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.
I heard of people seeing Jesus Christ and going to heaven and coming back to life on the earth , and then another which had fluffy clouds and who believed with all His heart in God, ..... Jesus Spirit told here that the man who had fluffy vision was a free spirit and still needed to make decisions to repent and believe in Christ
I read the very serious book on reincarnation by Jim Tucker, the principal investigator of that case. I thought the book was generally excellent and fairly scholarly but was disturbed by the emphasis he gave to the kid's case. It strongly seemed to me as though the parents smelled a gravy train from the onset, to the extent that I mentioned to my wife at the time and gave the parents' book a pass. At least this confirms that my BS detector was working properly.
I often have the same reaction to elaborate NDE accounts, which I lost interest in many years ago. One of my favorites from the very early days was a woman who had unquestionably been near death. Her entire account was: "I was shown the secret of the universe. It was really, really simple. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it was." Her I believe.
Folks, let's not shoot the messenger: I haven't read any of these essays. I know nothing about them except that I recognize at least 20 of the names as serious thinkers with serious academic credentials who have been respected for decades - people like Stephen Braude. I simply steered those who are interested to hundreds of pages of essays by some of the key thinkers in the field.
If you find their essays unpersuasive, it doesn't mean bat guano to me. I'm sure I'll find some of them unpersuasive or worse. But, please, don't play the buffoonish "anonymous internet expert" game of appearing in three hours and announcing you found a 70-page essay by someone whose scientific and academic credentials FAR exceed yours silly, not up to your standards, riddled with errors in logic and evidence, yada yada. You just embarrass yourselves, which seems to be almost an addiction for some of you.
You make a fair point.
But here's the problem I have...well wait...first I want to set the stage...at least my stage. I'm a Buddhist. I want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth. I do personally believe in past lives due to one of my own experiences. BUT, the fact that I want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth and past lives is not the same thing as saying that I KNOW or have proof of those concepts.
There's a problem in this country (more so than ever lately) in understanding what science is. And it's complicated on this forum (and other places) by the sort of statement that, "Well, if Albert Einstein believes it, it must be true". There are plenty of crackpots out there who have university degrees, and even that are published. What I want to know is -- NOT what the outliers say, but what does the body of science say. When I was in college back in the early 1970s, geology was rife with published articles about certain aspects of paleontology and plate tectonics, some of which -- over the succeeding years -- were verified and are now accepted scientific belief, but some of which fairly quickly (or at least ultimately) fell by the wayside.
Over the years I've read quite a few articles about NDEs. It's interesting. I'm not convinced. Neither is the scientific community. It's good to keep an open mind. It's not good to be impressed that someone wrote a 70 page essay. 70 pages could be gold...or crap.
I have read one article by Kastrup. I was not impressed by his ignoring of alternative possibilities and his god of the gaps philosophy, although I accept he could have been simply writing a summary of work he has actually done. If I later have time, I will read his paper, maybe he really has something substantive.
The fact they include use van Lommel's work also does not inspire confidence.
Some of the problems with these studies include the difficulty of indepth monitoring of patients during surgery, or the need to ignore alternate possibilities such as false memories after the event and Intraoperative awareness.
These problems mean NDEs are not an ideal way to study consciousness.
I haven't had an NDE but I do have relatives who have. I think I mentioned that my principal antagonist on the old IANDS forum was a woman who'd had two profound NDEs, one in in childhood and one in young adulthood, yet was a militant atheist/anti-theist - albeit not a naturalistic atheist since she was convinced she'd experienced the Other Side.
The medical/scientific NDE literature is very robust. The phenomenon has been and is being studied from pretty much every conceivable approach. I don't think anyone believes NDEs are the last word in consciousness studies. They are simply one body of reasonably persuasive evidence.
The one aspect of NDEs that I find most compelling is (1) the frequency with which NDE experiencers encounter relatives, friends and acquaintances who are in fact dead; (2) the dead who are encountered are often not those who were closest to the experiencer and thus might have been "expected" if the NDE were merely a fantasy or delusion; (3) in a number of cases, the NDE experiencer did not even know the person who was encountered was dead and had no reason to think he or she might be dead; (4) in many cases, the NDE experiencer didn't even recognize the dead until after the NDE, when the individual was recognized in a family photograph; (5) other NDEs have involved encounters with dead brothers or sisters the experiencer didn't even know about because the mother had concealed their existence; and, lastly, (6) encounters with people who are actually still living and might have been "expected" aren't unheard-of but are comparatively few and far between, which against cuts against an explanation such as fantasy or delusion.
I have a very difficult time even hypothesizing a mundane explanation for this body of evidence, apart from the typical last resort of a debunker - everyone is lying, fantasizing, wish-fulfilling, yada yada. I'm reminded of James H. Hyslop. a psychologist and Professor of Ethics and Logic at Columbia University who was also one of the really serious early psychical researchers. After hearing all the skeptical "explanations" for a series of very impressive mediumistic communications from his late father, he said: "I believe I was speaking with my late father. It's the simplest explanation and fits the facts the best."
Oh, Pim von Lommel, who doesn't impress Harry? He has been a practicing cardiologist for 50 years and has devoted 35 years to the medical-oriented study of NDEs and consciousness. He has published extensively, including in peer-reviewed journals such as The Lancet and the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. But don't dismiss Harry's "lack of confidence" too quickly - he has a college degree, or at least says he does. I will steer you to the wildly biased and entirely critical Wikipedia entry, which is so far into the ozone that it contains a neutrality warning from the Wiki folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_van_Lommel. My guess would be that Harry's actual knowledge of von Lommel doesn't exceed the borders of Wikipedia.
I made it as far as 20% of the half-million prize winner.
Nah, I have better source. His is just a fancy review of what others said based on what others said about what others said.
Read Kastrup instead. The winners will be skewed to the dominant esoteric views among those who pursue this subject non-scientifically. Kastrup sticks to the science.
But here's the problem I have...well wait...first I want to set the stage...at least my stage. I'm a Buddhist. I want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth. I do personally believe in past lives due to one of my own experiences. BUT, the fact that I want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth and past lives is not the same thing as saying that I KNOW or have proof of those concepts.
There's a problem in this country (more so than ever lately) in understanding what science is. And it's complicated on this forum (and other places) by the sort of statement that, "Well, if Albert Einstein believes it, it must be true". There are plenty of crackpots out there who have university degrees, and even that are published. What I want to know is -- NOT what the outliers say, but what does the body of science say. When I was in college back in the early 1970s, geology was rife with published articles about certain aspects of paleontology and plate tectonics, some of which -- over the succeeding years -- were verified and are now accepted scientific belief, but some of which fairly quickly (or at least ultimately) fell by the wayside.
Over the years I've read quite a few articles about NDEs. It's interesting. I'm not convinced. Neither is the scientific community. It's good to keep an open mind. It's not good to be impressed that someone wrote a 70 page essay. 70 pages could be gold...or crap.
Yes there is far too much misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not about the name or personality of the scientist, rather about the method they use to derive their conclusions. And then the conclusions are challenge robustly until they are accepted by the consensus.
Even once a consensus has been achieved, science is not talking about absolute truths, instead it is saying what is most likely based on the evidence we have. This can and does change, which is intrinsic to science.
One of the best things about science, is any good study has a section understanding the potential problems and shortcomings of the study. This is simple self-awareness. Other areas can learn from science on this. I very rarely hear from people who have beliefs beyond what the direct evidence suggests, who also understand the limitations of their beliefs. You seem to be one of those rare people - you believe in reincarnation but also understand the possible limitations of the method you used to reach that conclusion.
The Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies recently sponsored a contest for essays concerning the survival of consciousness after death. The first three prizes were $500,000, $300,000 and $150,000, so it attracted many of the heavyweights in the field.
I have not read any of them, but almost all are by names with which I am familiar and some of them are surely worth your perusal if you have any interest in this subject.
I note that Bernardo Kastrup, whom I have been reading extensively, has an essay entitled "A rational, empirical case for postmortem survival based solely on mainstream science," so I'll probably start there.
Interesting. Thanks...
I had a look at the winning entry as well. Jeffrey Mislove's, and although he is a fellow alum and the only known person to earn a doctoral diploma in "Parapsychology" from the University of California, Berkeley, I was disappointed to essentially read the "same old" in the first part of his 97 page essay. Again a very personal experience rather than anything that soundly establishes the existence of consciousness after death. A good story though. I'll certainly give him that. Maybe even true.
I'm not sure I've got the time or good reason to read the rest, but I was also curious who the source of this experience might be, and yet again the same sort of problem. Mislove is known to be all about this sort of thing. Has made a name for himself and apparently some money too, promoting these sorts of claims that can't be verified or confirmed in any independent third-party manner. How many stories like these have people told? Stories or experiences people are absolutely convinced can only be explained the way they do rather than by simple coincidence for example?
Indeed, how many stories told by many people in this forum? Does any of this establish any real convincing proof that consciousness exists after death? Especially when the claims come from people who tend to lean toward those sorts of assumptions and/or expectations? I really don't think so.
I also think if/when any REAL proof of any such thing is ever presented, we'll all know about it and none of us will debate it!
Read Kastrup instead. The winners will be skewed to the dominant esoteric views among those who pursue this subject non-scientifically. Kastrup sticks to the science.
I did read through Kastrups essay last night. In all honesty I found it like wading through treacle; overly verbose and prolix. That's not to say he doesn't have some interesting things to say. One thing I can say is that is definitely not based solely on mainstream science as he claims in the title.
I was encouraged in the beginning when he said the essay would be based 'solely on rigorous reasoning and sufficiently replicated laboratory evidence' but towards the end he talks about things like reincarnation, telepathy and mediumship. These are hardly mainstream science.
Not that I think anything should be ruled out. Everything is worth analysis, but don't say it's all solely mainstream, when it isn't.
But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he made some interesting analogies that I want to look at again. I'm going to read through it again later on today or maybe tomorrow to see if I can make better sense of it with fresh eyes and a clearer head and I will do my best to view what he says objectively.
I remember reference to a study where patients being operated on who experienced Out of Body Experiences were tested on items they could not have know from simple observation during their entry into the operating theatre or their position on the table, without leaving the body. An I recall the conclusions being that those who experienced leaving their body had the wrong perceptions of these items, and hence their out of body experience was not really out of body.
The items being things like (I'm making this up) a poster that was never visible to the patient when they came in, nor from their position in the operating table, but would be visibly if they rose above the body.
But I would need to find that study first to reference, otherwise it is just hearsay on my part.
There is also the possibility of an entirely deterministic activity of the brain causing the NDE, without any mystical reasons. So any study needs to investigate that possibility. Even if NDEs happen, there is the question of what they are - a glimpse of life after death, a false memory, brain activity that happens near death, etc.
People don't like these sorts of notions debunked...
Especially for those of us prone toward the more "romantic" explanation for our experiences and emotions, we prefer to believe these cool stories rather than to have them explained, questioned or tested in any serious way.
Reminds me of one of my favorite videos about this sort of thing...
But here's the problem I have...well wait...first I want to set the stage...at least my stage. I'm a Buddhist. I want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth. I do personally believe in past lives due to one of my own experiences. BUT, the fact that I want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth and past lives is not the same thing as saying that I KNOW or have proof of those concepts.
There's a problem in this country (more so than ever lately) in understanding what science is. And it's complicated on this forum (and other places) by the sort of statement that, "Well, if Albert Einstein believes it, it must be true". There are plenty of crackpots out there who have university degrees, and even that are published. What I want to know is -- NOT what the outliers say, but what does the body of science say. When I was in college back in the early 1970s, geology was rife with published articles about certain aspects of paleontology and plate tectonics, some of which -- over the succeeding years -- were verified and are now accepted scientific belief, but some of which fairly quickly (or at least ultimately) fell by the wayside.
Over the years I've read quite a few articles about NDEs. It's interesting. I'm not convinced. Neither is the scientific community. It's good to keep an open mind. It's not good to be impressed that someone wrote a 70 page essay. 70 pages could be gold...or crap.
I thank you for the posts you often contribute in this forum and for elevating the discussion to the "higher ground" that doesn't last too long in these threads as a general rule. Also for explaining yourself the way you do even if not well appreciated by those who all too often don't respect the basics you want to explain.
Curious, if I may. Why do you "want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth?"
Isn't it this sort of desire for a specific conclusion that inhibits our ability to consider these sorts of subjects or issues objectively? Isn't that yet another common "problem in this country?"
I did read through Kastrups essay last night. In all honesty I found it like wading through treacle; overly verbose and prolix. That's not to say he doesn't have some interesting things to say. One thing I can say is that is definitely not based solely on mainstream science as he claims in the title.
I was encouraged in the beginning when he said the essay would be based 'solely on rigorous reasoning and sufficiently replicated laboratory evidence' but towards the end he talks about things like reincarnation, telepathy and mediumship. These are hardly mainstream science.
Not that I think anything should be ruled out. Everything is worth analysis, but don't say it's all solely mainstream, when it isn't.
But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he made some interesting analogies that I want to look at again. I'm going to read through it again later on today or maybe tomorrow to see if I can make better sense of it with fresh eyes and a clearer head and I will do my best to view what he says objectively.
I agree about his writing style, Cruithne. Obviously, I do not agree with all his views but the case against physicalism is well done. My views would center on different reasons for the apparent dissociative barrier. I may read some of the other essays, but I am skeptical of their objectivity. I suspect Kastrup had to address the paranormal for this particular audience. I am pleased that Irkle brought them to our attention in this thread!
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.
