Man Loses Pulse for 45 Minutes,Wakes Up With Incredible Vision of Afterlife

[MongGrel]

Hi sandorski,

Look into the mirror, completely naked and say aloud, "I am." Do this with an open mind at least once a day.

Just smacking yourself in the head with a 2X4 can have similar results sometimes.

()

 

[DAPUNISHER]

An example of why such accounts cannot be trusted. http://nypost.com/2015/01/16/teen-admits-he-lied-about-dying-going-to-heaven/

“I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention,” Malarkey admitted. “When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible.”

That his name is Malarkey is my favorite part.

 

[swamplizard]

Just smacking yourself in the head with a 2X4 can have similar results sometimes.

()

Hi MongGrel,

I'll take your word for it.

 

[disappoint]

Spiritual Realm:

Why is the monk who seeks enlightening meditating?
Why is a shaman taking drugs?
Why are native tribes using drugs or other ways to induce trance/other states of consciousness to see "the spiritual realm"?

Think about it, you will find your answer what the "spiritual realm" is.

Ok. My answer is human imagination. What is yours?

 

[disappoint]

There are some astonishing accounts where little children have memories of a former life. (There was even a TV series made about this, but those accounts exist for a long time already.)

The theory here is that we (or most of us) are born with those memories of a former life but forget them at about age 5-7.

Even if there is only ONE credible account of a former life, from 100s, if not 1000s...isn't this evidence for that our "self" is more than just a body creating our mind/consciousness with the help of although an incredibly complex brain.

If only one of those accounts is credible and cannot be explained, it's evidence that our mind (true self, soul, whatever you want to call it) is independent and is much more than a one-time existence bound to a physical body.

One has to ask why such astonishing accounts of children who remember a former life are not making headlines and are being "taken serious"....as is the case in other cultures where reincarnation is thought of being "normal".

The answer is, of course, that the idea of a soul/true self that can incarnate whatever many times is contradicting what we are taught in Church There, it's all about this ONE life here on Earth and then judgement by the evil god who throws us either in eternal hell or rewards us with eternal paradise.

Not all that astonishing once you find out that those stories of past life regression were done incorrectly by hypnotists that put those people in a trance and then inadvertently planted the information they expected into that person's mind in the first place.

 

[MtnMan]

Lack of oxygen to the brain causes all sorts of hallucinations. Nothing to see here..... move along.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Lack of oxygen to the brain causes all sorts of hallucinations. Nothing to see here..... move along.

Evolutionarily what's the point of developing such psychological mechanisms?

 

[agent00f]

Evolutionarily what's the point of developing such psychological mechanisms?

Evolution mostly deals with mechanisms useful for continued survival. When your body is under stress (eg oxygen deprived) it largely goes into survival/panic mode to get to a better situation pronto; blood flow increase, adrenaline starts pumping and so on. Higher order brain function are generally not a priority at that point.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Evolution mostly deals with mechanisms useful for continued survival. When your body is under stress (eg oxygen deprived) it largely goes into survival/panic mode to get to a better situation pronto; blood flow increase, adrenaline starts pumping and so on. Higher order brain function are generally not a priority at that point.

But these seem like coherent experiences that are unrelated to survival.

 

[agent00f]

The point is because the body has more important things to take care of they're mostly arbitrary thoughts/experiences. Also our recollection of ordinary event/memories is suspect nevermind during moments where thing go awry.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The point is because the body has more important things to take care of they're mostly arbitrary thoughts/experiences. Also our recollection of ordinary event/memories is suspect nevermind during moments where thing go awry.

These experiences are maladaptive because any mechanism that costs energy and without use is contrary to fitness. in evolutionary psychology the first assumption is that we work via evolved psychological mechanisms.

This gives us a series of 'paradoxes' from the evolutionary perspective, for example:

A) Self-sacrofice for those you are not genetically related to
B) Homosexuality, as you are 100% related to yourself, so all other benefits are outweighed
C) Near Death Experiences, since mechanics related to death-experience can never be selected for

We could start new threads for A and B, but C is interesting in and of itself. However, from this perspective there are a series of categories into which mechanisms must fall:
1) Functional (improve fitness vis a vis reproduction)
2) Random (noise that got caught along for the ride)
3) Vestigial (they used to be useful but now they are not)

You might say you are arguing the outcome is 2, random. The problems are:
I) It is the least satisfying of answers, as it's kind of a catch-all
II) It is semi-culturally un-bound, culture being a driver of randomness
III) Randomness should be overcome if it has maladaptive outcomes unless there's a fitness valley to losing it

You might argue III) That there is some other mechanism being undertaken that has 'brought along for the ride' a near death experience mechanism. Which would mean that such experiences would be any of:
i) Incoherent
ii) Coherent contingent upon some other mechanism being activated
iii) ???

I noted that the experience is coherent and asked for what other mechanism might bring it along for the ride. I get that it's your argument (some sort of survival mechanism) but we NEVER see it in any other situation; and as we established death-only mechanisms are maladaptive. Since coherency comes from psychological mechanisms and there is no other 'tag along' to justify its experience, presently we cannot explain near death experiences from an evolutionary perspective.

If you would like to come up with some explanations, particularly if they are predicated on a new iii) then we can discuss ways at getting at if your proposed solution makes sense.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Where in the Bible does it say that's our purpose for existence? If someone dies at a young age - babies dying in the first year of their lives - their opportunities to love others is cut short, if it ever happened at all. Thus, if God's purpose for us to be on Earth is to love each other, then what was the purpose of the baby who dies at an age of 3 months?

Great questions. God's purpose is interpreted in the bible in a multitude of ways, but if you're asking for the one that I hand my hat on holds two questions:

1) Why does anyone exist (given the existence of evil)
2) Why do Christians exist

1) Why did God create people? (and let them suffer)
Romans 8: 18-22:"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now."

2) Why do Christians exist?
Ephesians 2: 8-10 "You did not save yourselves; it was a gift from God. You are not saved by the things you have done, so there is nothing to boast about. God has made us what we are. In Christ Jesus, God made us new people so that we would spend our lives doing the good things he had already planned for us to do."


I take 1) to mean we are experiencing God is in the process of creating, but don't worry, God will edit out the shitty parts and let us keep the good 2) God created Christians so that they could love others.

A dead baby is sad for us because it will never be a full person and have the opportunity to love others. However, contrary to the typical anti-abortion stance, the old testament tells us this in Ecclesiasties 4: 1-3: "Next, I turned to look at all the acts of oppression that make people suffer under the sun. Look at the tears of those who suffer! No one can comfort them. Their oppressors have all the power. No one can comfort those who suffer. I congratulate the dead, who have already died, rather than the living, who still have to carry on. But the person who hasn’t been born yet is better off than both of them. He hasn’t seen the evil that is done under the sun."

I take that to mean that dead babies, though a loss of nearly infinite potential for humanity, is a blessing to the child who will now not have to suffer the inevitable, ongoing, pain that is life.

It's a sad topic, and the killing of children I think proves that there is objective evil. But there's also a grace in death for those who once suffered. I realized this quite deeply as I watched my father finally pass on from cancer after two decades of constant pain.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What does it mean that "everything happens"?

Life seems somewhat random. There are grains of sand or gama-rays or thoughts that could have gone in one direction, but they went in another.

For as much as you would call all of your thoughts your 'self' you think all those thoughts.

So to me spirituality is about debauchery: do you maintain your potential band of thoughts that you would cal 'self' within the 'bauch' or 'center-beam' that holds up the most loving 'you', or are you 'shaved off' or de-bauched and of a mind that focuses on pride, or lust, or greed?

To me, all this happens, but you (as you experience you) get to choose if you entangle yourself with a 'you' that is central to love, or shaven off into something else.

 

[agent00f]

These experiences are maladaptive because any mechanism that costs energy and without use is contrary to fitness. in evolutionary psychology the first assumption is that we work via evolved psychological mechanisms.

This gives us a series of 'paradoxes' from the evolutionary perspective, for example:

A) Self-sacrofice for those you are not genetically related to
B) Homosexuality, as you are 100% related to yourself, so all other benefits are outweighed
C) Near Death Experiences, since mechanics related to death-experience can never be selected for

We could start new threads for A and B, but C is interesting in and of itself. However, from this perspective there are a series of categories into which mechanisms must fall:
1) Functional (improve fitness vis a vis reproduction)
2) Random (noise that got caught along for the ride)
3) Vestigial (they used to be useful but now they are not)

You might say you are arguing the outcome is 2, random. The problems are:
I) It is the least satisfying of answers, as it's kind of a catch-all
II) It is semi-culturally un-bound, culture being a driver of randomness
III) Randomness should be overcome if it has maladaptive outcomes unless there's a fitness valley to losing it

You might argue III) That there is some other mechanism being undertaken that has 'brought along for the ride' a near death experience mechanism. Which would mean that such experiences would be any of:
i) Incoherent
ii) Coherent contingent upon some other mechanism being activated
iii) ???

I noted that the experience is coherent and asked for what other mechanism might bring it along for the ride. I get that it's your argument (some sort of survival mechanism) but we NEVER see it in any other situation; and as we established death-only mechanisms are maladaptive.

It's not for the survivors.

Since coherency comes from psychological mechanisms and there is no other 'tag along' to justify its experience, presently we cannot explain near death experiences from an evolutionary perspective.

If you would like to come up with some explanations, particularly if they are predicated on a new iii) then we can discuss ways at getting at if your proposed solution makes sense.

The mind is simply not "coherent" when the body is struggling for life. Try asking someone in that state to do some arithmetic.

This appears largely confirmation bias. Most near death experiences tend to be dissimilar, but some in similar situations (let's say drowning) might result in similar psychological effects of instinctual physiological struggle, like bright flashes or euphoria.

As noted, as long as the strange effect doesn't result in death the trait lives on. The people who waste energy/effort on higher level brain functions in do or die situations don't.

 

[flexy]

Lack of oxygen to the brain causes all sorts of hallucinations. Nothing to see here..... move along.

I take it you never delved into the subject of NDEs?

The point is that those seem not to be "all sorts of hallucinations" since there are clear and consistent patterns, differences in the experiences are subtle/irrelevant almost.

For starters, explain to me why people who have NDEs "meet" deceased persons, and not random "fantasy persons"?

Explain the consistent experiences which, although coming off as almost "cheesy", are that many report they are given a choice or in some cases told "you are not ready" so they "come back" to life.

The ONLY halfway plausible explanation (now from a scientific PoV) for me would be that the brain creates DMT ("the spirit molecule")....but then would people who use DMT always have the same, consistent experiences?

Even IF the experiences would be triggered by DMT levels in the brain (or a "god helmet" device etc.)..it would (to me) not invalidate the "reality" of those experiences....maybe those things enable to brain to experience a sort of objective reality which is simply hidden under normal circumstances. I cannot say this is "not real" because "X, Y or Z scientific explanation", because, AFTER ALL, *this* "normal" reality is also merely a result of chemical and electrical activity in the brain, at least according to traditional scientific understanding of how the brain works. (Which, by the way, is not a lot at all). In fact we know so little that I don't think the idea of consciousness/physical duality (aka: the consciousness is separate from the physical body) is NOT that abstruse, at all.

 

[OutHouse]

Can YOU explain why out of the 100's or 1000's of people who have "died" and been brought back to life, why not a single one of them experienced something called hell?

ummm there are plenty of NDE with hell. I have read them and there have been a few tv shows about them.

 

[agent00f]

I take it you never delved into the subject of NDEs?

The point is that those seem not to be "all sorts of hallucinations" since there are clear and consistent patterns, differences in the experiences are subtle/irrelevant almost.

For starters, explain to me why people who have NDEs "meet" deceased persons, and not random "fantasy persons"?

Explain the consistent experiences which, although coming off as almost "cheesy", are that many report they are given a choice or in some cases told "you are not ready" so they "come back" to life.

The ONLY halfway plausible explanation (now from a scientific PoV) for me would be that the brain creates DMT ("the spirit molecule")....but then would people who use DMT always have the same, consistent experiences?

Even IF the experiences would be triggered by DMT levels in the brain (or a "god helmet" device etc.)..it would (to me) not invalidate the "reality" of those experiences....maybe those things enable to brain to experience a sort of objective reality which is simply hidden under normal circumstances. I cannot say this is "not real" because "X, Y or Z scientific explanation", because, AFTER ALL, *this* "normal" reality is also merely a result of chemical and electrical activity in the brain, at least according to traditional scientific understanding of how the brain works. (Which, by the way, is not a lot at all). In fact we know so little that I don't think the idea of consciousness/physical duality (aka: the consciousness is separate from the physical body) is NOT that abstruse, at all.

They don't have consistent experiences any more then alien abductions are consistent. However people inclined to believe in these popular notions seem have memories which miraculously converge to some existing narrative.

 

[flexy]

Can YOU explain why out of the 100's or 1000's of people who have "died" and been brought back to life, why not a single one of them experienced something called hell?

Sorry, what's your reasoning? Because you assume the fairytale of "hell" that is told in church is real, so any "real" NDEr (or at least a good portion of them) must have experienced hell? Woow...I cannot follow that "logic" AT ALL.

Despite, there *are* actually accounts of NDEs which match the traditional Christian ideas, hell, angels, Jesus even...but I am *extremely* skeptical of those accounts/books that have a "traditional religious" message.

 

[agent00f]

It's pretty simple reasoning. People see (ie. fantasize) themselves going to heaven far more so than hell, not because there's a biblical heaven visible from the afterlife but not a corresponding hell.

 

[Joepublic2]

The ONLY halfway plausible explanation (now from a scientific PoV) for me would be that the brain creates DMT ("the spirit molecule")....but then would people who use DMT always have the same, consistent experiences?

They don't. There's whole forums dedicated to DMT and it's use if you're curious about it. I don't think it's been proven that the brain releases DMT under stress or that it's actually produced in psychoactive amounts in a healthy brain.

Even IF the experiences would be triggered by DMT levels in the brain (or a "god helmet" device etc.)..it would (to me) not invalidate the "reality" of those experiences....maybe those things enable to brain to experience a sort of objective reality which is simply hidden under normal circumstances. I cannot say this is "not real" because "X, Y or Z scientific explanation", because, AFTER ALL, *this* "normal" reality is also merely a result of chemical and electrical activity in the brain, at least according to traditional scientific understanding of how the brain works. (Which, by the way, is not a lot at all). In fact we know so little that I don't think the idea of consciousness/physical duality (aka: the consciousness is separate from the physical body) is NOT that abstruse, at all.

Well, on said forums a lot of people view it as a religious experience (which is understandable if you've ever used it...) and claim it allows them to have contact with alien entities/higher dimensions etc. I think their claims fall apart when examined critically because nobody has ever used it and brought back concrete knowledge communicated to them by said "spirits" or "aliens"; nobody comes down from a DMT trip knowing how to build a warp drive for example. I would say there is an objective reality and subjective reality and DMT/near death experiences etc. simply change your subjective reality when you're experiencing their effects. You will notice if you read trip reports that there are common themes; nothing that happens in DMT space is ever able to influence or predict events in the sober world for example. And many trips are similiar in nature from trip to trip and even between different individuals. So yes, following Occam's razor I'd say it really is "all in your head", although that's even more impressive in ways if you think about it IMO.

 

[Perknose]

The only real answer here is "we do not know what happens after death". All those that are claiming A or B are full of it and they refuse to admit that it is an unknown.

^^^ This

As for me, I have had, now, more than one "psychic/medium" tell me very specific things they had NO FUCKING WAY of knowing, and while this does not fit well into my day-to-day "rational" perspective, I cannot explain away what they have known and told me within that perspective.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

^^^ This

As for me, I have had, now, more than one "psychic/medium" tell me very specific things they had NO FUCKING WAY of knowing, and while this does not fit well into my day-to-day "rational" perspective, I cannot explain away what they have known and told me within that perspective.

Perk,

If someone can read your mind by reading the most minor changes that you are both not aware of... it seems like splitting hairs at that point to NOT call it psychic.

Seeing the future or even the past is outside their purview; they are as we always knew they were: A way to reflect on one's own thoughts.

Clearly the end of life is similar; and there's no way to make a claim that anyone actually knows.

But we can make a claim that some can tell us what it's like as we enter death.

But I'm hopeful and that hope helps me be a better person in this life.

Hope will make my life as I reflect on it as I enter death better.

Hope is something I am sure can live on through others.

Hope for the unity of all and peace through the world.

 

[Perknose]

Perk,

If someone can read your mind by reading the most minor changes that you are both not aware of... it seems like splitting hairs at that point to NOT call it psychic.

I suppose . . . except that what I experienced . . . twice, from two different people . . . was a level of incredibly specific detail that no amount of "reading minor changes" could even begin to account for.

Clearly the end of life is similar; and there's no way to make a claim that anyone actually knows.

Yup, no matter what any one of us believes, not one of us knows, including all the manly nay sayers.

Hope for the unity of all and peace through the world.

I'm with you there, all the way and back again, DC. Like the man sings.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I suppose . . . except that what I experienced . . . twice, from two different people . . . was a level of incredibly specific detail that no amount of "reading minor changes" could even begin to account for.

Yup, no matter what any one of us believes, not one of us knows, including all the manly nay sayers.



I'm with you there, all the way and back again, DC. Like the man sings.

I once watched a lecture by a world renown physicist. He talked about how he sent 'telepathic' messages to a man who, himself was a physicist, who was on stage. He did so without gesture or movement. The man on stage would undertake complex movements across the stage.

The man on stage explained: He was in a Nazi death camp, and to keep alive you had to be able to read people to the point where you knew the bunks, the spot in line, the exact movements they were intending.

Is that 'real' psychic power? Could someone confuse this adaptive behavior with supernatural powers? Is this even related to what happened in your experience? All i'm saying is that no one knows the future and no one can see the past: because both are illusions of human perception.

 

[Perknose]

Is that 'real' psychic power?

No.

Could someone confuse this adaptive behavior with supernatural powers?

Yes.

Is this even related to what happened in your experience?

No. Not at all.