Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since such unlikely experiences can never be empirically validated, but do fly in the face of objective rationality, I'll just continue to consider them to be the imaginative ramblings of publicity hounds. Especially when they are largely done in aid of proving God.
This will not stop Tom or others from coming back with yet another...
I'm not suggesting that they're all lying although a few of them have obviously embellished their story to sell books. People who have suffered a traumatic injury could very well experience some very unusual mental activity as a result of it and become convinced after they've recovered that they really had a glimpse of a spiritual world. I've never heard anyone provide any evidence whatsoever that human beings have what could be described as a soul which has the ability to exit a physical body when someone slams a car into a tree or gets popped in the head with a baseball bat.
Rifleman pointed out that none of these people who are making these claims were really dead and I agree completely. No one who's been laying dead in a field for a month being eaten by maggots has ever been revived and held a news conference explaining what it's like on the other side. Near death means just what it says, nearly dead but not actually dead.
The story is well documented, and it appears to me everytime someone meets your criteria, you continue to move the bar up another notch. If we did bring someone back from the dead, I believe you would just find another way to deny that reality. The evidence is there, yet it looks to me it's just something you don't want to consider, or believe. This womans eyes were taped shut, her brain was drained of blood, her heart was stopped. How much closer to death could one get? The point of the matter is, she had no way of being able to see what occured during that operation. Yet she could give a full account of the equipment used, the conversations that occured, and even the music played during the procedure. And this woman just gave you evidence of a soul existing outside of the body. Yet her ability to confirm the details of that operation while her heart was stopped, her brain drained of blood, and her eyes taped shut, you have just ignored.
Why can someone blind since birth see during a nde?
I suspect it is because of the same reason that Bugs Bunny can bend the shotgun barrel of Elmer Fudd. If they are blind, how would they have the frame of reference to know that it was sight and not a dream, yes, the blind dream, often times about things they have heard good descriptions of.
Why can someone blind since birth see during a nde?
I suspect it is because of the same reason that Bugs Bunny can bend the shotgun barrel of Elmer Fudd. If they are blind, how would they have the frame of reference to know that it was sight and not a dream, yes, the blind dream, often times about things they have heard good descriptions of.
The woman in the link below has been blind since birth, and she will tell you, that when she dreams she sees nothing, no images, no lights, nothing. So there is no frame of reference. Her dreams only involve taste, touch, sound, and smell. And only when see had her NDE was she able for the first time in her life, able to see what (LIGHT) was. It was the only time in her life, when she saw images. Which scared her, because she had never experienced anything like that before.
Didn't you already post that link? You keep insisting that a person born blind is unable to see things in their mind. I've already stated that while they don't see things visually, they are still quite able to use their other senses to form perceptions in their mind. But you keep howling "They can't see! They can't see!" and insist that they somehow have no perception of the "REAL" world. That view is incredibly narrow-minded and does nothing more than reduce blind people to a lesser level of humanity.
And yet you completely ignore that the woman in the video. You state that blind people can only see during an NDE. The problem you're having is understanding perception. You seem to equate perception only by what a person can visually see with their eyes. Ocular vision is one means to perceive things, but it's not the only sense people have to form perceptions. The perceptions of a person born blind, who have never had the ability to see with their eyes, rely on their other senses to form perceptions, ideas, the world around them. Even though they have no eyesight, their views are perfectly normal for them, because that's how their lives have been since birth.
There can be a difference though. Let's say a child at the age of 8 loses his or her eyesight. Let's say for some reason, maybe a diseasem it was necessary to remove their eyes. Okay, that means there is no way that person can see anything. But here's where it differs from a person born blind: that person did have vision before their blindness, and that means they have a mental reference of things like shapes, colors, faces, light and shadow, observing movement, etc. The person born blind does not have that kind of mental reference, but they do indeed have a mental perception of those things by virtue of using their other senses. If you talk about the color blue to someone born blind, you can't really know if the mental "image" of blue is the same as yours. But it really doesn't matter if the communication about blue is understood by both you and the person born blind. Who knows? Maybe some blind people can "feel" what blue is like because of its spectral reference
In a nutshell, your view seems to be that there are two separate and unrelated parts to a human being: there's the body, and then there's the mind (or if you prefer - the spirit). What you seem to be failing to recognize is that all parts are integrated and work together, with what we have, making each person a whole person. The mind works in unison with input from the body's senses, and by the brain's ability to make associations from memory (recall) based on personal experiences.
Maybe it would be much easier if you'd define what the words: "perception" and "reality" mean to you? What are they?
Well you speak of an eight year old girl who once had sight, yet this has little to do with the blind woman in this video. For she has been blind since birth, and she would tell you, that in her mind, there are no images, there is no light, there are no shadows. When she dreams, she only experiences taste, touch, sound, and smell. And what she experienced during her NDE, had nothing to do with a preception. She will tell you that during her NDE, she experienced (LIGHT,) for the first time in her life. And the images she experienced, were not based on preception. And she would tell you it scared her, because she had never experienced anything like that before. She saw her wedding ring, she saw her hair, she saw the doctors and nurses working on her from above. She then floated threw the roof of the hospital, and could see the world outside. It should be obvious, that she was seperated from her human existance. And yet, she was still very aware of the world around her. I don't believe I'm being narrow minded here. I'm only listening to what this woman has reveal to us. And I have choosen not to put my own spin on her statements, or ignore what she has already told us.
Since such unlikely experiences can never be empirically validated, but do fly in the face of objective rationality, I'll just continue to consider them to be the imaginative ramblings of publicity hounds. Especially when they are largely done in aid of proving God.
This will not stop Tom or others from coming back with yet another...
"Well, consider this story then!"
Which proves what again, exactly?
Well of course many of these NDEs have been observed and experienced rifleman. And I showed you the one account of the woman who's brain was operated on, and that came as close to an expriement as one could get. They taped her eyes shut, they stopped her heart, and drained all the blood from her brain. So to suggest that these experiences can never by empirically validated, is simply untrue. Such experiences are occuring in hospitals all the time. And there will be more to come. You say you consider these experiences to be just the ramblings of publicity hounds. Yet, I find that to be a very narrow view at best. Because doctors have come forward and have confirmed, that their patients saw things that should of been impossible during their procedures, and operations.
You asked if proof could be provided from a research scientist to confirm a NDE experience. I did that. And I am still waiting for you to dismiss her experience. And you ask the question. What does this prove exactly? Well based on the body of evidence presented, it proves that consciousness is not limited to the human body. That human consciousness can operate outside of our natural condition. These experiences support the Biblical view that life exists after death. And for that one reason alone, I believe you will reject all such accounts. Even if they come to us from a research scientist, or an atheistic professor.
Well based on the body of evidence presented, it proves that consciousness is not limited to the human body. That human consciousness can operate outside of our natural condition. These experiences support the Biblical view that life exists after death. And for that one reason alone, I believe you will reject all such accounts.
We don't have anything even close to real proof of what you're claiming. The problem with so many of these situations we've talked about is that there are other ways of finding out information that seem more realistic than a roaming soul on the loose in an operating room. I've been put to sleep for various procedures a number of times and in every single instance I was wheeled into the room where it would take place while I was still conscious. I was able to observe my surroundings and see the medical equipment that was going to be used. When I had a colonoscopy I saw this big black tube with a little lens at the tip on a table next to me and felt relieved that I was going to be unconscious when they used it.
In any case I would be completely open to any evidence that would prove that consciousness can exist outside of the body, it's just that I've never been persuaded by anything I've seen so far.
Hmmm.. Tabloidism coupled with Denialism coupled with Scientific illiteracy! Impressive!
Here's the bottom line:
1) these are extraordinary claims, but also, one may well ask why this commentary is presented on a Religion & Philosophy forum. Are you assuming such events, if indeed they do occur, are the result of some Godly involvement?
2) I did a quick check on XtremeRealitycheck.com. It's is a wildly imaginative Christian website, whose last entry at the bottom of the page is Get Saved!
It also focuses on such stuff as "What the government doesn't want you to know!!" theatrical expositionism, and various so-called "scientific proofs" of re-incarnation, etc.
(When I quick-scan through their online presentations on, for instance, evolution, I find it so abominably short on factual information, and so full of abject prevarication [that'd be "lies" for those from Rio Linda], it should be cited for felony aggravation. But this is a free-speech country where obviously Anyone can say Anything. But... thanks for identifying the source of much of your past and present arguments, Tom. )
It is therefore somewhat suspect right from the get-go. It's hardly credible by any rational standards. But who said that you ever apply rationality to anything after all.... Personally, I'd be quite embarrassed to cite this website as "proof" of any argument of mine, but that's just me. I have some ethical standards about what I say.
3) The stories by someone, in fact anyone, when such questionable things are involved, require at least some sort of extraordinary and quality proofs.
All that you EVER provide, Tom, are just such extraordinary stories. You then couple them with all-encompassing statements that "scientists now agree..." etc., as I''ve mentioned so many times before, and that are instantly dismissed by that ugly little thing called TRUTH.
Meantime, busy, professional academically oriented scientists (unlike myself , being semi-retired and entertained by the musings of the delusional) do not give such nonsense the time of day.
There is no argument within the scientific community about anything you might say or present. They routinely ignore silliness and absurd exaggerated statements or "proofs" such as anything a popularist YouTube video might provide.
Even if they were to take a few seconds and review your thoughts, they also would laughingly dismiss your endless criticisms of their ethical standards and accomplishments.
After all, anyone can say anything on YouTube. I say that we're all here because of planetary innoculation by aliens. That hardly makes it so, now does it?
And yet, to you, it's all instantly admissible as long as it promotes your personal brand of Christian beliefs. If this is the extent of your information base, you really ought to do yourself a favor and read more credible stuff. It wouldn't be nearly as phenomenalistic or "tabloid", but it might calm you down a bit.
(But on that note, BTW, just curious; since when is draining of blood out of a brain an accredited medical procedure for someone on the operating table? Were they preparing her for embalming?)
True "dead" is "dead". Old definitions (no pulse for 5 minutes; central core body temp below 90k for 30 minutes., no brainwave activity for 3 minutes etc. etc.) have all been shown to not quite cover it. But those who want to make some religious point still cling to those ancient definitions because, lo and behold, the body wasn't actually dead and unrecoverable, but they can say it was, and then point to "a miracle! Praise God!"
But if there's no brainwave activity for 24 hours, no pulse, core temp is below about 70˚ for 4 hours, no reflexive responses, etc., then there's really no coming back. Fact.
Or, for a more philosophical and in-depth discussion of the physiology and philosophy of true death, here's a much longer article. It nonetheless covers a lot of the topic which cannot be reasonably covered here on C-D:
Well you speak of an eight year old girl who once had sight, yet this has little to do with the blind woman in this video. For she has been blind since birth, and she would tell you, that in her mind, there are no images, there is no light, there are no shadows. When she dreams, she only experiences taste, touch, sound, and smell. And what she experienced during her NDE, had nothing to do with a preception. She will tell you that during her NDE, she experienced (LIGHT,) for the first time in her life. And the images she experienced, were not based on preception. And she would tell you it scared her, because she had never experienced anything like that before. She saw her wedding ring, she saw her hair, she saw the doctors and nurses working on her from above. She then floated threw the roof of the hospital, and could see the world outside. It should be obvious, that she was seperated from her human existance. And yet, she was still very aware of the world around her. I don't believe I'm being narrow minded here. I'm only listening to what this woman has reveal to us. And I have choosen not to put my own spin on her statements, or ignore what she has already told us.
Campbell, you seem to be having a very difficult time comprehending things. The point I was making about a "child" who had eyesight but became blind was only meant as an example about different conditions related to perceptions of people who are blind. The child would have some memories of optical vision because it was part of the child's experience before blindness.
A person born blind has never had vision and has no experience like that to draw on from memory. Instead, the experiences a person born blind involves the other senses, which you finally seem to acknowledge. These experiences are contained in that person's memory. Further, what the woman in the video had to say completely contradicts what you had stated earlier, that blind people have NO perception of the 'REAL world'. And my position is that a person born blind does indeed have a perception of the real world, even though that perception does not include optical vision. Their view of the world without vision is just as REAL as your is with vision.
While you claim you're not putting a spin on the woman's statements, that's precisely what you're doing. You're taking the content of the woman's words and interpreting it as if she suddenly had ocular vision. I'm saying that just because she did not have ocular vision does not mean she didn't have a perception of things. The question boils down to whether her description of what she "saw" in her mind as a person born blind is exactly the same as what you see with your eyes. The problem is that you can't possibly know for sure. The ONLY way you could know is if you were also born blind.
You're also failing to understand what a person goes through during the process of regaining consciousness. There's no instant change between the state of unconsciousness and consciousness. It's a gradual process, not one second you're out of it and the next second you're completely alert again. It's a gradual process. And it's during the stage of what is sometimes called a 'twilight sleep', which occurs in between consciousness and unconsciousness. As you're gradually waking up again, your perceptions can be unfamiliar and fragmented.
For some people, the strange state of 'twilight sleep' doesn't leave any profound effect. For other people it can seem very real that they seem to 'recall' certain things about what they perceived. However that doesn't mean their recollection is truly clear. It means that their brain was in the process of gradually waking up, gradually in the same sense that you would gradually regain feeling from numbness after a visit to the dentist.
When you've been given a shot of novocaine, as the effect wears off, you can feel what seems like an electrical tingling. You might feel the affected area is icy cold and slowly thawing out. It's obvious that the area wasn't actually frozen. It's that there's a gradual change between numbness and your normal sense of feeling. Arousing from a state of unconsciousness to 'twilight sleep' to being fully conscious again is also a gradual process. For some people, it can leave a very significant impression. There's no reason to think a person born blind cannot experience a difference in perception as they regain conscious again.
You cite various things the woman said you think supports your claim of the mind (spirit) being detached from the brain (body).
1 - She saw her wedding ring.
2 - She saw her hair.
3 - She saw the doctors and nurses working on her from above.
4 - She saw herself floating through the roof of the hospital.
5 - She could see the outside world.
According to you, this would be impossible because she was blind from birth. I certainly understand, because that's from your point of view in order to promote supernatural or paranormal phenomena and to "prove" there's an afterlife that some living people can enter during a NDE. So, let's take another look your list of the things the woman spoke about.
1 - As stated earlier, she would certainly have a perception of her wedding ring. It would not be an unfamiliar thing for her. She wore it all the time. It represents an important part of her live - her marriage. She's know her own ring even though she can't visually see it. She'd know the shape and feel of it which would be retained in her memory.
2 - She'd certainly know what her own hair feels like. She'd know the texture and shape. And based on what others have said, she'd probably have a perception of what the color of her hair may be, even though she can't see any colors. She'd know what her own hair feels like when it's mussed up or neatly brushed and combed. She'd also have a perception about that. As another reminder, I'm not talking about perceptions from the sense of vision. Remember, her description is her own perception and concept based solely on using her other senses, touch, hearing, smell, and taste.
3 - As for the doctors and nurses working on her, I think it's pretty safe to say that she'd have a some kind of mental concept about them, as well as procedures and general descriptions of hospital equipment.
4 & 5 - I'm sure she has her own understanding of what a hospital looks like, what a roof is, what the outside world is like, based on a lifetime of descriptions. It would be pretty foolish to think she'd have no mental perceptions or concepts about such things. Since she had no vision, she'd have no other point of reference. Except she has all of her other senses.
This brings us back to the question about NDEs. Your reply to my post failed to answer the questions to include your view and definition of the words "perception" and "reality":
A - What do they mean to you?
B - What are they?
If your view of how you seem to be describing a NDE, with all sorts of a spiritual experience, is valid in showing a different reality, then you would also have to say that the experiences someone has with strong psychedelics is equally valid. You would also have to say that the effects after placing electromagnets around the head is also equally valid as a reality. You would have to say that the effects of coming out of a 'twilight sleep' is also a way of seeing another reality. You'd also have to say dreaming is looking at a different reality.
So what is it? Please define "perception" and "reality"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm.. Tabloidism coupled with Denialism coupled with Scientific illiteracy! Impressive!
