. But debate is pointless. The path of enlightenment always takes unexpected paths in our lives. Regardless of knowledge, belief, doubt or denyind a thing or its opposite. The important thing is the spiritual path. If Heaven deigned to send us the percentage of "diehard materialist scientists" who have relied to a god of any kind on their death bed, in my opinion, it would be enough to die of laughing, as it must be high rated, right ? Take care of you

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 December 2014 - 06:31 AM

On 2014-12-03 01:31:36, Evangeline Ray wrote:I think the real question being debated here is whether there is a reality that exists beyond the physical. For those who are certain there…

On 2014-12-03 01:31:36, Evangeline Ray wrote:
I think the real question being debated here is whether there is a reality that exists beyond the physical. For those who are certain there is not, I ask, have you considered that you could be lacking the organs of perception required to be aware of that reality? For the determinedly materialistic, any attempt to understand a spiritual experience must be like a person blind from birth trying to comprehend color.

Read more Read less

IQ2

30 November 2014 - 23:39 PM

On 2014-11-30 18:39:27, Laurie OHara wrote:We are so blessed that Galileo, Einstein and Columbus and others like them met much of their "burden of proof". Keep on Truckin' Eban.

On 2014-11-30 18:39:27, Laurie OHara wrote:
We are so blessed that Galileo, Einstein and Columbus and others like them met much of their "burden of proof". Keep on Truckin' Eban.

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 November 2014 - 20:36 PM

On 2014-11-20 15:36:12, Doug wrote:What Dr. Alexander experienced when he "died" was the dissolving of his ego, which allowed his mind pure perception for a little while. Since he probably…

On 2014-11-20 15:36:12, Doug wrote:
What Dr. Alexander experienced when he "died" was the dissolving of his ego, which allowed his mind pure perception for a little while. Since he probably never experienced this in life, his natural propensity is to call it "heaven." I don't doubt what he experienced. But after the mind (brain) completely ceased functioning (which did NOT happen to him), he would then be not-conscious forever. And his matter would then decay, and his identity and essence disappear forever as well.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 October 2014 - 22:54 PM

On 2014-10-08 18:54:34, Gustave wrote:All the babbling in the world does not dispel the notion that man can neither prove nor disprove through science that God exists or does not…

On 2014-10-08 18:54:34, Gustave wrote:
All the babbling in the world does not dispel the notion that man can neither prove nor disprove through science that God exists or does not exist. However, I would suggest to the true pragmatists out there that they read Pascal's Wager. You have nothing to lose but your soul.

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 September 2014 - 21:32 PM

On 2014-09-22 17:32:50, Trey Mulkey wrote:i think that this is a bunch of bologna because how do people know if they haven't experienced it for themselves

On 2014-09-22 17:32:50, Trey Mulkey wrote:
i think that this is a bunch of bologna because how do people know if they haven't experienced it for themselves

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 September 2014 - 17:57 PM

On 2014-09-10 13:57:32, Bill Stanley wrote:Evidence, evidence, evidence. Provide verifiable, repeatable evidence. Everything else is speculative conversation.

On 2014-09-10 13:57:32, Bill Stanley wrote:
Evidence, evidence, evidence. Provide verifiable, repeatable evidence. Everything else is speculative conversation.

Read more Read less

IQ2

27 August 2014 - 08:32 AM

On 2014-08-27 04:32:09, S. John M wrote:I was not impressed by the debate. First of all, whoever arrange and picked the individuals representing each of the two side of the…

On 2014-08-27 04:32:09, S. John M wrote:
I was not impressed by the debate. First of all, whoever arrange and picked the individuals representing each of the two side of the debate, failed to pick qualified experts. The individuals on the side in favor of the after life, were very qualified, but were not experts on the subject. A better pick would have been Bruce Greyson, and Pim Van Lommel. or Bruce Greyson and Stuart Hameroff, M.D. These individuals have a handle on the subject, and are a much better match for the opposing side. I was not impressed either, by Dr. Steve Novella. I was quite impressed though by his partner, Sean Carrol. I do not believe Steve Novella really is opened minded enough nor knowledgeable enough on brain chemistry and consciousness, despite the fact he is a neurologist. Al in all, it was not a fair match, and therefore an unequal match. Because of this, the entire debate was tainted in favor of the opposing side. Better luck next time.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 August 2014 - 02:48 AM

On 2014-08-07 22:48:26, Z wrote:Death is final for a life. However there may be different plane of existence. So the question is "Is there a life after the life?" Our…

On 2014-08-07 22:48:26, Z wrote:
Death is final for a life. However there may be different plane of existence. So the question is "Is there a life after the life?" Our human brain is very sophisticated. It is also like an antenna which can tune in to see other plane of existence. NDE are like that. People can peek a preview of what could be of other existence like that. A brain is part of a mind. A mind/a consciousness/an awareness is occurred when a human starts developing a brain. A life starts just before that. When a life ends, brain activities stop unable to tune in a mind until there is some sort of brain/antenna.

Read more Read less

IQ2

2 August 2014 - 16:50 PM

On 2014-08-02 12:50:10, demetrios babalis wrote:It is fair to state that people who claim to have had an NDE have had such experiences. There are a number of experiences which…

On 2014-08-02 12:50:10, demetrios babalis wrote:
It is fair to state that people who claim to have had an NDE have had such experiences. There are a number of experiences which possess similar qualities. The descriptor "experience" is a huge umbrella which covers quite a number of things. Where you and I may wish to draw a reasonable line is when claiming that an experience is not solely one which transpired in the imagination and/or mind or is based upon a supernatural belief or wishful thinking, but that an experience is grounded in the physical world. It is highly probable that a number of NDE peeps may have had these experiences. For an NDE claim to be accepted as a truth claim and not solely as a product of the mind and such, the claimant may wish to provide their strongest arguments and supporting compelling, universally verifiable evidence. So far and to the best of my understanding, the strongest claims of the NDE experiencers have been thoughtfully and clearly refuted and there has never been any compelling, universally verifiable evidence in support of said experience. People can choose to believe in whatever they so wish. That is not an issue. The moment that a person claims any degree of certainty or truth about something, that is the moment that they need to step up to the proverbial plate by demonstrating and/or by presenting their strongest arguments and/or most compelling, universally verifiable evidence for their claim. Experiencing a potpourri of feelings due to an NDE does not ground such an experience as being outside of the experiencer's imagination/mind. I do not know if there is "life" after death. I do hope that our species will continue to explore life, the universe, and everything with reason and compassion.

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 July 2014 - 23:21 PM

On 2014-07-20 19:21:42, Violeta Ciorita wrote:NDE is exactly that ....NDE. I have almost every day 1 NDE experience when I read the newspaper and I see the pain in the…

On 2014-07-20 19:21:42, Violeta Ciorita wrote:
NDE is exactly that ....NDE. I have almost every day 1 NDE experience when I read the newspaper and I see the pain in the World. I have 1 when the newspapers ask for new foto´s of a war in some country wile internet is full of old wars. I have 1 when i see that people film a human on fire but does nothing to put the fire out. I have 1 when I read how many people are affected by the economical crisis I have 1 every time I read a sick story on people hurting each other I even have 1 when I read that smart gents like yourself are trying to erase somebody´s experience by denying it. Is his experience and not yours so you have just as much proof it did not happened as much proof as he gave you that it did happened. What makes you better scientists an why should the world believe your stories en or your explanations VMC

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 July 2014 - 02:35 AM

On 2014-07-18 22:35:03, Rob P wrote:As a species we are singularly egotistical! Why should there be life after death for us and not every living thing? Why should there be…

On 2014-07-18 22:35:03, Rob P wrote:
As a species we are singularly egotistical! Why should there be life after death for us and not every living thing? Why should there be multiple universes based on every action WE take?(sorry, I had to add that in,) It's insane how we set ourselves on a pedestal. This is an entirely human notion based on a deep seated fear of death, both for ourselves and our loved ones. It is of course comforting to think that people we love carry on in some other realm but that does not make it true. As always the"evidence" FOR is anecdotal and unproven. Remove emotion from the debate and you remove any opposition to the AGAINST position. I say this not because iI want it to be true but because it is. And no amount of, admittedly clever, analogy can make it true.

Read more Read less

IQ2

17 July 2014 - 23:08 PM

On 2014-07-17 19:08:53, Temy wrote:How can it be that so many allegedly sane and educated people cannot grasp the most fundamental fact of life that exists....that dead means dead?

On 2014-07-17 19:08:53, Temy wrote:
How can it be that so many allegedly sane and educated people cannot grasp the most fundamental fact of life that exists....that dead means dead?

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 July 2014 - 23:08 PM

On 2014-07-04 19:08:53, Michael Donnell wrote:One side of this debate views mind as an epiphenomena of matter. The problem with this positions is no adequate definition of 'matter' of 'physical'…

On 2014-07-04 19:08:53, Michael Donnell wrote:
One side of this debate views mind as an epiphenomena of matter. The problem with this positions is no adequate definition of 'matter' of 'physical' exists. Another problem with this view is that it presumes all of science supports the 'materialist' view (matter is fundamental) and contradicts the 'idealist' view (mind is fundamental), while the truth is that the opposite is the case. This is widely known and accepted in philosophic circles but denied in scientific circles because it is a philosophic, not a scientific, question. Which is to say the widely accepted idea the mind is an epiphenomena of the brain might be true, but is not the 'scientific' view its adherents imagine it to be. But the question 'What happens to the self when we die' begs the question, 'What is the self?' Buddhists would say what we take for a self is the result of an ego positing that bifurcates 'the world' into subject and object and claims to have developed a praxis leading to 'satori' which restores the essential unity of existence. As the transmigration of souls is part of Buddhist philosophy, it might seem similar to a belief in an 'afterlife.' But while the Buddhist position is inherently idealist (mind is fundamental), the point for a Buddhist is not the survival of an individual mind, as all is mind, but whether that mind has achieved wholeness (the word 'health' means 'whole') or is still fragmented. So what I'm doing is suggesting a view that turns this whole debate on its head. I'm suggesting-- 1) nothing in science is incompatible with an idealist position. 2) only a mind that believes it is separate from existence views birth and death as alternating rather than simultaneous phenomenon. 3) Therefore, the whole question of the scientific validity of an 'afterlife' is wrongheaded and shot through with fundamental misconceptions. I would add that to take the idea of satori seriously from a scientific point of view necessitates some archimedean point outside of 4D space/time--perhaps Bohm's implicate order, or something like it as suggested by nonlocality.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 July 2014 - 12:16 PM

On 2014-07-03 08:16:07, Jason Orgone wrote:This is a great program. As a hardcore atheist and scientist, I find it interesting that people all find a need to construct these irrational…

On 2014-07-03 08:16:07, Jason Orgone wrote:
This is a great program. As a hardcore atheist and scientist, I find it interesting that people all find a need to construct these irrational extra 'domains'. However, I was ashamed by the insulting and snide tone from Sean Carroll. My ears turned red as I imagined the audience growing cold to science, imagining that we are all so arrogant and needlessly condescending. There are good scientists out there who are respectful towards people with whom we strongly disagree. Please try to represent us more fairly.

Read more Read less

IQ2

25 June 2014 - 09:51 AM

On 2014-06-25 05:51:40, p wrote:crazy how different the irl audience votes vs internet.

On 2014-06-25 05:51:40, p wrote:
crazy how different the irl audience votes vs internet.

Read more Read less

IQ2

25 June 2014 - 00:31 AM

On 2014-06-24 20:31:57, Erik Fjell wrote:
Worthy debate, but I find that the AGAINST argumentation is a bit intellectually naive or dishonest. What is frustrating about the line of argumentation from Novella is that no matter what line of argumentation brought up by those in favor of NDE, he said it wasn't enough. A: No evidence - B: NDE shows production without brain activity. A: Timing of it did not have diagnostic equipment measuring specifically for that. B:There has been registering at the time of NDE retrieval A: You haven't provided the argument in my naturalistic/100% materialist verbiage B: We all realize that there is a "beyond-physical" call for explanation of consciousness, memory, and other topics involved in NDEs. Ex : Think of an elephant..... There is no probe or equipment that tells you where in the physical brain there is an elephant. Memory maps DO NOT find identical travel paths. Consciousness, and the larger "mind" topic, goes beyond when registers on the naturalists/materialists' radars.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 June 2014 - 09:22 AM

On 2014-06-11 05:22:37, Henry wrote:
"John Hurd" You are thinking of the Esquire article I think. Yeah 'Eben' seems like a pretty scummy guy. http://www.esquire.com/features/the-prophet Concerning his carl Sagan quote: http://recursed.blogspot.jp/2014/05/death-is-not-final.html I'm not sure why anyone gives him credit at all, other than a desperate fear of death, which they allow him to alleviate with his lies.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 June 2014 - 00:41 AM

On 2014-06-10 20:41:15, Thomas Nofziger wrote:I've noticed that arguments from Michael Shermer, Sean Carroll, and my physicist friends here at Los Alamos Labs are not arguments, per se. They are…

On 2014-06-10 20:41:15, Thomas Nofziger wrote:
I've noticed that arguments from Michael Shermer, Sean Carroll, and my physicist friends here at Los Alamos Labs are not arguments, per se. They are a series of jokes and personality defamations. None have ever researched the copious literature that abounds in this inquiry. How can you have an opinion when you've never studied the subject you're debating? The NDE contingency, on the other hand, has studied (and endorsed) both sides of the isle.

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 June 2014 - 08:16 AM

On 2014-06-10 04:16:25, Rodney wrote:It is commonly stated by people who have not checked, that there is no evidence for an afterlife. There are many types of evidence, including veridical…

On 2014-06-10 04:16:25, Rodney wrote:
It is commonly stated by people who have not checked, that there is no evidence for an afterlife. There are many types of evidence, including veridical NDEs, spontaneous recollection by children of former lives, lucid visions by those near death, mediumistic phenomena, after death communications. Very few people remain sceptical after properly reviewing the evidence. Attempts by armchair critics to explain it all away as hallucinations or other such nonsense do not match up with the actual reports. The evidence itself provides answers to all the sceptical objections. On the other hand, the widely accepted materialist paradigm does not have supporting evidence. There is plenty of evidence, for example, that the brain mediates consciousness, but none to show that it actually produces it.

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 June 2014 - 02:25 AM

On 2014-05-31 22:25:28, jedbeetle wrote:This was a fun debate, and seemed to sum up the the intellectual state of this argument. I thought the for side did a poor job…

On 2014-05-31 22:25:28, jedbeetle wrote:
This was a fun debate, and seemed to sum up the the intellectual state of this argument. I thought the for side did a poor job of debating, but that isn't helped by the fact that there is not much science for them to fall back on in the matter. It really just seems to come down to human experience vs. current atheist threads in neuroscience and cognitive science. There's a couple arguments on the "against" side that I just don't buy. One was that they can somehow recreate, under experimental conditions, the same things people experience during NDE and OBE and trance and whatnot. I seriously doubt this. Just producing a similar experience in experimental circumstances does not prove correlation, and correlation is a far cry from causation. I would seem that the logic used here could be used to prove that sticking a fork in my eye is roughly the same as covering my face with a cloth. They both cause a disturbance in my ability to see, and so the cause must be roughly the same. Just because we know we can trigger images and emotional responses in the brain doesn't mean we are showing how a given experience must have shown up. In fact, I seriously doubt that our current information about brain activity rules anything out. It seems that operating under the assumption that, until scientifically proven otherwise, we can simply claim there is only a brain active in our consciousness and experience of the world; however, without that assumption in place, there is still a fundamental break in the logic of a definitive statement on the matter. I know, I know - there is no verifiable experience shown necessitating the existence of a soul or subtle body. Parapsychologists would disagree vehemently with this, though, but they've been seemingly angrily removed from the playing field. Also, the against side gave the argument that, while we can't find "consciousness" itself, we can show that it must originate in the brain. This argument smacks of assumption as well and I seriously doubt not only its completeness but its value to the scientific process as it continues forward. I think something misunderstood in this discussion often is the idea of separateness between what might be called a "soul" and what we know to be our body. It would seem, that if a soul exists, that there is no separation between the two while we are alive, and that one is essentially an extension of the other. One more point repeated by the against side is that life after death is merely a product of wishful thinking. The implication here is that Eben and Raymond, and anyone who, due to actual experience, thinks there may be life after death, incapable of separating desire from the evaluative process. This is simply insulting, has no real foundation, and does nothing for the argument. There is a great challenge to the for side to produce experimental results even meriting further study into other-than-body-consciousness. It may never happen, of course, but I hope they don't stop trying. I have my own conclusions, as I'm sure we all do, but accept all possible explanations of reality as possible. Still, it's clear this argument will always break apart on the shores of human experience. We are still a long ways from producing similar and vivid enough results experimentally to satisfy those who have actually had the experiences that have convinced them of a spiritual dimension.

Read more Read less

IQ2

30 May 2014 - 04:12 AM

On 2014-05-30 00:12:28, Aragis Gregory wrote:
Per se, the idea of serious discussion of fundamental questions such as origins of consiousness is highly commendable. However, testablishing the answer through voting is as meaningless as would be voting how much 2 times 2 is. In this case, the simple fact is that we humans simply do not have sufficient valid information to answer the question, so no amount of speculation or voting is going to settle it. Of course, not having enough information at this time doesn't mean that such information is impossible to come by because of laws of nature. In fact, the main reason such information is not available to us is simply because nobody had so far expended adequate effort to accomplish it. The efforts by small groups like the DOPS of the University of Virginia, or individuals like Dr. Moody and Dr. Alexander, are almost heroic, but these efforts are much smaller in scale than needed to solve such a fundamental problem. To put it in perspective, these efforts are equivalent to trying to buy a brand new Mercedes Benz car having $1,000 to spend. With such inadequate funds, the task would naturally appear quite daunting if not outright impossible. However, try approaching the same task with $100,000, and it might just work very well.

Read more Read less

IQ2

28 May 2014 - 22:11 PM

On 2014-05-28 18:11:38, Zam Kam wrote:Bob Funkhouser's posting on Carl Sagan's quote shows the kind of impasse we are in when it comes to this type of debates: evidence is…

On 2014-05-28 18:11:38, Zam Kam wrote:
Bob Funkhouser's posting on Carl Sagan's quote shows the kind of impasse we are in when it comes to this type of debates: evidence is useless when confronted with irrational beliefs. Case in point: Carl Sagan clearly stated he does NOT believe the claim about past memories in children is valid, but Mr. Funkhouser's reading of Sagan's words is actually the opposite: he thinks Carl Sagan is saying there's "compelling" evidence for that claim. And then he goes on to question Dr. Novella's comprehension abilities. Oh well....

Read more Read less

IQ2

28 May 2014 - 04:24 AM

On 2014-05-28 00:24:29, Leo wrote:It does not follow logically to conclude that there must be life after death simply because we do not understand the mechanisms of the mind. Dr.…

On 2014-05-28 00:24:29, Leo wrote:
It does not follow logically to conclude that there must be life after death simply because we do not understand the mechanisms of the mind. Dr. Alexander's anecdotes are unverifiable and worthless with regard to this discussion, he could just as easily claim he were abducted by aliens and we'd have just as much evidence to judge such claims as we do for his claim of experiencing life after death. Why should we believe Dr. Alexander's claim? There is absolutely no way to ever prove such a claim wrong because his only evidence is a personal experience that cannot be replicated, explained or verified. Even Dr. Alexander himself admits he cannot explain the experience using the tools of modern investigation, yet he can somehow assure us that this experience means life exists after death instead of, say, the result of a phenomenon produced by a yet undetected or misunderstood quality of the brain. The scientists in opposition may not be able to explain consciousness, but at least they're working within a framework that allows for axioms to be proven true or false based on what we can consistently demonstrate to others. Further, it's a considerable leap to make claims about a reality we cannot detect with physical senses or tools, but it's simply intellectually egregious to suggest that this other realm of existence naturally fits into the mold of the traditional Christian afterlife. (e.g. heaven and hell). I expected a higher standard of scrutiny from the IQ2 forum, but I'm glad that the discussion was at least civil.

Read more Read less

IQ2

27 May 2014 - 06:02 AM

On 2014-05-27 02:02:02, Psych Survivor wrote:The position defend by Sean Carroll and Steven Novella, namely that the mind is the same as the brain and vice-versa, is so absurd that…

On 2014-05-27 02:02:02, Psych Survivor wrote:
The position defend by Sean Carroll and Steven Novella, namely that the mind is the same as the brain and vice-versa, is so absurd that those who are interested in a skeptic rebuttal to that proposition just need to watch Robert Burton's Google Talk ""A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnu0vE2E4-M . What I mean by "skeptic" I mean that Richard Burton is a self declared skeptic and atheist. He is also a neurologist with a distinguished career. Put in another way, in science, computer science in particular, the distinction between hardware (the brain) and software (the mind) is perfectly understood. No knowledgeable person accepts the argument that destroying a computer running software destroys the actual software that computer runs. When you use a computer, you don't see the source code of the software it runs. It is perfectly possible to see the effect of that computer running software in the actions of trillions of transistors switching at gigantic speeds. It is equally possible to alter the behavior of a computer through basic hardware interventions (such as adding or limiting the computer's memory) or more sophisticated ones like shutting down specific chips that manage say sound or graphics. This is not to say that at this point science has proved the existence of the soul, although I do believe that there is a soul and that there is life after death, what science has done though, through computers, is to disprove the notion that the experiments mentioned by those two constitute evidence that what the brain does, commands, etc (ie the mind) is the same thing as the brain itself.

Read more Read less

IQ2

24 May 2014 - 18:55 PM

On 2014-05-24 14:55:39, Luo Ge wrote:Contrary to the strongly worded assertion made by the "against" side, neuroscience is far from proving that the brain is the source of the conscious…

On 2014-05-24 14:55:39, Luo Ge wrote:
Contrary to the strongly worded assertion made by the "against" side, neuroscience is far from proving that the brain is the source of the conscious mind. It has proved only that the conscious mind is mediated through the brain. It has not found any trace of an actual source. Tinkering with the brain certainly affects the mind, as demonstrated in the words and behaviour of the person. In the same way, tinkering with a TV set affects its performance, as demonstrated in sound and images that the set will produce. But I do not think any neuroscientist would claim that to be proof that the TV set is the source of the programme. If somebody spends their life, as many a neuroscientist does, studying only the function of the brain, then it will be easy for him to conclude, without real justification, that the brain is the only thing involved in producing consciousness.

Read more Read less

IQ2

24 May 2014 - 06:12 AM

On 2014-05-24 02:12:45, Aragis Gregory wrote:This was a very interesting discussion of a very important question. As of today, there is no scientific proof to settle this question one way…

On 2014-05-24 02:12:45, Aragis Gregory wrote:
This was a very interesting discussion of a very important question. As of today, there is no scientific proof to settle this question one way or another. That doesn't mean that such proof is impossible. Our technology has reached the level that may make such experiment possible right now. However, that would require commitment of significant resources. The main reason it has not been done so far is that there is no organization with sufficient funding to accomplish it. This experiment is not something an enthusiast can do in his/her garage.

Read more Read less

IQ2

23 May 2014 - 04:48 AM

On 2014-05-23 00:48:24, Bill Bright wrote:This shouldn't even be a question in this day and age. It's time for humans to grow up and accept a non-magical universe.

On 2014-05-23 00:48:24, Bill Bright wrote:
This shouldn't even be a question in this day and age. It's time for humans to grow up and accept a non-magical universe.

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 May 2014 - 19:13 PM

On 2014-05-22 15:13:04, Bob Funkhouser wrote:
Regarding a previous commenter's statement, "As for Eben Alexander, he was stunningly disingenuous when it came to the Carl Sagan quote..." Actually, Alexander's claim, though an exaggeration, is closer to Sagan's words that Novella's flat-out dismissal of them. Here's the relevant extract from The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, page 302: "At the time of this writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generation in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're like to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." ..... Now Alexander's statement "Carl Sagan admitted that past life memories in children, the evidence for that is overwhelming" is clearly an exaggeration. If he had said "compelling" instead of "overwhelming", it would be closer to the real quote. But Novella is also disingenuous, and imo dishonest, when he replies "I've read that book a hundred times. Carl Sagan did not believe in past lives. He did not believe in anything paranormal or supernatural. That is just not true." Novella has read that book ONE HUNDRED times? Really? Okay, let's assume he has read it 100 times. Then I would question his comprehension abilities and/or his intellectual honesty since he flatly rejects the assertion that Sagan mentioned past life memories in children in a credible context. And Sagan did frame it as "deserving serious study." fwiw

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 May 2014 - 18:08 PM

On 2014-05-22 14:08:04, Zam Kam wrote:
Eben Alexander's claim about Carl Sagan admitting "overwhelming" evidence for past life memories in children was stated completely out of context and, when you read what Carl Sagan actually wrote, is downright FALSE. Here's the entire, unedited paragraph from Carl Sagan's book: "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion,deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images `projected' at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." As you can see, Carl Sagan clearly stated he did NOT believe those claims were valid, so Dr. Alexander use of Sagan's writing to support his theories is very dishonest.

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 May 2014 - 00:58 AM

On 2014-05-19 20:58:12, Joao Lourenco wrote:The skeptics' views were based on theories, not facts. Alexander and Moody were sharing cases that happened and verified through documentation by medical records, etc.

On 2014-05-19 20:58:12, Joao Lourenco wrote:
The skeptics' views were based on theories, not facts. Alexander and Moody were sharing cases that happened and verified through documentation by medical records, etc.

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 May 2014 - 03:38 AM

On 2014-05-18 23:38:20, Russell Ricks wrote:I am on the side of Alexander and Moody...why? For one thing, I myself have experienced something very similar to an NDE. There is new…

On 2014-05-18 23:38:20, Russell Ricks wrote:
I am on the side of Alexander and Moody...why? For one thing, I myself have experienced something very similar to an NDE. There is new research coined by author Sarah Hinze known as Pre Birth Experience or PBE, where our consciousness, our soul or spirit existed before we were born into our present mortal physical world. I myself had such an experience when I was eight years old. I am now almost 56. The conscious memory, the expressions of indescribable joy, the experience of higher felt consciousness and super-enhanced brain capacity beyond my eight year old cognitive physical capacity, is still quite vivid after all these years and is clear evidence to me personally that I had a remarkable similar phenomenon such as an NDE. The other side claimed that a table is made up of particles of atoms, yet they admitted they don't completely fully understand what the atom physical makeup is beyond protons / neutrons (how is it that these finer substances exist? An atom is finer than the physical object it creates. Protons and neutrons are finer materials beyond the atom. Science has now began to discover that the physical world is made up of "light" particles. It is my opinion that LIGHT and Consciousness or in other words, the SPIRIT are one and the same. Albert Einstein gave us the theory of relativity, which is based on the speed of light. In our physical world we comprehend time. In our state, we understand a beginning and an end to all things, yet when it comes to infinity or eternal principles, this is beyond our physical experience. Einstein basically stated that if we could travel the speed of light, we would never die. TIME WOULD STAND STILL. We would essentially be immortal. I believe immortal beings appear to have a body of substance like a physical human form, yet they are made up of a FINER material or MATTER, just like an atom is made of matter, yet the proton and neutron composite of an atom is of a finer material substance than the atom itself. I am LDS (The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints), also known as Mormons. We believe our souls (or spirit matter or consciousness) existed before we were born. We believe this finer material which creates the consciousness of our Physical bodies are literal spirit children of God. Since my PBE, I certainly am convinced such is the case. Here is an interesting scripture as revealed by God to a great early spiritual of our faith...Doctrine and Covenants 84: 44-47 44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. 45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ. 46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit. 47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father. We may not fully comprehend this debates question until after we part from this life into the spiritual realm. Here is another set of scripture found in our Doctrine and Covenants... D&C 93:28-30 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Read more Read less

IQ2

18 May 2014 - 23:30 PM

On 2014-05-18 19:30:47, Toroid wrote:
Death is probably final. The 'experience' of death is probably identical to the state of being that conscious entities 'experience' before birth. Some computerl 'experts' contest the proposition that life is a prerequisite to consciousness. Without concrete evidence to the contrary they're probably wrong. 'Probably' covers a lot of territory. Without concrete evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation of life and consciousness is by far the most probable. Since answers to questions about life and death can't be known with absolute certainty and fear and personal ego are major factors influencing people many people believe different concepts regarding death than the one that's most probable.

Read more Read less

IQ2

17 May 2014 - 02:07 AM

On 2014-05-16 22:07:35, Alex wrote:It was nice to see Dr.Eben Alexander in this debate, as I have much respect for him and his blessed experience. There was a point in…

On 2014-05-16 22:07:35, Alex wrote:
It was nice to see Dr.Eben Alexander in this debate, as I have much respect for him and his blessed experience. There was a point in the debate that caught my attention though and I wanted to comment on my experiences with this, it might shed some light into the topic. I experienced first hand the reality of ghosts.. Since this seems to be a puzzling thing for those that hold an exclusively materialistic worldview to explain away, especially when the witnesses are healthy normal unsuspecting people I thought it would be helpful if I chipped in my two scents. Im not a scientist, but I do believe that what I am about to write merits an explanation... ( I apologize for my long reply! ) For about more than a year I worked as a custodian during the night 9-12:00 a.m. at a beauty academy to earn some extra cash. During my time there, I could see the sudden tension in people as their closing hour came up. It came to my attention that a few decades before this building was used as a beauty academy it was an old theater, one that was closed down after an awful murder had taken place in the womens bathroom. Apparently a child had died there and a woman as well. It was all over the news back then. You can imagine the chill running down spines as the kids attended their classes! Oh the stories were plentiful. The faculty had seen a woman in white clothing walking through the narrow half lit isles that led to lonely classrooms. Lights turning on and off suddenly, during classroom hours. Trashcan lids literally levitating during class meetings.. hearing a childs laughter in an empty academy as the faculty were getting ready to leave. Find it shocking or not, but sometimes those brave souls worked longer shifts that went into the night. Sometimes they would be there before the custodial staff would arrive, and they would hear a child bouncing a ball in the downstairs lobby. They would peek closer and see the dark shadow embodiment of a childs figure. People reported seeing a child running up and down the stairs, playing games and well being a kid. During Halloween, the supervisor said that as she was upstairs filing some papers, getting things ready, a doll that hung by the wall beside her started shivering and violently thrusting, the hairs of the doll began to move in an electrified fashion. She told us she soon bolted out of there as soon as she could. The supervisor has been reluctant to stay after hours. My boss would often times be left alone in the largest classroom in the academy, (it was one that was used for instructing and cutting clients hair) and as he cleaned the lockers in that room, now keep in mind there was an estimated hundred or so, they begin to pound loudly and aggressively in the corners of the room... Moving from locker to locker as if there was some sort of angry dog or animal inside them. This place is scary enough, with a chandelier, classical 8ft frames hanging from the sides of the lobby, the deserted and isolated feel of everything, since it was a theater originally.. The one that really took any shred of skepticism away for me though was when I actually heard the ghost for myself. I wanted to maintain my skepticism, in part because in any other way I think I would have been to afraid to go back, but after I actually heard it I dont know if I could explain it away.. Late midnight as I was resting in my chair in the lonely hallway near the exit, I heard a very audible groaning, but it wasnt a passive groaning, the one I heard was a suffocated, tired and violent groaning as if to say "I cannot take it anymore, I am enraged, someone help me.." After I got my nerves back I went and checked the empty locker hallway next to where I was, just to check if anyone was actually there... there was no one. My boss was upstairs and apparently I finished too early and I assumed we were done so I waited.. The sound could not have come from outside because there was a very real sense of the audio sounds bouncing from the walls of the locker hallway. It happened about fifteen feet from where I was!! It sounded really disturbed to be honest. As the months went by they decided on getting the school a new paint job, you know for the coming year and because the aesthetics were beginning to show its age. They remodeled and brought in new equipment. And at night came a group of painters that were hired to give the walls of the school a new paint job. The first week into the job the painter lost his whole crew and got stuck finishing the job by himself. The crew fled that week in fear. Also a skeptic, he scoffed at the idea of ghosts and at his workers for being "cowards". From what he tells, that is one night he wont soon forget. I must assume he is now a somewhat changed man as well due to the trauma of his experience. As he was left painting the remainder the building from the inside, right in the same spot that I heard the grueling voice, he said a body clung to his back as he was benched over painting and gathering his supplies.. He felt it was some sort of playful wrestling that tossed his body around and pulled from the neck. After the four hours of work he came home a shivering person, shocked and confused. Denouncing that place and swearing he would never go back there no matter what they payed him.. I could go on and on about the stories and experiences.. But this is why I simply am not okay with hearing that these things dont happen.. These things need to be accounted for and need to be taken seriously as they affect people and can leave them traumatized.. This is why I think its unwise to dismiss these things or to treat them without respect. The debaters in opposition claimed to be coming from a level headed and respectful position but I dont think this is true... There was a lot of sarcasm and explanations given in a joking tone from the opposing debaters that made me cringe when in the same debate they claimed to be respectful as well.. It might be only my opinion, and I could be wrong on this, but that is the attitude I perceived during the debate. I think it is naive at best, to believe that looking through this limited filter of the materialistic position can solve all discussions. It is important to view these things with humility and simply accept that we do not yet have all the answers. That somethings might be within our reach and others might simply not be within our reach, now or ever at all. I think the scientific community needs to have a perspective of self criticism and humility and to simply say, "we dont know and our proposed hypotheses are not adequate to explain supernatural phenomena, but we still acknowledge its importance and presence in our everyday lives. " It would be nice to hear scientists saying this more and more often. That the materialistic perspective is but a small portion of the entire amount of knowledge.

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 May 2014 - 01:44 AM

On 2014-05-15 21:44:34, ST wrote:
If there was nothing there, there would be nothing there. Considering western scientists... can't even measure 96% of the Universe, the most unscientific thing one could do is assume anything about it. Some of us didn't have time to argue, it's easier to just do it. https://sites.google.com/site/sbtorrance/home

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 May 2014 - 09:56 AM

On 2014-05-15 05:56:22, David wrote:Death is the ultimate personal experience. I do not personally believe death is final. But one cannot "know" until one has the experience. I'm content to…

On 2014-05-15 05:56:22, David wrote:
Death is the ultimate personal experience. I do not personally believe death is final. But one cannot "know" until one has the experience. I'm content to wait and find out for myself. The talking heads can argue ad nauseum. They'll find out soon enough.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 May 2014 - 00:38 AM

On 2014-05-14 20:38:39, Raven wrote:
Science continues to equate, and confuse, "mind" with "consciousness." In the eastern sciences, which do not deny life after death, mind is indeed produced by the brain; but it is Consciousness that exists independent of the brain. Until science is able to sort out its own definitions, debates like this one will continue on false premises.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 May 2014 - 00:07 AM

On 2014-05-14 20:07:05, Yuoma wrote:Clever, clever undecideds

On 2014-05-14 20:07:05, Yuoma wrote:
Clever, clever undecideds

Read more Read less

IQ2

13 May 2014 - 22:16 PM

On 2014-05-13 18:16:12, Conny Galloway wrote:Near death critics should watch Pim van Lommel's video.

On 2014-05-13 18:16:12, Conny Galloway wrote:
Near death critics should watch Pim van Lommel's video.

Read more Read less

IQ2

13 May 2014 - 00:32 AM

I don't really care for the format of these debates with the voting from the audience. There's too much bias potential from the audience. What if they vote "undecided" beforehand…

I don't really care for the format of these debates with the voting from the audience. There's too much bias potential from the audience. What if they vote "undecided" beforehand even though they have a definitely opinion on the matter, just so they can make it seem as though more people have been swayed by their side? How are we to know if the audience is actually balanced? Even though it turned out that the 'against' side garnered more votes in the end, I don't believe for a second that it's a accurate reflection of how convinced the audience was of the arguments.

Read more Read less

IQ2

13 May 2014 - 00:22 AM

Alexander's entire argument is based upon an argument from ignorance. He doesn't have any other explanation for what he experienced, therefore it's the afterlife. It's just one huge logical fallacy. It doesn't exactly help that he believes in remote viewing and such....that just adds to my confidence that he's not a person to be taken seriously.

Read more Read less

IQ2

12 May 2014 - 05:28 AM

Eben (a name he gave himself, not his birth name) was thoroughly debunked in a fine journalist piece (in Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, I think.) I read it…

Eben (a name he gave himself, not his birth name) was thoroughly debunked in a fine journalist piece (in Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, I think.) I read it a while ago. The guy's got a scam going. He lied about a lot of things and got busted by a thorough journalist.

Read more Read less

IQ2

12 May 2014 - 00:10 AM

On 2014-05-11 20:10:09, Vidar wrote:Wathcing this program, every movement on the screen and every sound from the speaker correlates with electronic activity within my PC. Therefore the entire program was…

On 2014-05-11 20:10:09, Vidar wrote:
Wathcing this program, every movement on the screen and every sound from the speaker correlates with electronic activity within my PC. Therefore the entire program was generated by my PC and ceases to exist when it breaks down.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 May 2014 - 16:42 PM

On 2014-05-11 12:42:39, Concerned About Now wrote:The 'against' side deserved to win, Steve Novella and Sean Carroll did the side of naturalism and reason proud. To the Spiritualists out there,…

On 2014-05-11 12:42:39, Concerned About Now wrote:
The 'against' side deserved to win, Steve Novella and Sean Carroll did the side of naturalism and reason proud. To the Spiritualists out there, You need to understand that you have not met the burden of proof yet (the plural of anecdote is not data). A discovery of an afterlife would be the biggest finding in human history but you have to put in the time and do the rigorous research first, stop making bald assertions. With that said I am still waiting for a clear definition (that means no hand waving, deepities, etc) of a spirit. I personally cannot take you seriously until you can come up with a working definition (that others agree upon) of the 'thing' you are talking about. It is so tiresome reading comments regarding mystical occurrences, infinite awareness, divine love and the like. None of this means anything, I understand we can be limited in our vocabulary at times but these statements are not profound, it is just word salad. As for Eben Alexander, he was stunningly disingenuous when it came to the Carl Sagan quote. He was obviously trying for a 'gotcha' moment that could swing the vote. The problem with us skeptics is we investigate (everything) it turns out Alexander butchered Sagan's quote. On top of that even if the Carl Sagan with all his fantastic skeptical and scientific work had also believed in the credibility of such claims, this does not change the veracity of the claim itself. We should not make the mistake of appealing to authority. Alexander's credibility has also been eviscerated. Alexander's has documented attempts to cover up potential surgical malpractice, he has distorted the events surrounding his time in hospital for artistic license in his book and included other pieces of misinformation. This of course does not diminish the accuracy of other NDE claims or even the actual events (before he made fundamental changes) pertaining to his experience just that he should not be lauded. As a skeptic I am open minded but this point needs to be stated; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are not being close minded if you investigate rigorously the claims being made, it would be nonsensical to think otherwise. Some advice, a book or three and a YouTube video does not cut it. We (reasonable people awaiting evidence) want you to carry out methodologically sound studies in controlled environments. To provide rigorous analysis of collected data and publish in peer reviewed journals. Then establish a body of research and enhance that by meta-analyses and systematic reviews and so on. Then we can have a serious discussion about the NDE and afterlife claims; until this process has been started, such bald assertions are vapid and intellectually bankrupt. If you do all of that (in fairness even some of evidence would be incredible) we will be convinced and your Nobel prize will be awarded. It shouldn't be too hard should it, we've put men on the moon and placed rovers on Mars, solved Fermat's last theorem and found the Higgs Boson; all you have to do is get someone to see a playing card on top of a cupboard. Maybe that's flippant of me, just stop claiming to know things you do not know and do the work required, ok?

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 May 2014 - 05:55 AM

On 2014-05-11 01:55:14, William wrote:can I send my spirit to meet somebody

On 2014-05-11 01:55:14, William wrote:
can I send my spirit to meet somebody

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 May 2014 - 02:02 AM

On 2014-05-10 22:02:41, Niko wrote:I am on Dr. Alexander's and Moody's side, and it's unfortunate that they didn't get to make all the points they could've made given the time…

On 2014-05-10 22:02:41, Niko wrote:
I am on Dr. Alexander's and Moody's side, and it's unfortunate that they didn't get to make all the points they could've made given the time constraints. First of all, solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness would involve much more than merely identifying a physical mechanism that is correlated with consciousness. The essence of the problem is "how can something as immaterial as consciousness ever arise out of something as unconscious as matter" (assuming, of course, that matter is unconscious as the materialists assert). Defining consciousness as a process, such as a flame, doesn't address the issue because there is a subjective, qualitative component that is inherent in consciousness, and all processes are purely objective and quantitative. How can something inherently subjective/qualitative be fully explained by something entirely objective and quantitative? I don't think it can, and thus I agree with Chalmers that consciousness is probably a fundamental aspect of reality. In my view, materialism in principle can never answer two fundamental questions: 1) why does consciousness exist at all and 2) why do objects, thoughts, and feelings appear the way they do (the problem of qualia). This is already a good reason to be skeptical of materialism and not be firmly entrenched in it the way Novella and Carroll are. In addition, a quick Google search reveals that the "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics is still an unresolved mystery (which is why they are many contending interpretations of quantum theory). It is true that not all interpretations explicitly posit a role for consciousness. However, regardless of the interpretation, quantum theory clearly shows that quantum reality is inherently informational. Anyone who doubts this can check out a simple description of the quantum eraser experiment on this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment. Briefly, the properties quantum energies manifest depend on the information that we (the observers) are trying to elicit via our experimental setup. If there's no way we can know a particle's position, it stops being a particle with a definite position and becomes a "wave of possibilities." If we place a detector screen to determine its position, the wave of possibilities "collapses" and the particle becomes a particle, i.e. manifests a specific position. How and why this occurs remains a mystery. One thing is clear: on the quantum level, our so-called material reality is not what we would imagine it to be and what many materialists still imagine it to be despite their (apparent) knowledge of quantum theory; it is not tiny bits of inert matter chaotically bumping into each other in meaningless ways. Rather, it is energy and information interconnected in mysterious and meaningful ways and on the large scale creating the familiar material world that we (mistakenly) assume to be fundamental. The idea that the source of material reality is subtle energy and information is in complete accordance with the world's mystical traditions, and suggests that in a more general sense, consciousness is woven into the very fabric of reality and that Mind is behind this reality. The founders of quantum theory realized this, and Sir James Jean famously said "The universe begins to look more and more like a great thought than a great machine." The reason a lot of modern physicists do not openly make such statements is because they have learned to ignore the philosophical implications of quantum theory (which they feel are beyond their field) and stick with the mathematical formalism and practical applications, which is much less problematic. This is well explained in the book "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness." The founders of quantum theory saw it with fresh eyes, and realized the profound implications. Modern physicists, on the other hand, have become desensitized to the mysterious nature and take it for granted. There is a solid possibility that mind and consciousness manifest in the physical brain via quantum effects, in which case no laws of physics are violated. The significance of quantum effects in the brain has not yet been experimentally established; however, Quantum Biology is revealing that quantum effects play a larger role in living organisms than previously thought. It was found that they play a crucial role in photosynthesis, and might also be involved in bird navigation and in the human sense of smell. Quantum effects make photosynthesis much more efficient than it would have otherwise been, which shows that they are purposeful rather than meaningless and inert. These findings make it more likely than quantum effects play a similar role in the brain, which opens the possibility that mind and consciousness use the brain as a vehicle via these effects. Novella suggested that just like the concept of "vital energy" became obsolete, so will the idea that consciousness is something more than a physical process. In light of Quantum Biology, which is a new field and still has a lot to discover, it doesn't seem that "vital energy" became obsolete. There's no doubt that physical life obeys the laws of physics and chemistry; in fact, it would be surprising if it somehow did not. But that doesn't undermine the possibility that life and consciousness come from a deeper and more subtle level of reality, and manifest in the physical through quantum effects. When they do so, they become bound by the laws of physics and chemistry, but just like Quantum Theory does not contradict these laws but instead includes them within itself, so are life and consciousness not reducible to these laws but can manifest in them and temporarily become limited by them. When the physical organism dies, life and consciousness can no longer operate through it so it goes back to its original form, which is more subtle and less restricted, but which cannot easily influence the physical world. The question of "vital energy" is not a question of whether or not life obeys the laws of nature. It is rather a question of whether or not there's something behind living organisms that led to their existence as organized, purposeful structures and that helped them to evolve. Science, being reductive as opposed to holistic, does not take "form" and "purpose" into account. It assumes that the whole is just the sum of its parts, and when the details of biological processes are explained, the mystery goes away. But it doesn't, because it seems extremely unlikely that structured and purposeful organisms would accidentally arise and evolve in a dead, meaningless universe. Just like photosynthesis would be very inefficient (and maybe non-existent) without purposeful quantum manifestations, so would life itself. Moreover, Carroll claims there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of other realms. This is not true, however. Physicists know that what we call physical matter accounts for only 4% of the universe. The other 96% is dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is of particular interest, because it implies the existence of a substance that is too subtle to be detected by current instruments but which is known to exist due to the gravitational effects it exerts on a large scale. It is hypothesized that this substance is composed of yet-undiscovered quantum particles, and that these "dark" particles might very well conglomerate into "dark atoms" and "dark molecules," and thus the dark world might be just as interesting and complex as the visible world (http://www.wired.com/2013/05/double-disk-dark-matter/). Is this not preliminary evidence of non-physical realms? Also, Carroll and Novella have said again and again that reports of NDEs cannot be taken as evidence because as humans we are often mistaken about the nature of our experiences. However, being mistaken about the details of an experience when recalling it seems fundamentally different from being mistaken about the overall reality of the experience. The latter happens during dreams, but when we wake up we know that "it was just a dream." People who have hallucinations might take them to be valid during the experience, but if they recover and are not permanently delusional, they will realize them for what they were. Dr. Alexander recognized that the delusional recovery period was a hallucination. This is not the case with NDEs though. People who are totally sane are completely certain that what they experienced was not only as real as our everyday reality, but oftentimes even "more real." This is because they were hyper-lucid during the experience, which is not the case with hallucinations or dreams. The reason we mistake them to be real when they are happening is because we are in a lower state of awareness, but when we come back to our normal state, we realize that. NDEs, however, are characterized by a heightened state of awareness, which is suggested not only by the hyper-lucidity but also clarity of thought, abstract/complex thinking, and emotions of a very high order (unconditional love, compassion, etc). Almost everyone who had the experience asserts that they experienced a level of consciousness that was above, not below, their baseline state. As such, it is scientifically inappropriate to dismiss them as bizarre hallucinations, for then we might as well dismiss our everyday reality as a hallucination put together by our brain and nothing more. On a related note, there are a number of people who willfully leave their bodies on a regular basis and have coherent out of body experiences that are informative and allow them to develop comprehensive theories about the nature of reality and the nonphysical realms. There are many authors on the subject, and they are clearly not delusional but are often socially adept and successful (Robert Monroe being a prime example). During their out of body experiences, they are usually as lucid as they are during their waking state, and are convinced of the objective reality of the experience. Occasionally, they are able to verify their perceptions against actual events that take place in the physical. Labeling these reports as mere "anecdotes" with no scientific value is biased and inappropriate. Science is not limited to laboratory experiments, but starts with systematic, careful observations, which is exactly what the out-of-body explorers do. Consistent reports from reliable sources should count as data. It does not conclusively prove anything but should promote open-minded investigation, which scientists like Carroll and Novella are far from doing. Finally, Novella asserted that Parapsychology has failed to find any solid evidence for the existence of telepathy, etc. This is not quite true. Hundreds of experiments over the years have produced positive results, and these experiments have become more rigorous and well-controlled in recent years. If experimental flaws explain all apparent positive results, we would expect the evidence to decline in recent years, which hasn't happened. Meta analyses have also shown that better--controlled studies do not produce worse results than poorer ones, and publication bias is not enough to explain the overall significant results of meta-analyses. The statistics used to analyze the data is the same basic statistics that is used in most other areas of science, which is why many parapsychologists believe the evidence of ESP has been proven. Of course, skeptics disagree, but that is not due to lack of evidence. It is a matter of whether or not the burden of proof has been met, and that burden of proof is higher for those who believe ESP is impossible or highly unlikely. It has thus been suggested that Bayesian statistics should be used to analyze this type of data since it takes subjective probability into account. The conclusion, therefore, is that there is definitely evidence, but whether or not ESP has been proven depends on your a priori beliefs. Asserting that there is no evidence whatsoever is simply not true at this point, and is the result of mainstream prejudice against parapsychology research. Because most articles of this nature are published in specialized journals, it is easy for the mainstream to simply ignore the evidence and keep asserting it doesn't exist. Occasionally, these articles do make it into a mainstream journal, which is significant given how hard it is to make it through the peer-review process even for mainstream research.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 May 2014 - 00:53 AM

On 2014-05-10 20:53:18, Kevin Williams wrote:
Because quantum vibrations have just recently been discovered in microtubules in the brain which supports the much derided 1990s theory that consciousness is derived from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. Read more about this recent scientific discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm . This theory of "quantum consciousness" is the theory known as "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) which was developed by the joint work of theoretical physicist, Sir Roger Penrose, and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Penrose approached the problem of consciousness from the view point of mathematics, while Hameroff approached it from his career in anesthesia that gave him an interest in brain structures. Mainstream theories of consciousness use classical mechanics in assuming consciousness is produced from "goo". So they focus particularly on complex computation at synapses in the brain allowing communication between neurons. But Orch-OR assumes classical physics cannot fully explain consciousness. In the June 1994 issue of Discover Magazine, an article ran called "Quantum Consciousness" about how consciousness and quantum physics are intimately connected. This theory of quantum consciousness suggests that consciousness is processed inside the microtubules of brain cells. At death, the quantum information processed inside these microtubules doesn’t disappear; but instead, is retained in on the edge of the universe's event horizon allowing such information to be retrieved after death. One of the fundamental laws in physics, the first law of thermodynamics, states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - it can only be converted. So if it is true that consciousness is a form of energy, then according to the first law of thermodynamics, consciousness cannot be created nor destroyed. Instead, it is converted into something else. The reductive materialist model on which conventional science is based is fundamentally flawed. At its core, it intentionally ignores the fundamental component of existence - the nature of consciousness. The pioneers of quantum mechanics demonstrated that consciousness has a definite role in creating reality. But it was the "quantum eraser experiments" (Google it) performed in 2000 and later which strongly demonstrated that consciousness itself is deeply rooted in quantum processes. Quantum eraser experiments by Wheeler and others reveal that an experimenter is able to successfully choose and predict the random outcome of an event even after the outcome has already taken place. Quantum eraser experiments show how the outcome of whether or not a photon of light is a wave or a particle can be predicted after the fact by the experimenter making a random mental choice of the experiment's outcome. In other words, the experimenter's "after the fact" choice of the outcome actually determines the experiment's outcome. These astonishing findings dramatically shows that our choices made today may determine the outcome of our past. This astonishing finding, where quantum information is processed backward in time as well as forward, is supported by the "Holographic Principle" (google it) developed by Leonard Susskind which theorizes the universe to be a hologram. Just recently this theory has been verified. See this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universe-really-is-a-holo The universe as a single hologram solves the mystery of "quantum entanglement" which Einstein called "spooky actions from a distance." This holistic view of the universe (as opposed to the reductionist view) can also be applied to the human brain. A holographic universe and holographic brain also falsifies dualism as it relates to the mind and body. The Holographic Principle was a catalyst towards a theory of "quantum consciousness" called the "Holonomic Brain Theory" (google it) which explains how the brain encodes memories in a holographic manner. The Holonomic Brain Theory originated from David Bohm and Karl Pribram who synchronistically arrived at a holographic model of the universe and mind at the same time. Taken all together, these holographic theories support a newly emerging paradigm called "holism." Holism is the principle of a whole system being more than just the sum of its parts as opposed to reductionism. The best way to study the behavior of many complex systems is to treat it as a whole. One of the most amazing things about the human thinking process being holographic is that every piece of information is instantly cross-correlated with every other piece of information both inside and outside the brain - another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, the human brain is perhaps one of nature's supreme examples of a cross-correlated, holistic system. Encoding and decoding light frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a lens which translates meaningless blurs of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram theorizes the brain also comprises a lens (e.g., our eyes) and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert frequencies received by the senses into the inner world of our perceptions. This holistic and holographic theory of how the brain processes information and stores it in a nonlocal manner becomes more understandable when, according to the theory, the brain acts as a filter which translates the avalanche of frequencies the brain receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, etc.) into the concrete world of our perceptions. An impressive body of evidence suggests the brain uses quantum holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists. A good analogy of this theory of the brain acting as a filter of information (as opposed to the brain acting solely as the originator of information) is that the brain acts much like a radio receiver. When death occurs, the brain's receiving and filtering function dies along with the brain; but the nonlocal quantum information of consciousness does not. In the same way, if you destroy a radio, the nonlocal radio frequencies which the radio processes into the radio announcer's voice is not destroyed but continues to exist in the airwaves. In a holographic universe, this nonlocal quantum information of consciousness is stored (i.e., "painted") like all quantum information in the universe as interference patterns upon the two-dimensional edge of the event horizon of the black hole from which our universe was projected from. As with any hologram, it is from these two-dimensional interference patterns that a three-dimensional hologram is produced. So the brain's process of quantum information being stored upon the edge of our universe's event horizon may be the basis for consciousness transcending and surviving physical death as revealed in near-death experiences. This holographic paradigm supports the idea that consciousness does not originate from "goo" (i.e. material brains.) So, in this sense, looking to see how consciousness originates in the brain is much like looking inside a radio for the announcer. I could go on and mention other interpretations of quantum mechanics supporting a transcendent consciousness such as the Many-Worlds Theory, and its corresponding Many-Minds Theory, and the Zero-Point Field Theory; but I don't have the time or space. The old materialistic paradigm, prevalent mostly in the West, disregards the possibility of out-of-body dimensions; whereas, the new paradigm supports them. For this reason, open-minded scientists have acknowledged the time is now to abandon the old paradigm and focus on the new one. Disregarding the old paradigm became even more reasonable when, in December of 2001, The Lancet (the United Kingdom's highly respected journal of medicine) published the results of a study by Dr. Pim van Lommel showing 18 percent of clinically dead patients having NDEs. Lommel's study documented verified events observed by such patients from a perspective removed from their bodies - called "veridical perception" - suggesting the existence of a transcendent consciousness. Such studies beg the question of why the scientific community at large remains mostly silent about these facts. Current near-death studies, such as "The AWARE Study" (google it) is trying to determine if consciousness transcends the body after death. The director of this study, Dr. Sam Parnia M.D., is a critical care physician and director of resuscitation research at the Stony Brook University School of Medicine in New York and is recognized as an authority on the scientific study of death, the human mind–brain relationship, and near-death experience. Dr. Parnia has been part of the AWARE study, launched by "The Human Consciousness Project," in which 25 participating hospitals across Europe and North America have been examining reports of patients after their clinical death, several of whom are expected to have an out-of-body experience with physical perceptions of their surroundings. A major objective of the AWARE study is to test whether these out-of-body perceptions reported by these patients can be validated. One method involves visual targets being placed near the ceiling where it can only be seen by someone reading it from above their body. Patients who report OBEs are then asked to describe what they saw. If what they saw matches the target information then out-of-body perception has been scientifically validated.. Near-death studies contain multiple reports of veridical perception of events which were outside the range of the NDE experiencer's sensory perception and, therefore, of brain mediation. In some cases, such perceptions occur while the NDE experiencer has no brain activity. Hundreds of such cases are published on www.iands.org, www.nderf.org, www.oberf.org and www.near-death.com. Taken altogether, the evidence strongly suggests the possibility of NDE and OBE perception occurring without the help of the physical senses or the brain. Therefore, for skeptics to refer to NDEs and OBEs in general as "illusions" or "delusions" is ignoring much evidence to the contrary. According to veridical NDE experts Jan Holden and Jeffrey Long: "Even if future research convincingly demonstrated that electrical stimulation of a particular area of the brain consistently induced typical OBEs, this finding would not explain veridical perception associated with OBEs." The AWARE study will release its preliminary findings in 2014. If cases of out-of-body veridical perception have been scientifically proven, then the hypothesis of consciousness surviving death will come very close to being a scientific fact. Here is one doctor's describing a patient who successfully read a 12-digit number while out of their body: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/263101025/the-death-class-a-true-story-about-life#excerpt Also note that anyone who doesn't understand these principles of quantum theory and consciousness (usually magician/skeptics) often refer to this as "woo woo." So whenever you read or hear anyone referring this as "woo woo," you know they haven't done their homework. Hope this helps. Kevin Williams, B.Sc. www.near-death.com

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 May 2014 - 20:43 PM

On 2014-05-10 16:43:34, James wrote:I was put off a bit by the insistence by the for side that because you cannot say in a sentence the mechanism by which the…

On 2014-05-10 16:43:34, James wrote:
I was put off a bit by the insistence by the for side that because you cannot say in a sentence the mechanism by which the brain creates consciousness that it therefore discredits that idea. Yet the for side simultaneously has no mechanism by which consciousness can exist without the brain and can continue on without. That hypocrisy tells me the for side hasn't really considered their position as strongly as they'd like to pretend.

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 May 2014 - 19:18 PM

On 2014-05-10 15:18:11, Tyle wrote:Profound feelings or experiences, like Alexander's, might teach you about what your mind is like, but that's as far is it goes. For comparison, I had…

On 2014-05-10 15:18:11, Tyle wrote:
Profound feelings or experiences, like Alexander's, might teach you about what your mind is like, but that's as far is it goes. For comparison, I had a friend who did a lot of acid. While tripping he experienced "really serious sh!#" which convinced him that the US government suspected him of murder and was building an elaborate case against him (which, for example, involved listening devices hidden under a park where my friend often slept). I tried to convince him (unsuccessfully) that whatever he had felt - no matter how persuasive or dripping with truth and mystical significance it had seemed - it had just been fireworks in his head, and that's not a good way to learn about government plots.

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 May 2014 - 18:55 PM

On 2014-05-10 14:55:30, Astidkali wrote:Near-death experiences cannot be proofs of life after death simply because near-death is not death.

On 2014-05-10 14:55:30, Astidkali wrote:
Near-death experiences cannot be proofs of life after death simply because near-death is not death.

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 May 2014 - 07:47 AM

On 2014-05-10 03:47:27, Cory wrote:My opinion of Alexander and Moody have diminished so much, it's sad. Really it was quite pathetic. Moody might as well have stayed home. Alexander, my…

On 2014-05-10 03:47:27, Cory wrote:
My opinion of Alexander and Moody have diminished so much, it's sad. Really it was quite pathetic. Moody might as well have stayed home. Alexander, my god, just stop; it's pitiful. They offered no rejoinder to the powerful 'soft-problem' argument, where the supposedly "non-physical" mind then somehow illogically and inexplicably interacts with the physical brain. How does this work again Dr. Alexander? Can you provide even the first sentence of such an explanation for us? In attempting to distinguish between the physical and non-physical the Cartesian dualist inevitably ends up digging his own grave, and as of yet, hasn't yet managed to find a successful way back out, and this is basic philosophy 101 folks. And of course a corollary to this is the fact that physical things, such as say, being 'physically' knocked unconscious, sedated, drunk, high, etc. all somehow affect the non-physical brain...hmmmmm, I wonder why that might be... Again, please explain Mr. Descartes, Dr. Alexander, Mad eye Moody, et al. how can a ghost get high, drunk, or knocked unconscious? Therein lies the power in such debates: the potential of showing just how ridiculous things are, in spite of the fact that they're paraded around as truth by a man with a PhD and an even more misleading bow tie.

Read more Read less

IQ2

9 May 2014 - 16:48 PM

On 2014-05-09 12:48:41, Helen Siciliano wrote:It's hard to believe that learned men cannot accept that the mind is beyond the brain. I need no convincing as I experienced the Truth…

On 2014-05-09 12:48:41, Helen Siciliano wrote:
It's hard to believe that learned men cannot accept that the mind is beyond the brain. I need no convincing as I experienced the Truth of the above fact. I did not almost die, however, it was after deep meditation that I noticed as I looked out the window that I was ONE with the blades of grass and the rocks in the road. I was enveloped in a LOVE I could not put into words. This Divine Love was in everything and in me. At the core of my being I was this LOVE and so was everyone else. In this higher state which I refer to as a state of grace, there was no right or wrong, no good or bad, no judgement whatsoever. Fear was non-existent! There was no death and I knew that we all live forever. Everyone I met was LOVE It did not matter what they looked like, behaved like. I was them and they were me. We are all connected. The utter JOY is indescribable. I knew we did not end at our fingertips. The PEACE and BLISS are beyond words. I became aware that a Presence other than what I usually think of as myself was looking through my eyes. I had become ONE with this INFINITE AWARENESS that simply sees without judgement. It is the very essence of life, eternal life. I wanted nothing, needed nothing. It was PEACE that passeth understanding. I pray that an NDE or mystical experience occurs to a skeptical scientist for only then could they be convinced that there is so much more to us than what our senses tell us. We are SPIRIT! Thank you. Helen

Read more Read less

IQ2

9 May 2014 - 02:20 AM

On 2014-05-08 22:20:20, David Sunfellow wrote:
Kevin Williams of Near-Death.com provided a comprehensive list of resources pertaining to evidence supporting the survival of consciousness after death. Additional resources can be found on NHNE Pulse: NDEs Absolutely, Positively NOT Caused By Malfunctioning Brains http://nhne-pulse.org/ndes-absolutely-positively-not-caused-by-malfunctioning-brains/ Among other things, the Pulse resource page includes many provocative videos. NHNE Pulse also features a page on the Intelligence Squared debate, which includes background information on Dr. Raymond Moody and Dr. Eben Alexander: http://nhne-pulse.org/death-is-not-final-debate-moody-alexander-vs-novella-carroll/

Read more Read less

IQ2

9 May 2014 - 01:55 AM

On 2014-05-08 21:55:19, Alexander MacRae wrote:
The phenomenon of Anomalous Acoustic Events is not even mentioned. This provides replicable physical evidence of intelligences outwith physical existence. I predict that within the next decade we will see how irrational the anti position was, and such debates as this will be so unimportant as to no longer attract much attention in the religiously tolerant world. And many of the antis will say, 'Well .. of course I knew it all along... Which is why I have got this substantial rsearch grant....'

Read more Read less

IQ2

9 May 2014 - 01:36 AM

On 2014-05-08 21:36:13, Lotta wrote:Have also had a NDE 30 years ago. When I read Dr. Alexander's book so I recognized so much. Though my experience was as clear as…

On 2014-05-08 21:36:13, Lotta wrote:
Have also had a NDE 30 years ago. When I read Dr. Alexander's book so I recognized so much. Though my experience was as clear as I remember it so well. I was in both worlds simultaneously.Now, I also write a book about this experience where I describe my thoughts and feelings in the experience. about how surprised I was when I saw myself lying on the floor. I also paint paintings judgment is wath. I saw when I was "dead." figures, landscape, light, and paintings of myself how it looked. In the book, I also write a lot about death and our strange relationship with the The book comes out this fall, will be called "The woman who met death." I hope you can read this because I'm not so good at English, (I'm from Sweden.) Unfortunately, I have had difficultyalso to read what you have written. But still little understood. Thought I wanted to write a comment for this topic is close to my heart. And I know that death is absolutely not the end but beginning of a new life in another place, another dimention or heaven. in my experience, it was the second dimention or heaven only 5 or 6 feet from the place I fell to the floor.I hope you can read this.

Read more Read less

IQ2

9 May 2014 - 00:34 AM

On 2014-05-08 20:34:21, Scott Moreland wrote:The argument missing from both sides is the concept of the passage of time. If time is viewed as non-linear, and eternity is the same…

On 2014-05-08 20:34:21, Scott Moreland wrote:
The argument missing from both sides is the concept of the passage of time. If time is viewed as non-linear, and eternity is the same as timelessness, then we are all eternal insofar as if we ever existed we eternally exist. What if 'heaven' is no more than a timeless perception of being--like a filmstrip if you will? In a 'zero time' state, we are all eternal beings. http://www.open-science-repository.com/timeless-existence.html

Read more Read less

IQ2

9 May 2014 - 00:15 AM

On 2014-05-08 20:15:31, Rusty Ashbaugh wrote:
I understand the “against” side claiming that Dr. Alexander’s experience was not rigorously monitored and documented, that his experience was the result of some residual brain function and that he may have been mistaken as to when it occurred during his coma. Fine, his belief that he had his experience without any neo-cortical activity may be challenged or questioned, but I found his description of a sister that he had never met to be very persuasive. The “against” side ignored this specific example of something that is inexplicable without accepting that his sister’s “spirit” or consciousness was communicating with him. The “against” side also ignored that so-called “shared” experiences, where people attending someone who is near death recount seeing spirits, apparitions, ghosts, or whatever you want to call them. The foundation of science is the information provided by our senses. If you conduct an experiment you ultimately have to accept the evidence provided by your senses – whether directly or through instrumentation. If your theory is to be connected to reality it cannot contradict the evidence of the senses. Too many people have had these experiences for this to be honestly denied or ignored. It may be difficult, now, to explain this scientifically, but what new area of science isn’t difficult to explain initially? As Dr. Novella stated we know there is gravity - even if we can't explain it. It is hypocritical to ask for evidence and then deny any provided in the name of science. This is not science – it is willful evasion of facts. Facts that they do not wish to consider.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 23:28 PM

On 2014-05-08 19:28:25, Charlton wrote:
At 1:26:13 Dr. Alexander totally ham handedly misquotes Carl Sagan... “Perhaps one percent of the time, someone who has an idea that smells, feels, and looks indistinguishable from the usual run of pseudoscience will turn out to be right. Maybe some undiscovered reptile left over from the Cretaceous period will indeed be found in Loch Ness or the Congo Republic; or we will find artifacts of an advanced, non-human species elsewhere in the Solar System. At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation; (3) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images “projected” at them. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.”

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 23:28 PM

On 2014-05-08 19:28:02, Jayarava wrote:I follow the blogs of both the speakers against the motion, and was against from the beginning. But it was interesting to hear the arguments for…

On 2014-05-08 19:28:02, Jayarava wrote:
I follow the blogs of both the speakers against the motion, and was against from the beginning. But it was interesting to hear the arguments for both sides put forward. It seems to me that the question boiled down to standards of evidence. On the For side the standard of evidence was clearly much lower. They relied on the 50 Million Elvis Fans Can't be wrong argument. But the research they presented doesn't pass muster. The evidence references by the Against side is far more broadly based, subject to scrutiny and rigorously tested. The best point the Against side made was the inability to begin to describe a mechanism for consciousness as a function of the brain. However their own argument suffers from this same weakness and to a much greater degree. They want to rewrite physics, but they don't say how. As for the idea that something new might come from philosophy I think this is delusional. Speculative philosophy of the kind the ancient Greeks did is not much better than theology. And the proponent of it sounded not only wishy-washy but confused. I study Buddhist afterlife beliefs as an independent Buddhist scholar with some peer reviewed articles. When I compared them to afterlife beliefs around the world I realised that the evidence for different kinds of afterlife is simply culturally determined. Christians and Buddhists cannot both be right, but they cite precisely the same kinds of evidence (and none of it falsifiable). Nor can the Against side be right at the same time as Buddhists. We Buddhists traditionally deny just that kind of afterlife. Like Sean I don't necessarily want to believe that death is final. But I think the evidence suggests that it is. The argument about memories is particularly strong. Damage the brain and you damage memory. Kill the brain and how does memory survive?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 23:24 PM

On 2014-05-08 19:24:49, amphianda baskett wrote:Very disappointed that the newest bit of validation of the NDE as a real experience was not mentioned, as surely both sides of the panel…

On 2014-05-08 19:24:49, amphianda baskett wrote:
Very disappointed that the newest bit of validation of the NDE as a real experience was not mentioned, as surely both sides of the panel are aware of it… "Dr. Steven Laureys is a man who absolutely does not believe in life after death. A director at the Belgian National Fund of Scientific Research, he is firm that all NDEs can be explained away through physical phenomena. Nonetheless, his research into such experiences has thrown up some facts which are difficult to explain away.Chief among these is the “hyper-reality” of NDEs. When Laureys and his team set out to study the memory of these events, they expected to find they worked in the same way as dreams or hallucinations: becoming more faded as time went by. Instead, they found the exact opposite. Rather than become dull with age, they found that the memory of an NDE stayed vibrant and fresh no matter how much time had passed—to the extent that it completely eclipsed the memory of real events.This isn’t supposed to happen. Generally, the only memories that are meant to stay vibrant are the big ones—like your wedding day or the birth of your kids or watching the Twin Towers come down. These patients were unanimously reporting that their NDE was more vivid than all of that combined, with the added bonus that it never faded. They retained perfect recall of that moment, convinced they’d experienced a fragment of heaven. Dr. Laureys doesn’t believe this is anything supernatural. However, he does believe all of us probably go through this when we die: an experience of “heaven” more intense than anything we’ve felt in all our waking lives. In its own way, that might even count as an afterlife of sorts." -http://listverse.com/2014/02/15/10-reasons-there-might-be-an-afterlife/ -This study and the results were published in the highly respected medical science journal THE LANCET. The results, to me, are fascinating especially because I myself had an NDE 25 years ago. The fact that the memories have and retain a quality of realism unlike any other categorical memory, and do not fade in the least with time, fits in perfectly and intriguingly with the reports from NDE's of timelessness in that realm. Also, it fits perfectly with the reports of NDE's that their NDE was more real than waking life. To me this study should only validate on the side of those who are in doubt of the NDE and all it implicates. Besides all of this, there is the common experience of an exponential expanse of rich knowledge, wisdom and feelings of love. The after effects of NDE's are so totally convincing in and of themselves. People who have had NDE's are forever changed, and most often they eschew religion, preferring a perspective of all inclusive love, forgiveness and unity for all of life. Their lifestyles are less destructive to themselves, others, and the planet, because of their changed perspective brought about by the NDE. Its all about LOVE. I, having experienced an NDE, need no convincing.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 21:56 PM

On 2014-05-08 17:56:30, Tim wrote:
Novella keeps asserting that all the features of the NDE can be reproduced by drugs and brain pathology and they can't. Drugs, seizures, electro magnetic stimulation, G-lock and all the rest are pale imitations of the profound NDE. Also his statement that there are no persuasive cases that demonstrate that the mind can function without the brain is also wrong. There are stacks of veridical experiences during cardiac arrest. Every single one has to be incorrectly interpreted ? Horse manure. Pull the other one, Steve .....got bells on it

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 21:42 PM

On 2014-05-08 17:42:50, Snod wrote:There are few, if any, that have experienced an NDE and consider it to be "unreal." Direct experience trumps intellectual analysis - always. The same holds…

On 2014-05-08 17:42:50, Snod wrote:
There are few, if any, that have experienced an NDE and consider it to be "unreal." Direct experience trumps intellectual analysis - always. The same holds true for those that frequent the "out-of-body" state. It becomes apparent that "real" is relative to the experiencer but not relative to the reality itself or to the "stuff" of the reality. "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -Albert Einstein The “hard problem” of consciousness is not hard at all. Our current paradigm is what makes it "hard." The idea that the earth was round was obviously wrong because the people on the bottom would fall off. Obviously, those folks were just missing some key info - gravity. In this case of NDEs, the missing bit of info is that consciousness is fundamental and everything else is derivative. "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Plank The idea that consciousness is fundamental is not a new idea, but it may still take some time to settle in. To quote Max Plank again: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Those that have had experiences as consciousness while seemingly "apart" or "separate" from their body tend to side with the notion that consciousness continues after death, while those that have not had such experiences tend to claim that consciousness is a construct of the brain. That, in and of itself, is telling. The good news is that we don't have to almost die to experience what it is to exist and function as pure consciousness. Naturally, many will scoff at this, but then, they do so from a stance of limited experience - never having experienced it themselves. There are ways to begin accumulating direct experience with the matter and begin collecting your very own evidence - though it does require some courage, humility, and tenacity. Direct experience is the one way to find out for certain and to better assess the "hard problem." What better way to understand consciousness, than to start by getting to know your own?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 21:10 PM

On 2014-05-08 17:10:24, troy@aalbc.com wrote:Such excellent comments (from what I've read), nicely extending the scope of the debate

On 2014-05-08 17:10:24, troy@aalbc.com wrote:
Such excellent comments (from what I've read), nicely extending the scope of the debate

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 21:08 PM

On 2014-05-08 17:08:49, jeff olsen wrote:Dr. Raymond Moody mentioned an NDE involving medical staff who also experienced something paranormal during the NDE. Below is a link to the book containing…

On 2014-05-08 17:08:49, jeff olsen wrote:
Dr. Raymond Moody mentioned an NDE involving medical staff who also experienced something paranormal during the NDE. Below is a link to the book containing the account: http://www.amazon.com/Knew-Their-Hearts-Amazing-Language-ebook/dp/B0098PE914/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 20:46 PM

On 2014-05-08 16:46:15, Iyace wrote:There is no afterlife and parapsychology is a pseudoscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

On 2014-05-08 16:46:15, Iyace wrote:
There is no afterlife and parapsychology is a pseudoscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 20:29 PM

On 2014-05-08 16:29:40, Shirley Ryan wrote:Debating publicly is a very difficult thing to do, I concede that it is challenging. However, I was somewhat disappointed in the group's debate from…

On 2014-05-08 16:29:40, Shirley Ryan wrote:
Debating publicly is a very difficult thing to do, I concede that it is challenging. However, I was somewhat disappointed in the group's debate from both sides. The "pro" side, with whom I have the utmost respect, targeted the debate from their singular perspective of NDE, rather then working with the topic from many angles, and a more global perspective. There are many different routes to the afterlife, and tied together, more compelling arguments. I did my dissertation on consciousness, the "routes to the slip stream of consciousness" aka, the afterlife, which I am turning into a book. On the "con" side, their main thrust was that no one has proven that the Afterlife exists to their satisfaction. I believe they really "want" to believe. The tired examples they offered, was a perfect segue into challenges that were never met. (I agree, hard to think on your feet, not my strength either) Unfortunately, the pro side, while Dr. Moody alluded to it, didn't provide topics outside the paranormal box that would tie up the topic. Eg. Studies show through EEG's and other tests that consciousness resides outside the brain. Look for my book, Bridges to the Afterlife coming soon. Shirley Ryan, PhD, CCHt

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 20:25 PM

On 2014-05-08 16:25:21, Shirley Moulton wrote:Attended the debate last night... good one. I stay open and believe that anything is possible in this mysterious and 'unknowing' life. The more I…

On 2014-05-08 16:25:21, Shirley Moulton wrote:
Attended the debate last night... good one. I stay open and believe that anything is possible in this mysterious and 'unknowing' life. The more I know the less I know. We really don't even know how we got here...how the world began, so how can we say there is no life after death. All things are possible!

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 20:23 PM

On 2014-05-08 16:23:53, Justin wrote:
Eben is willfully deceptive on the Carl Sagan quote and misquotes that passage. Here is the passage that immediately follows his suggestion that past life experiences might be possible (which right in the passage he says might only be possibly true. "I pick these claims not because I think they are likely to be valid (I don't), but examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least, some, although still dubious, experimental support." Its clear Eben has a bias to see what he wants to see and will accept spurious data to support his very natural wish to have an after life. Eben refers books as scientific evidence last time I checked books are not peer reviewed.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 19:55 PM

On 2014-05-08 15:55:43, August Goforth wrote:Why make the transition of life into a debate, or a problem? Wait and see; maybe expect to be surprised. Live now as you can,…

On 2014-05-08 15:55:43, August Goforth wrote:
Why make the transition of life into a debate, or a problem? Wait and see; maybe expect to be surprised. Live now as you can, and you will live now, always. August Goforth & Tim Gray, authors, "The Risen: Dialogues of Love, Grief & Survival Beyond Death"

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 19:55 PM

On 2014-05-08 15:55:16, Dee wrote:I had a NDE or whatever you care to call it. A doctor witnessed it. For years I could not bring up the subject. It scared…

On 2014-05-08 15:55:16, Dee wrote:
I had a NDE or whatever you care to call it. A doctor witnessed it. For years I could not bring up the subject. It scared many. I though it would be a comfort for others but not so. The for and against debate was nothing more than a nasty attempt to discredit comments made by the "for" side. Those's stuck in a small square with limiting beliefs also limit their quality of life.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 19:21 PM

On 2014-05-08 15:21:24, The Barking Unicorn wrote:"Is there life after death?" is an unfortunate question to debate. Neither side can prove its position. Anyone who is convinced by either side…

On 2014-05-08 15:21:24, The Barking Unicorn wrote:
"Is there life after death?" is an unfortunate question to debate. Neither side can prove its position. Anyone who is convinced by either side is swayed by mere opinion. "Is it beneficial to believe there is life after death?" would be a more useful question.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 18:31 PM

On 2014-05-08 14:31:04, Sue Fox wrote:I have real difficulty in understanding why people don't believe in this. I recommend you go and find - "seek and ye shall find"

On 2014-05-08 14:31:04, Sue Fox wrote:
I have real difficulty in understanding why people don't believe in this. I recommend you go and find - "seek and ye shall find"

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 16:27 PM

On 2014-05-08 12:27:35, Peter wrote:
I attended the debate last night and it was enjoyable. As a psychiatrist (in NYC to attend the American Psychiatric Association convention) but also having experienced an NDE 12 years ago and read widely on this topic and spoken to patients with NDE like experiences - it is a topic that fascinates me. The awareness in my NDE was the same as right now - if not more clear - in stark contrast to the awareness in a brief hallucinatory phase and then confusional phase as I was recovering from the concussion and "loss of consciousness" (whilst to me there was no loss of my awareness/consciousness - I was just somewhere else - initially in a dark void and then in a tunnel moving at vast acceleration with what looked like stars whizzing by outside the translucent tunnel wall and I was accompanied by a loving protective guide - both of us had spirit like "bodies" that were far from the "blobs" that Dr Carroll jokingly referred to them as). This was my subjective experience, it was of a completely different quality of conscious being-ness to having a dream. I felt that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella were tactically far better debaters than Dr Alexander and Dr Moody. Dr Alexander and Dr Moody would have benefited in a much longer forum to fully expand their argument. Dr Moody's focus on philosophy was eloquent but I think went over the heads of many in the audience. Yet Dr Moody is correct that the materialist "scientific" position that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella so skilfully defended - breaks down in the realm of philosophical reasoning. The question/comment I wanted to ask was - MATERIALISM WITH ITS INHERENT EPI-PHENOMENALISM IS ACTUALLY MORE "SUPERNATURAL" THAN BELIEF IN AN ONTOLOGICAL REALITY TO CONSCIOUSNESS THAT IMPLIES EXISTENCE OF A "SOUL". The "Soul" perspective does not need an inexplicable gap as to how consciousness arises from non-conscious matter such as subatomic particles, atoms, cells and neural tissue. The trouble with the "naturalism" that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella were promoting as scientific is it requires this super-natural gap and leap of faith to say your sense of being you (awareness and intentionality/free-will) arises from total non-aware matter by some kind of magical means. This is obscured to many who don't know their philosophy of mind by calling the essential part of you and i an "epiphenomenon". Dr Moody and Dr Alexander don't need you to believe in this super-natural philosophical leap of faith. Dr Alexander pointed out there is much research in science and philosophical discourse to support their position on this issue and I felt Dr Novella and Dr Carroll were overly quick (but clever from a tactical perspective) to shut this part of the debate down. There is a book written on this by a group of scientists called "The Soul Hypothesis". Essentially they argue cogently that the materialism put forth by Drs Carroll and Novella is dead.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 15:32 PM

On 2014-05-08 11:32:11, Bhcreatives01@gmail.com wrote:
I could believe that consciousness is separate from the brain because it is plausible that the consciousness is experiencing a real phenomena but when the brain interprets it after coming back after an NDE into this reality it seems cultural. So to say that there is only one real world as the debaters for the against the motion believe has not been proven scientifically.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 12:50 PM

On 2014-05-08 08:50:17, anna wrote:to colin kline, to the proposition, death is not final, where exists any fact based evidence to support this claim. where is the evidence that it…

On 2014-05-08 08:50:17, anna wrote:
to colin kline, to the proposition, death is not final, where exists any fact based evidence to support this claim. where is the evidence that it is final. those of us who have experienced it , can never convince those who havnt.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 11:44 AM

On 2014-05-08 07:44:34, Chris foote wrote:Death being final sucks. IWhen you see how strongly people want to survive, it makes me wonder if so many people really believe in an…

On 2014-05-08 07:44:34, Chris foote wrote:
Death being final sucks. IWhen you see how strongly people want to survive, it makes me wonder if so many people really believe in an afterlife. That being said, I think there will be a natural bias in people because they want there to be something after. It would be nice but there is no evidence for it. Its probably the oldest fairytale told because death of a loved one or one's self sucks so very very much.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 10:48 AM

On 2014-05-08 06:48:35, Kevin Williams wrote:The list of evidence supporting the survival of consciousness after death is long and you can read some of the evidence here: ++ Scientific evidence…

On 2014-05-08 06:48:35, Kevin Williams wrote:
The list of evidence supporting the survival of consciousness after death is long and you can read some of the evidence here: ++ Scientific evidence suggestive of an afterlife: http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html ++ Evidence from quantum theory supporting the survival of consciousness after death: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html ++ Evidence of an afterlife from near-death research: Near-death experiences (NDEs) offer the best scientific evidence suggestive of an afterlife. But skeptics and materialists like to dismiss NDEs as being caused by brain anomalies – even though it doesn’t matter WHAT mechanism causes NDEs when determining whether NDEs are real afterlife experiences or not. Nevertheless, brain anomalies have already been ruled out (see A.) Also, the materialists’ so-called “CAUSES of NDEs” are actually only the SIDE-EFFECTS of having an NDE. And if NDEs are nothing more than a final hallucination before total oblivion (as claimed by materialists), then they need to examine ALL the evidence such as: (1) Studies that show NDE experiencers can have verified out-of-body perceptions where they see and hear very detailed events and conversations sometimes hundreds of miles away. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html and Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=“veridical”+”near-death” (2) A study shows that people born blind (or color blind) can see correctly for the first time in their lives during a NDE. Read Vicki Umipeg’s NDE at: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html (3) One study shows that memories of NDEs are more real than normal memories. Read: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/ (4) A study by Dr. Jeffrey Long shows that the level of conscious alertness during NDEs are usually greater than that experienced in everyday life – even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. Read Dr. Jeffrey Long’s “Nine Lines of Evidence” here: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/EvidenceAfterlife/evidence_afterlife.htm (5) A vast number of NDEs occur while the NDE experiencer is under general anesthesia – at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/skeptic04.html (6) The NDE “life review” provides the NDE experiencer with a perfect playback of real events which previously occurred in their lives – even if the events were forgotten or happened before they were old enough to remember. Read Dr. Jeffrey Long’s “Nine Lines of Evidence” here: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/EvidenceAfterlife/evidence_afterlife.htm (7) NDE experiencers bring back important scientific discoveries. Read this press release: http://prlog.org/12312248 and http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence07.html (8) NDE experiencers report seeing visions of the future which actually occur as foretold. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research32.html (9) Studies show that children’s NDEs, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence04.html (10) Studies have shown that NDEs are remarkably consistent around the world and across many different religions and cultures. Read: http://www.near-death.com/judaism.html and http://www.near-death.com/buddhism.html and http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html (11) Studies have shown that NDE experiencers encounter people who are virtually always deceased and are usually relatives of the NDE experiencer including relatives who died before the experiencer was even born. Read Dr. Jeffrey Long’s “Nine Lines of Evidence” here: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/EvidenceAfterlife/evidence_afterlife.htm (12) Studies also show it is common for NDE experiencers to have powerful, life-enhancing, and long-lasting major life changes and aftereffects after having an NDE. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence05.html (13) Studies show that NDE experiencers themselves are practically universal in their understanding that their NDE was a real afterlife experience. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence08.html (14) Studies have shown that NDEs are drastically different from hallucinations. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles009.html and http://www.near-death.com/experiences/lsd04.html (15) NDEs have been documented throughout history including ancient times. Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence12.html and http://www.near-death.com/experiences/buddhism01.html (16) Dr. Norma Bowe described a patient who successfully read a 12-digit number while out of their body: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/263101025/the-death-class-a-true-story-about-life#excerpt (17) Other research related to veridical (verified) perception exists, such as: A. Veridical out-of-body experiences – Read: http://www.near-death.com/tart.html B. Veridical deathbed visions – Read: http://www.near-death.com/deathbed.html C. Veridical dreams – Read: http://www.near-death.com/dreams.html D. Veridical after-death communications – Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers15.html E. Veridical remote viewing – Read: http://www.skeptiko.com/psychic-spy-joe-mcmoneagle-near-death-experience-led-to-remote-viewing/ F. Shared death experiences – Read: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers10.html Too many skeptics and physicalists who draw materialistic conclusions about NDEs have simply not done their homework. Skeptics also claim that all anecdotal evidence is unscientific which is not true. Science uses anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence every day in the field of evidence-based medicine. More about this can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine Kevin Williams www.near-death.com

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 08:47 AM

On 2014-05-08 04:47:52, Bob Askew wrote:
One can argue veracity in regards to both propositions. The truth is still beyond us. However the materialistic view (which is also our intuitive perception) seems to be gradually loosing ground to science based arguments for the primacy of consciousness. Tom Campbell gives the best advice which is "one needs to be both open-minded AND skeptical" In this case both arguments are plausible but none can be confirmed as the truth (yet!). Maybe the emergence of artificial intelligence will help provide some answers (or soon to be released) AWARE study results of Sam Parnia.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 08:25 AM

On 2014-05-08 04:25:35, Bill wrote:In the same way that you can't run your favorite applications and pursue your unique data on a computer whose hardware has been fatally damaged, you…

On 2014-05-08 04:25:35, Bill wrote:
In the same way that you can't run your favorite applications and pursue your unique data on a computer whose hardware has been fatally damaged, you can't remember, think and emote in the unique character of "you" without your intact brain. After I die, my tongue will not go on tasting, nor my stomach go on digesting, nor my kidneys go on filtering, nor will my penis go on procreating in some ethereal realm. Your brain is no different. The study of damaged brains have demonstrated that when you damage/modify brain structures and chemistry in specific ways, you modify the behaviors, feelings, character and the subjective experience of the individual. Restoration, when possible, restores the changes to the original state. Whe the brain dies, we return to the oblivion we were in prior to bring born. As Mark Twain said "I don't fear death, I had been dead for millions of years before I was born and it never caused me the slightest inconvenience." See you all on the other side...NOT.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 08:11 AM

On 2014-05-08 04:11:42, John Lambert wrote:I am interested in the debate and want so badly to believe. But I know better than to run off with the charlatans who would…

On 2014-05-08 04:11:42, John Lambert wrote:
I am interested in the debate and want so badly to believe. But I know better than to run off with the charlatans who would channel my grief into their collection plates.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 07:45 AM

Maybe a person is like a computer after all. When the hard drive goes, everything is lost, right?....except on my computer, since, in addition to recording everything on the hard…

Maybe a person is like a computer after all. When the hard drive goes, everything is lost, right?....except on my computer, since, in addition to recording everything on the hard drive, I automatically have a back-up copy made. I do this because I know that sooner or later, the hard drive will fail. When do I do this? Every nighttime, while I'm sleeping. Where is this other copy stored? In "the cloud" of course. Sounds familiar?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 06:32 AM

On 2014-05-08 02:32:05, Jered Schaugaard wrote:Interesting. Some will call this an ad hominem; however, perspective, in this case, seems relevant. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529048/Proof-Heaven-doctor-faced-3million-malpractice-lawsuit-fell-coma.html Sam Harris does a great job of intelligently laying…

On 2014-05-08 02:32:05, Jered Schaugaard wrote:
Interesting. Some will call this an ad hominem; however, perspective, in this case, seems relevant. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529048/Proof-Heaven-doctor-faced-3million-malpractice-lawsuit-fell-coma.html Sam Harris does a great job of intelligently laying out the facts here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 06:14 AM

On 2014-05-08 02:14:09, steve wrote:Sorry skeptical trolls. You are dead wrong. Used to be blind like you until started researching myself. Consciousness is separate from the brain like a radio…

On 2014-05-08 02:14:09, steve wrote:
Sorry skeptical trolls. You are dead wrong. Used to be blind like you until started researching myself. Consciousness is separate from the brain like a radio does not produce radio waves. Anyone who would like to discuss further, you can find use on FB at MIA paranormal.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 05:39 AM

On 2014-05-08 01:39:18, Roger Shuffield wrote:Why aren't we studying the Pineal? I have a sneaking suspicion it has more to do with all this than anyone can imagine. Yet, no…

On 2014-05-08 01:39:18, Roger Shuffield wrote:
Why aren't we studying the Pineal? I have a sneaking suspicion it has more to do with all this than anyone can imagine. Yet, no one seems to be able to crack that nut. I think it has been made taboo through time to even consider its mystical/alchemical/extrasensory properties. I think it is linked to extra-dimensional realms.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 05:18 AM

On 2014-05-08 01:18:57, william wrote:predictable. moody should have sit at the table of the skeptics. he tried to come off as a great philospher. phd intellectualism thing. eben's only strong…

On 2014-05-08 01:18:57, william wrote:
predictable. moody should have sit at the table of the skeptics. he tried to come off as a great philospher. phd intellectualism thing. eben's only strong points was his summation. determining the winner was joke. skewed research to the nth degree.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:52 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:52:29, Kayla Rachelle wrote:Well, of course NDEs are "real". They are just not what you think they are.

On 2014-05-08 00:52:29, Kayla Rachelle wrote:
Well, of course NDEs are "real". They are just not what you think they are.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:46 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:46:21, T. Van Zandt wrote:Dr. Alexander claimed in the debate that Carl Sagan believed that children can "recover memories" from "past lives" and cited page 302 of Sagan's…

On 2014-05-08 00:46:21, T. Van Zandt wrote:
Dr. Alexander claimed in the debate that Carl Sagan believed that children can "recover memories" from "past lives" and cited page 302 of Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World in support of this claim (to much applause). I pulled down my copy of the book, found the page, but can't find any evidence in support of that claim, nor can I find anything on the 10 pages previous and following. Was this just pulled out of thin air?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:44 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:44:31, Ed wrote:Everyone who wants to understand both sides of this debate must read, and understand the "hard problem of conscienceness"

On 2014-05-08 00:44:31, Ed wrote:
Everyone who wants to understand both sides of this debate must read, and understand the "hard problem of conscienceness"

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:44 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:44:22, Vaughn wrote:Final Vote was unbelievable! We are body, mind and spirit! The body & mind will die. The Spirit lives on! To deny that is frankly stupidity!…

On 2014-05-08 00:44:22, Vaughn wrote:
Final Vote was unbelievable! We are body, mind and spirit! The body & mind will die. The Spirit lives on! To deny that is frankly stupidity! There is a God who created all of this universe, and created us humans in His image. NDE's are real! There is a spiritual dimension! Dr. Alexander, previously a scientific skeptic, is a perfect proof of the reality of an afterlife! He ain't no dummy! Wake up America!

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:44 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:44:12, Julio Siqueira wrote:Just as I had thought, a very weak debate. The format of the debate was wonderful. The contenders seemed to me very nice people indeed.…

On 2014-05-08 00:44:12, Julio Siqueira wrote:
Just as I had thought, a very weak debate. The format of the debate was wonderful. The contenders seemed to me very nice people indeed. Yet, they are actually very unprepared for the subject they were debating. It stunned me when I heard Moody saying Parapsychology is pseudoscience, and also when Steven was so clumsy at defending Sagan from the incorrect remark made by Eben (regarding Sagan's purported belief in cases of the reincarnation type). But it was worth the while, anyway.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:43 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:43:20, Dan Werner wrote:Sean Carroll and Steven Novella deserve the win here, as they did a much better job arguing their case, though I still disagree with their…

On 2014-05-08 00:43:20, Dan Werner wrote:
Sean Carroll and Steven Novella deserve the win here, as they did a much better job arguing their case, though I still disagree with their conclusion. Carl Sagan did not say in the Demon Haunted World that the evidence for reincarnation was "overwhelming" as Eben Alexander stated, merely it merited further investigation. It is true that Gary Schwartz's Afterlife Experiments were picked apart by skeptics, but Julie Beischel carries on the work and improved methods and protocols. It is strong evidence in support of the afterlife hypothesis. Her work can be found at the Windbride Institute. The evidence for precognition and telepathy have been demonstrated repeatably in the laboratory. The effect size is relatively small, but it is larger than the effect size of aspirin in preventing a heart attack.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:39 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:39:31, Zazoo Bells wrote:I looked up the reference to Carl Sagan's _The Demon Haunted World_ that was made by Dr. Alexander. It was in fact not true.

On 2014-05-08 00:39:31, Zazoo Bells wrote:
I looked up the reference to Carl Sagan's _The Demon Haunted World_ that was made by Dr. Alexander. It was in fact not true.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:36 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:36:54, Joao Lourenco wrote:In the online voting results "For the Motion" won.

On 2014-05-08 00:36:54, Joao Lourenco wrote:
In the online voting results "For the Motion" won.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:31 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:31:47, antny war wrote:Was a ghost story really used as evidence. Are all the 'fors' also creationists

On 2014-05-08 00:31:47, antny war wrote:
Was a ghost story really used as evidence. Are all the 'fors' also creationists

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:29 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:29:03, ardian wrote:
Beyond reality we human beings can't abolish the other dimensions whom even scientists aren't scientifically assured in existing but they have made an theory a string theory in this theory they postulated an 11 dimensional of reality that we might living. Second most astonishing is with photons, electron they behavior they behave in two states of matter and wave in meantime. So why u dot be alive that is afterlife

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:25 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:25:54, Francisco wrote:Carl Sagan NEVER said that. I have that book in front of me and page 302 talks about questioning everything, that's it! Stop making up facts!

On 2014-05-08 00:25:54, Francisco wrote:
Carl Sagan NEVER said that. I have that book in front of me and page 302 talks about questioning everything, that's it! Stop making up facts!

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:23 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:23:10, Brandon Osborn wrote:What about Michael Persinger's "god helmet" which induces near death and out of body experiences? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0

On 2014-05-08 00:23:10, Brandon Osborn wrote:
What about Michael Persinger's "god helmet" which induces near death and out of body experiences? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:22 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:22:34, Brendan wrote:
From Sagan's "Wonder and Skepticism" keynote speech: "Raymond Moody, who is an M.D., I think, an author who writes innumerable books on life after death, actually quoted me in the first chapter of his latest book, saying that I heard my parents calling me Carl, and so, look, even he believes in life after death. This badly misses my point. If this is one of the arguments from Chapter 1 of the latest book of a principal exponent of life after death, I suspect that despite our most fervent wishes, the case is weak."

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:18 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:18:53, Cheryl wrote:At 5:30 am while sound asleep I suddenly saw my grown son's face. Tears were flowing down his face. He said "Mom, help me." As I…

On 2014-05-08 00:18:53, Cheryl wrote:
At 5:30 am while sound asleep I suddenly saw my grown son's face. Tears were flowing down his face. He said "Mom, help me." As I reached for his hand my father who died in 1963 suddenly appeared and slapped my hand hand away. He said to me Don't worry, he's fine, I've got him. As I looked at the background I found myself looking at a beautiful green countryside setting like where we used to have family reunions and everyone was dressed up and happy. I was standing on a green piece of ground and there was a huge drop between the two places. My father said it's not your turn to come here yet. And I woke up rather shaken. At 12:30pm that afternoon I received a phone call from the police in California telling me my son had died. I asked what time. They said sometime between 3:30PCT(5:30EDST) and maybe 5:30. They'd know more after the autopsy. I was dead folks. I wasn't sick. In fact I was running for Congress. But in 1968 my 2 oldest daughters had been killed in a fire. I truly I was allowed this glimpse to allow me to remain somewhat sane for the rest of my life. And I thank my Creator for that comforting glimpse. Heaven is real. Been lucky enough to get a glimpse.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:16 AM

On 2014-05-08 00:16:38, MalWil wrote:I was waiting for someone to stand up and yell, "I have Carl Sagan's book, so we're no longer in an impasse."

On 2014-05-08 00:16:38, MalWil wrote:
I was waiting for someone to stand up and yell, "I have Carl Sagan's book, so we're no longer in an impasse."

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 04:02 AM

They are talking about heaven and hell, but those are a Christian concepts.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:43 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:43:22, Graham wrote:The fact that this debate is happening really sums up the problems with people. why would a person trying to argue against fundamental laws of physics…

On 2014-05-07 23:43:22, Graham wrote:
The fact that this debate is happening really sums up the problems with people. why would a person trying to argue against fundamental laws of physics be given an open forum to debate with someone why has spent their life studying it. its moronic to give this man an equal footing for fairness sake just because its got a religious backdrop. if this was a debate about computer security you would not allow a random conspiracy theorist to argue with some computer security specialist just to be fair because one has spent their life learning this stuff and the other is just a lunatic who thinks stuff is real when its not.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:42 AM

A vital answer to every person should be: Are you a Christian?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:41 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:41:52, BarbaraB wrote:I am an NDEr and returned from my cardiac arrest in 1987, to tell the neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, and medical staff in the room EXACTLY and…

On 2014-05-07 23:41:52, BarbaraB wrote:
I am an NDEr and returned from my cardiac arrest in 1987, to tell the neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, and medical staff in the room EXACTLY and ACCURATELY what they'd said and done while I was flatlining, including witnessing and describing the precordial thump procedure that restarted my heart. I was not under anesthesia, I was having a Myelogram and the xray tech mistakenly tipped the xray table in the wrong direction, causing the iodine dye to flood my brain, rather than to successfully travel down my spinal cord so that xrays could detect any spinal cord damage, prior to a laminectomy/diskectomy surgery that was scheduled for the next morning. You can read about my experience on the NDE Research Foundation website (Google "Barbara B NDE 3389"). I was actually dead for a number of minutes, so my experience could more accurately be called a Death Experience. During my NDE, I was located above my body, on the ceiling, and I immediately felt the presence of a spiritual being next to me. I felt very connected to this being, as though they'd been with me throughout this life, and also beyond it, and I strongly felt the being had the ability to allow me to return to my life. I call this being God, for I lack any other adequate term. I conveyed to the being that I wished to return, as I had an infant daughter and young son, but also felt strongly, in those moments on the ceiling, that I had not completed my "life purpose". I watched, from above, as the orthopedic surgeon struck my chest with his fist (precordial thump), and immediately found myself back in my body, extremely happy to have been allowed to return to my life! My consciousness was constant, from my body, to the ceiling, and back to my body again. I shocked the entire resuscitation team by immediately, and completely accurately, recounting everything that I had just watched happen to my body from my "on the ceiling" vantage point. There absolutely is a continuation of consciousness beyond the point of death. Death is not final!

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:39 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:39:48, Martha Wharton wrote:My brain was fried with bruising throughout most and bleeding in the corpus callosum.However, my mind was completely in tact. I KNEW I was what…

On 2014-05-07 23:39:48, Martha Wharton wrote:
My brain was fried with bruising throughout most and bleeding in the corpus callosum.However, my mind was completely in tact. I KNEW I was what I was unable to do. Anyone with severe TBI will tell you that, when they are finally able. My brain wasnt able to form words, sentences correctly but my mind could think them, my soul remembered things my brain did not. Accessing the soul is what allowed the brain to heal so quickly. Physical recovery took much longer.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:38 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:38:13, sonia wrote:I am trying to believe in life after death as I lost members of my family including my beautiful son I would like to think we…

On 2014-05-07 23:38:13, sonia wrote:
I am trying to believe in life after death as I lost members of my family including my beautiful son I would like to think we will be together again We can debate all we like but at the end of the day we are mere mortals and will not know for sure until we depart fom this world

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:36 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:36:20, Hayward Withers wrote:If the mind is created by the brain - when the brain is not functioning the mind also is "turned off" - but the flip…

On 2014-05-07 23:36:20, Hayward Withers wrote:
If the mind is created by the brain - when the brain is not functioning the mind also is "turned off" - but the flip side of that is the mind can be lost (dead) but this mind "comes back" if the brain starts functioning again. I.e. if we could repair a dead man's brain his mind would also be re-created. So is it possible for a young new brain to develop, by chance, into a replica of some previously dead man's brain - then doesn't that person then become the mind of the man who previously died?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:31 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:31:07, Torre Mastroianni wrote:Case of woman's being brain dead and having a life after death experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

On 2014-05-07 23:31:07, Torre Mastroianni wrote:
Case of woman's being brain dead and having a life after death experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:27 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:27:13, Steve Fleming wrote:Apparitions seen by bystanders are probably made up by the mind/brain at a HIGHLY charged moment when we are highly emotional as a loved one…

On 2014-05-07 23:27:13, Steve Fleming wrote:
Apparitions seen by bystanders are probably made up by the mind/brain at a HIGHLY charged moment when we are highly emotional as a loved one is dying. We want to hold on to them at all costs.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:23 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:23:47, Ben wrote:
Useful articles - K. Ring and S. Cooper, "Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Vision," Journal of Near-Death Studies 16 (1998): 101-47: http://newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1997-16-101-147.pdf The Ketamine false analogy for NDEs has been covered in van Lommel (2006): http://www.merkawah.nl/public_html/images/stories/near-death%20experience%20consciousness%20and%20the%20brain%20volledig.pdf see also, fro refutation of objections, a 2013 Journal of Consciousness Studies article (van Lommel, P. (2013). Non-local consciousness: A concept based on scientific research on near-death experiences during cardiac arrest. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20, 7-48.) - search "hallucination" in it for some important revelations: http://pimvanlommel.nl/files/Nonlocal-Consciousness-article-JCS-2013.pdf Michael shermer famously misrepresented van Lommel: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm For some rebuttal to Augustine, see: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/greyson-publications/NDE52.pdf See also, "Do Prevailing Societal Models Influence Reports of Near-Death Experiences? A Comparison of Accounts Reported Before and After 1975": http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/resolveuid/029a0c0fa33c00d1841c0aae2f2679a6

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:20 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:20:37, Dixie wrote:I had a NDE which included vision of what later happened to me 4 years after it. If you had a NDE, you would know it's…

On 2014-05-07 23:20:37, Dixie wrote:
I had a NDE which included vision of what later happened to me 4 years after it. If you had a NDE, you would know it's real

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:18 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:18:42, MalWil wrote:Dr. Ray Moody! Is not science standardized reasoning? -MW

On 2014-05-07 23:18:42, MalWil wrote:
Dr. Ray Moody! Is not science standardized reasoning? -MW

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:06 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:06:37, Skeptic wrote:Well now he's just proving our current model is wrong, but saying nothing of the afterlife.

On 2014-05-07 23:06:37, Skeptic wrote:
Well now he's just proving our current model is wrong, but saying nothing of the afterlife.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:04 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:04:50, Jason wrote:so the guy got brain damage now he's religious

On 2014-05-07 23:04:50, Jason wrote:
so the guy got brain damage now he's religious

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 03:02 AM

On 2014-05-07 23:02:07, Drom wrote:And on it goes... man's never ending hope to beat death, and live happily ever after in CandyLand to assuage his innate horror of the finality…

On 2014-05-07 23:02:07, Drom wrote:
And on it goes... man's never ending hope to beat death, and live happily ever after in CandyLand to assuage his innate horror of the finality of death. The status of life after death is exactly the same as the life you had before birth... which is to say "not". It's the 21st century, people. You, Fluffy, Rover, and every living specimen of flora and fauna will experience the cessation of life and the return to "star stuff" from whence we all came. Time to grow up.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 02:53 AM

On 2014-05-07 22:53:00, Dan wrote:Human beings imagine an afterlife for one reason: because they can. Imagination is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't equal truth.

On 2014-05-07 22:53:00, Dan wrote:
Human beings imagine an afterlife for one reason: because they can. Imagination is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't equal truth.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 02:43 AM

On 2014-05-07 22:43:50, R bijker wrote:I believe that ''death'' is a universal law in nature, it does not only affect biolocial things, but its also a cosmic thing, namely the…

On 2014-05-07 22:43:50, R bijker wrote:
I believe that ''death'' is a universal law in nature, it does not only affect biolocial things, but its also a cosmic thing, namely the death of a star. Both deaths are corelated, as both give back. When a star dies, it releases its composition materials, to allow new stars, perhaps, the composition of other stars ensured life on earth. Biological death also gives back. As nature dines on us, and ensures new life. death is simply an universal law in nature, no matter how you look at it, everything has its beginning, but everything also has its end.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 02:03 AM

When we will stop asking this stupid questions and get on with the things that really matter?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 01:52 AM

On 2014-05-07 21:52:05, deKay wrote:The title of the debate should start with the word "is" and end with a question mark.

On 2014-05-07 21:52:05, deKay wrote:
The title of the debate should start with the word "is" and end with a question mark.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 01:39 AM

On 2014-05-07 21:39:45, Jack wrote:I noted two things in the "Against the motion" part. One says "There is no empirical evidence for life after death." The other says "In addition…

On 2014-05-07 21:39:45, Jack wrote:
I noted two things in the "Against the motion" part. One says "There is no empirical evidence for life after death." The other says "In addition to being highly unlikely, there is no evidence that NDEs occurred while the subjects’ brains were inactive." What is particular interesting to me is that I was an agnostic until I began to seriously investigate this and discovered that both of those statements are simply not correct.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 01:20 AM

On 2014-05-07 21:20:43, LouRich wrote:Interesting argument from those who say that until scientists prove it, it's not a fact. Hmmm, scientists are usually wrong until they are right, first of…

On 2014-05-07 21:20:43, LouRich wrote:
Interesting argument from those who say that until scientists prove it, it's not a fact. Hmmm, scientists are usually wrong until they are right, first of all, and secondly, I thought it was the nature of science to be constantly on the lookout. When is science ever settled? In any case, the argument that our brains filter and/or interpret an external consciousness makes as much sense as saying we create our own consciousness. BTW, scientist don't actually know how our brains create consciousness, so how can any scientist argue that he or she knows for sure that that is what we do?

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 01:18 AM

For those whose religion is materialism, my apologies if the suggestion of an afterlife feels like an attack on your religion. If you are dedicated to science, rather than materialism…

For those whose religion is materialism, my apologies if the suggestion of an afterlife feels like an attack on your religion. If you are dedicated to science, rather than materialism (they aren't the same thing) you need to do a careful study of the experiences that have been reported. There are too many to be dismissed as "anecdotal". They aren't identical, but neither are the experiences of all of the babies born into this world identical. Also, they are not identical with what the religions have predicted, although they may be similar in some regards. That fact alone should give the true scientist reason to suspect that this is not just coming from peoples imagination. And if you prefer to stay a little closer to "real life" experiences, you should study the "veridical" experiences i.e. the things that people who are temporarily dead have been able to see in this world, often at a remote location, while their brains were non-functional. A good starting point is "The Handbook of Near Death Experiences--30 Years of Investigation". You can choose to ignore all of the evidence if you wish. But if you do so, please don't call yourself "scientific". True scientists don't take a position of willfully hiding from portions of the evidence. You are, in this case, simply a believer in the religion of materialism.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 01:11 AM

On 2014-05-07 21:11:22, Mark wrote:My wife contacted Lung Cancer and three weeks before she died we were under the assumption that she was in remission and going to at least…

On 2014-05-07 21:11:22, Mark wrote:
My wife contacted Lung Cancer and three weeks before she died we were under the assumption that she was in remission and going to at least have a chance to survive for some time. According to her doctors. As i lay one night in my game room watching intently a sporting event all of a sudden as if someone pulled a screen in front of my face i saw my wife lying upstairs in our bed and two very bright figures with her. One was standing at her head touching and soothing her, and the other was floating above her at a 45% angel looking at her very very concerned. This bright see through figure then came down about a foot above her and looked intently at her, then the vision stopped. To say the least, it stunned me. I ran upstairs and awoke her and ask if she was dreaming of spirits or angels. She said no. Keep in mind that at this time we were under the impression that she would survive for some time. No skeptic in the world will ever convince me that what i saw was some type of hallucination or a figment of my imagination. It was as real as the sky above and the earth below us. There are somethings we do not understand, and i was lucky enough to get a glimpse of one. NDEs?? I have read some of them. Our human imagination is not astute enough to make some of them up in my estimation.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2014 - 00:31 AM

On 2014-05-07 20:31:01, Lynne wrote:I understand why the naysayers remain skeptical, and it doesn't matter. I know it's real because there are no words in our vocabulary to explain it.

On 2014-05-07 20:31:01, Lynne wrote:
I understand why the naysayers remain skeptical, and it doesn't matter. I know it's real because there are no words in our vocabulary to explain it.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2014 - 23:18 PM

On 2014-05-07 19:18:49, Robert Adam wrote:Could someone please explain to me how NDEs are, in any way, shape or form, proof of life after death? Even if it's not simply…

On 2014-05-07 19:18:49, Robert Adam wrote:
Could someone please explain to me how NDEs are, in any way, shape or form, proof of life after death? Even if it's not simply the effects of the electro-chemical cocktail being released by the brain in the throws of trauma, what about it points towards other-worldliness? My guess is, absolutely nothing. Even if people have incredibly similar experiences, that can most likely be explained by being incredibly similar beings (same species from the same world), it seems to be just more grasping and craving born out of a desperate fear of death. No?

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2014 - 20:10 PM

On 2014-05-07 16:10:14, sean wrote:Near death experiences are in no way evidence/proof of life after death. They're called NEAR death experiences for a reason- the patient who experiences an NDE…

On 2014-05-07 16:10:14, sean wrote:
Near death experiences are in no way evidence/proof of life after death. They're called NEAR death experiences for a reason- the patient who experiences an NDE doesn't actually die. If they did, they wouldn't be able to explain their experience because they'd be, uh, dead. It's just as silly to claim there is life after death as it is to claim we were alive before we were born. Consciousness arises from the physical brain. Anyone who doesn't accept this should cut open their skull, cut out their brain and see if they're still conscious/alive.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2014 - 19:33 PM

On 2014-05-07 15:33:28, Bruce Costa wrote:I'll paraphrase what I once heard Sam Harris say: "For the past 150 years we've learned exactly what stops working when part of the brain…

On 2014-05-07 15:33:28, Bruce Costa wrote:
I'll paraphrase what I once heard Sam Harris say: "For the past 150 years we've learned exactly what stops working when part of the brain is damaged. It's not like the rest of it houses the original mind that is now struggling to get out. It's often that the person cannot even maintain previous behaviors or recognize family members. So we are to believe that the self is lost when this or that part of the brain is damaged, but when it is thoroughly damaged in death, a full consciousness lifts out unimpeded and goes to hang out with grandma."

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2014 - 19:22 PM

On 2014-05-07 15:22:40, Patric Miller wrote:While I find this kind of debate fascinating, and somewhat entertaining (good radio), I see it also being destructive to the REAL debate, which should…

On 2014-05-07 15:22:40, Patric Miller wrote:
While I find this kind of debate fascinating, and somewhat entertaining (good radio), I see it also being destructive to the REAL debate, which should resolve around the existence and nature of external consciousness. As soon as we allow the debate of our existence and the “next state” after this physical existence to be labeled in terms like “Heaven” or “The Afterlife,” any hope of unification of the theories breaks down. As an NDE survivor, I have shared the stage with Dr. Alexander, and spent the better part of the last 15 years trying to make sense of what happened to me. But, one thing is for certain to me at this point; the standard models of physics, as well as any standard concept of “Heaven” or the afterlife, are both sadly lacking and narrow. There is some amazing research being done by the science community that point to our consciousness being outside of the restraints of the standard model and the limitations of this space/time. But, there is also a great deal of money at risk from old school folks who see it as a threat to their livelihoods. Likewise, the “business of religion” relies on the carrot of a “heaven” for those who “believe” (and give), so the concept of “God” must be sustained. My experience, and those of millions of others who have reported NDEs, points to something far greater and unusual than the simple firing of a chain of neurons and chemicals. Until both sides can agree that the “operator” of the machine is outside of the machine, we will not get anywhere in these kinds of debates.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2014 - 18:52 PM

On 2014-05-07 14:52:50, Julio Siqueira wrote:
First: there *is* evidence for the afterlife survival. Second: this evidence comes from a few different areas, mainly mediumship, memories of reincarnation, and NDE. Third: this evidence must be studied *meticulously* (as I myself have done in my site, regarding the case Imad Elawar), for it is often tenuous and always highly tricky. Forth: *NO* scientific laws are imperiled by afterlife survival. Sixth: there is a rarely understood difference between survival of our objective personalities and survival of our subjective consciousness (I doubt any of the four debaters are aware of this…). Forth: this area of intellectual endeavor demands the highest possible standards, due to its social, psychological, and existential impact. And Finally: we are far far away from any verdict on this matter. That said, I think the four contenders do not really grasp the subject well enough to talk about it masterly. Yet, I think this debate will be interesting and informative, and I will be watching it. If I happen to wrong about the current standard of the contenders/debaters, so much the better for all of us!

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2014 - 18:49 PM

On 2014-05-07 14:49:05, Peter wrote:I am looking forward to attending tonight. I've always believed in following the data, even as a nerdy science oriented child. But data is subjective as…

On 2014-05-07 14:49:05, Peter wrote:
I am looking forward to attending tonight. I've always believed in following the data, even as a nerdy science oriented child. But data is subjective as well as "objective". Quantum mechanics and psychology reveal that absolute objectivity is difficult to ever attain. An open but sceptical mind is vital. There are a lot of defensive comments here. Both those with adherence to religious faith and those with adherence to the materialist assumptions that underpin the last couple of centuries of Western scientific endeavour - seem perturbed by the phenomena of NDE's. I've read at least half of the 3,500+ NDE's at the website nderf.org That is following the data. You should examine the raw data before coming to conclusions. I also had a brief but for me dramatic NDE myself just over 10 years ago in an accident - as a medical practitioner I think I can distinguish between dream, delirium and clear conscious awareness - the presence clear lucid awareness during the NDE and the post-concussive delirium during recovery was stark. The emotions and experience within the NDE (void and tunnel and other being) were exhilarating and nothing like even a vivid dream.

Read more Read less

Choose a Topic

Recent Debates

Death Is Not Final