Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon who claims to have visited the afterlife

[dissipate]

Dr. Eben Alexander has taught at Harvard Medical School and has earned a strong reputation as a neurosurgeon. And while Alexander says he's long called himself a Christian, he never held deeply religious beliefs or a pronounced faith in the afterlife. But after a week in a coma during the fall of 2008, during which his neocortex ceased to function, Alexander claims he experienced a life-changing visit to the afterlife, specifically heaven.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/heaven-real-says-neurosurgeon-claims-visited-afterlife-213527063.html


Hmm, not sure what to make of this. Did this guy really experience the afterlife or did he just wake up from a coma and decide that he was going to make money off a book and get publicity?

[1714128808]

1714128808

[1714128808]

1714128808

[1714128808]

1714128808

[juggalodarkclow]

relevant - http://www.venganza.org/

[bb113]

"According to current medical understanding of the brain and mind, there is absolutely no way that I could have experienced even a dim and limited consciousness during my time in the coma, much less the hyper-vivid and completely coherent odyssey I underwent,"

ftfy:

"According to my current medical understanding of the brain and mind, there is absolutely no way that I could have experienced even a dim and limited consciousness during my time in the coma, much less the hyper-vivid and completely coherent odyssey I underwent,"

This guys understanding is pretty limited. He probably experienced the whole thing in the minutes and seconds either entering or leaving the coma, while he was being rebooted.

That said these are probably good things to say to a dying/comatose person:

"You are loved and cherished, dearly, forever."

"You have nothing to fear."

"There is nothing you can do wrong."

[quasarbtc]

Could be for publicity.

Some people claim the consistency of features between these 'afterlife' experiences is too similar to be coincidental. I think that people are often quick to invoke religion..

I will not be reading the book, so I should not comment further other than saying I am not willing to voluntarily undergo an induced coma to potentially have an experience that I can judge for myself.

[dank]

Religion ≠ spirituality.

Life is eternal, you only change forms after death, back to your original state as a soul.

Death is the rebirth of your spirit, it's a beautiful thing.  Though you may never physically see a passed one, in this reality, again, a bond remains between your soul and those who are close to you, after death.

When my Grandma passed away, my cousin, very young at the time (5-7?) picked up the phone, a few days later, and told her Mom that Grandma had called her.  Spiritual happenings are often experiences by kids, as they are young and much closer to the pure, conscious state of mind.

[bb113]

Ah the wisdom of people who don't know anything. One time while very young I was on a camping trip and older kids tricked me into thinking a map to treasure they made was real. I refused to accept I was wrong even after they showed me how to make one. Now that I am older I realize I was right to think that the map they made randomly was actually leading to treasure, it was just a different kind of treasure.

[evolve]

his brain shut down and probably flooded his system with endorphins, dopamine, seratonin, and other hormones. He hallucinated in a similar fashion as when a heavy pscychadelic ( like dmt) is taken.

[dank]

Are you suggesting hallucinations are not real?

[evolve]

Hallucinations, by definition, aren't real. What he experiances was akin to a drug trip.

[dank]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

[NestEggNessy]

Dank is making a good point. This guy might not of seen heaven in terms of my heaven or your heaven, but he probably saw a "hallucination" of what his heaven is as a defense mechanism to keep his ego intact during such a life or death situation. Although what he saw might not be "real" it is still real because it was real to him and him alone.

[SkRRJyTC]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

[ElectricMucus]

Those experiences were interpreted as memories during a time where the brain was inactive. This interpretation probably happened during recovery.
So in a sense those experiences didn't actually happen, he just remembers them.

[NestEggNessy]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

[SkRRJyTC]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

[Atlas]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

[ElectricMucus]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

If god is all-knowing then how do he make an error in enabling certain people a 'preview' of the afterlife?
Shouldn't he know beforehand if a comatose patient would wake up or not?

[NestEggNessy]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

So then youre saying something can exist without being real. With that logic we could infer that heaven exists through his "hallucination" of it. If we want to go down that route then we can say that every experience is created by the mind and therfore all experiences exist but are not real, i.e music, relationships, movies, conversations etc...

[dank]

Everything we see is created by our mind, through different frequencies such as light waves and sound waves.  Our reality is one of infinite.

Mucus, don't think of god in terms of human attributions man gave to describe it, think on a more cosmic scale.

That is accurate, NestEgg.  Life is a illusory reality.

[Atlas]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

If god is all-knowing then how do he make an error in enabling certain people a 'preview' of the afterlife?
Shouldn't he know beforehand if a comatose patient would wake up or not?

I know very little about the Christian idea of god. I wouldn't consider it valid for a second.

[Atlas]

Additionally, one could only guess the intentions of the intelligence that is the purported origin on the known universe. I would very much doubt it would consider this a mistake.

[ElectricMucus]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

If god is all-knowing then how do he make an error in enabling certain people a 'preview' of the afterlife?
Shouldn't he know beforehand if a comatose patient would wake up or not?

I know very little about the Christian idea of god. I wouldn't consider it valid for a second.

Alright, what I am aiming at was more like: Why should memories spawned from certain medical conditions correspond to the afterlife?

[MysteryMiner]

I was talking with plane pilots and they told me there is no man with white beard sitting on clouds and watching over us. They told that it would be aviation hazard. And also there is no garden up there, the thin atmosphere and cold would not allow for subtropical ecosystem to exist. The religion and books are completely wrong with this afterlife bullshit.

[Atlas]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

If god is all-knowing then how do he make an error in enabling certain people a 'preview' of the afterlife?
Shouldn't he know beforehand if a comatose patient would wake up or not?

I know very little about the Christian idea of god. I wouldn't consider it valid for a second.

Alright, what I am aiming at was more like: Why should memories spawned from certain medical conditions correspond to the afterlife?

The man was in a coma. These kinds of visions almost always occur in clinical death and coma scenarios.

It's not a question of why corresponding with various medical conditions answering "does it really happen?" but a matter of the fact that this thing does commonly happen with one specific type of condition: Near-death and lack of consciousness.

As for why these kinds of Near-death experience happens is nearly unanswerable by science as we know it. The Neuroscientist said it himself.

[Atlas]

I was talking with plane pilots and they told me there is no man with white beard sitting on clouds and watching over us. They told that it would be aviation hazard. And also there is no garden up there, the thin atmosphere and cold would not allow for subtropical ecosystem to exist. The religion and books are completely wrong with this afterlife bullshit.

Multiverse theory. Astral planes. Quantum physics. Subjects that could easily explain a possible afterlife.

[ElectricMucus]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

If god is all-knowing then how do he make an error in enabling certain people a 'preview' of the afterlife?
Shouldn't he know beforehand if a comatose patient would wake up or not?

I know very little about the Christian idea of god. I wouldn't consider it valid for a second.

Alright, what I am aiming at was more like: Why should memories spawned from certain medical conditions correspond to the afterlife?

The man was in a coma. These kinds of visions almost always occur in clinical death and coma scenarios.

It's not a question of why corresponding with various medical conditions answering "does it really happen?" but a matter of the fact that this thing does commonly happen with one specific type of condition: Near-death and lack of consciousness.

As for why these kinds of Near-death experience happens is nearly unanswerable by science as we know it. The Neuroscientist said it himself.

So the logic here is: It's unexplainable, the afterlife is unexplainable so it must be the afterlife.
Do you see the fallacy?

[Atlas]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

If god is all-knowing then how do he make an error in enabling certain people a 'preview' of the afterlife?
Shouldn't he know beforehand if a comatose patient would wake up or not?

I know very little about the Christian idea of god. I wouldn't consider it valid for a second.

Alright, what I am aiming at was more like: Why should memories spawned from certain medical conditions correspond to the afterlife?

The man was in a coma. These kinds of visions almost always occur in clinical death and coma scenarios.

It's not a question of why corresponding with various medical conditions answering "does it really happen?" but a matter of the fact that this thing does commonly happen with one specific type of condition: Near-death and lack of consciousness.

As for why these kinds of Near-death experience happens is nearly unanswerable by science as we know it. The Neuroscientist said it himself.

So the logic here is: It's unexplainable, the afterlife is unexplainable so it must be the afterlife.
Do you see the fallacy?

I never claimed it was the afterlife. I only claim there is a consistent phenomenon. It can only be quantified as such at this moment.

[MysteryMiner]

I was talking with plane pilots and they told me there is no man with white beard sitting on clouds and watching over us. They told that it would be aviation hazard. And also there is no garden up there, the thin atmosphere and cold would not allow for subtropical ecosystem to exist. The religion and books are completely wrong with this afterlife bullshit.

Multiverse theory. Astral planes. Quantum physics. Subjects that could easily explain a possible afterlife.

Even if multiverse theory is right, the various universes can not interact with each other by definition. They even most likely have different physical constants and are totally incompatible with our universe. And if other universes exist, why it will need to host soul of some jerk from planet earth when he dies?

Astral is completely out of question as it is not even scientific in any sense.

We don't know if brain functions in quantum level. Even if it does, what is the purpose of having immortal consciousness?

The afterlife is a invented fairy tale for cowardly people who just can't stand the fact that we are mortal, we have limited time to live and there is nothing to save us.

[Akka]

Everyone of you is right.

According to my religion absolute Everything is real.

[Atlas]

I was talking with plane pilots and they told me there is no man with white beard sitting on clouds and watching over us. They told that it would be aviation hazard. And also there is no garden up there, the thin atmosphere and cold would not allow for subtropical ecosystem to exist. The religion and books are completely wrong with this afterlife bullshit.

Multiverse theory. Astral planes. Quantum physics. Subjects that could easily explain a possible afterlife.

Even if multiverse theory is right, the various universes can not interact with each other by definition. They even most likely have different physical constants and are totally incompatible with our universe. And if other universes exist, why it will need to host soul of some jerk from planet earth when he dies?

Astral is completely out of question as it is not even scientific in any sense.

We don't know if brain functions in quantum level. Even if it does, what is the purpose of having immortal consciousness?

The afterlife is a invented fairy tale for cowardly people who just can't stand the fact that we are mortal, we have limited time to live and there is nothing to save us.

Why does there have to be a defined purpose? Isn't the universe rudderless according to you?

I don't think it is certain that our raw, perceiving consciousness is mortal. If our ability to perceive is quantifiable, then it can be replicated. Assuming an infinite universe, it is likely that our ability to perceive will take shape again through whatever means. If life can come from barren dirt, I believe we can find ourselves perceiving through another being and form once more. Maybe with no recollection but with a perception nonetheless.

This doesn't have to have a religious explanation. One only has to look at monkeys on typewriters and apply to it the mish-mash of matter and energy that is our universe.

[MysteryMiner]

I never claimed it was the afterlife. I only claim there is a consistent phenomenon. It can only be quantified as such at this moment.

For Bitcoins You can buy various phenomenas from Silk Road. If we somehow experience something it does not make things real. Drugs or coma - if someone is hallucinating it does mean they are hallucinating not visiting afterlife promised by god or pedophilic priest. The similarities in experiences in near death experiences means that the causing mechanism are similar in near death cases. Like similar drugs are causing similar experiences.

[Atlas]

I never claimed it was the afterlife. I only claim there is a consistent phenomenon. It can only be quantified as such at this moment.

For Bitcoins You can buy various phenomenas from Silk Road. If we somehow experience something it does not make things real. Drugs or coma - if someone is hallucinating it does mean they are hallucinating not visiting afterlife promised by god or pedophilic priest. The similarities in experiences in near death experiences means that the causing mechanism are similar in near death cases. Like similar drugs are causing similar experiences.

I am glad we can agree.

[MysteryMiner]

I was talking with plane pilots and they told me there is no man with white beard sitting on clouds and watching over us. They told that it would be aviation hazard. And also there is no garden up there, the thin atmosphere and cold would not allow for subtropical ecosystem to exist. The religion and books are completely wrong with this afterlife bullshit.

Multiverse theory. Astral planes. Quantum physics. Subjects that could easily explain a possible afterlife.

Even if multiverse theory is right, the various universes can not interact with each other by definition. They even most likely have different physical constants and are totally incompatible with our universe. And if other universes exist, why it will need to host soul of some jerk from planet earth when he dies?

Astral is completely out of question as it is not even scientific in any sense.

We don't know if brain functions in quantum level. Even if it does, what is the purpose of having immortal consciousness?

The afterlife is a invented fairy tale for cowardly people who just can't stand the fact that we are mortal, we have limited time to live and there is nothing to save us.

Why does there have to be a defined purpose? Isn't the universe rudderless according to you?

I don't think it is certain that our raw, perceiving consciousness is mortal. If our ability to perceive is quantifiable, then it can be replicated. Assuming an infinite universe, it is likely that our ability to perceive will take shape again through whatever means. If life can come from barren dirt, I believe we can find ourselves perceiving through another being and form once more. Maybe with no recollection but with a perception nonetheless.

This doesn't have to have a religious explanation. One only has to look at monkeys on typewriters and apply to it the mish-mash of matter and energy that is our universe.

Our universe as we know it is not infinitely old. Our universe is changing constantly. There is not enough time to get Bitcoin private key by means of brute forcing it, let alone every persons consciousness to be replicated in random.

[Atlas]

I was talking with plane pilots and they told me there is no man with white beard sitting on clouds and watching over us. They told that it would be aviation hazard. And also there is no garden up there, the thin atmosphere and cold would not allow for subtropical ecosystem to exist. The religion and books are completely wrong with this afterlife bullshit.

Multiverse theory. Astral planes. Quantum physics. Subjects that could easily explain a possible afterlife.

Even if multiverse theory is right, the various universes can not interact with each other by definition. They even most likely have different physical constants and are totally incompatible with our universe. And if other universes exist, why it will need to host soul of some jerk from planet earth when he dies?

Astral is completely out of question as it is not even scientific in any sense.

We don't know if brain functions in quantum level. Even if it does, what is the purpose of having immortal consciousness?

The afterlife is a invented fairy tale for cowardly people who just can't stand the fact that we are mortal, we have limited time to live and there is nothing to save us.

Why does there have to be a defined purpose? Isn't the universe rudderless according to you?

I don't think it is certain that our raw, perceiving consciousness is mortal. If our ability to perceive is quantifiable, then it can be replicated. Assuming an infinite universe, it is likely that our ability to perceive will take shape again through whatever means. If life can come from barren dirt, I believe we can find ourselves perceiving through another being and form once more. Maybe with no recollection but with a perception nonetheless.

This doesn't have to have a religious explanation. One only has to look at monkeys on typewriters and apply to it the mish-mash of matter and energy that is our universe.

There is not enough time to get Bitcoin private key by means of brute forcing it, let alone every persons consciousness to be replicated in random.

You can't say that for certain.

[MysteryMiner]

You can't say that for certain.

According to known facts this is our best guess. You are not certain also that there are no gremlins hiding under your bed but the best guess is that there are none right now and most scientists will agree that there are no gremlins at all.

[Atlas]

You can't say that for certain.

According to known facts this is our best guess. You are not certain also that there are no gremlins hiding under your bed but the best guess is that there are none right now and most scientists will agree that there are no gremlins at all.

It seems even you desire a likely certainty. I am content with none at all.

[SkRRJyTC]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

So then youre saying something can exist without being real. With that logic we could infer that heaven exists through his "hallucination" of it. If we want to go down that route then we can say that every experience is created by the mind and therfore all experiences exist but are not real, i.e music, relationships, movies, conversations etc...

The big difference you seem to be misunderstanding is the source of the experience.  Was the experience caused by our interpretation of real external stimulus?  Or was it caused by the brain itself?

Here's another definition for you.  Words mean things you know...

"A hallucination, in the broadest sense of the word, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus. In a stricter sense, hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space."

[dank]

I was talking with plane pilots and they told me there is no man with white beard sitting on clouds and watching over us. They told that it would be aviation hazard. And also there is no garden up there, the thin atmosphere and cold would not allow for subtropical ecosystem to exist. The religion and books are completely wrong with this afterlife bullshit.

Multiverse theory. Astral planes. Quantum physics. Subjects that could easily explain a possible afterlife.

Even if multiverse theory is right, the various universes can not interact with each other by definition. They even most likely have different physical constants and are totally incompatible with our universe. And if other universes exist, why it will need to host soul of some jerk from planet earth when he dies?

Astral is completely out of question as it is not even scientific in any sense.

We don't know if brain functions in quantum level. Even if it does, what is the purpose of having immortal consciousness?

The afterlife is a invented fairy tale for cowardly people who just can't stand the fact that we are mortal, we have limited time to live and there is nothing to save us.

As you cannot disprove the existence of another reality, or afterlife, it's quite obstinate to disregard the possibility.  Your lack of spiritual experience does not justify lack of spiritual existence.

[SkRRJyTC]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

Only similar in that all of these 'experiences' are vague and difficult to describe.  When people have an inexpiable experience, whether it is similar to another's inexpiable experience or not, they will inevitably describe the experience similarly due to the fact that we only have so many words that can describe an inexpiable experience.

[Atlas]

Dr. Alexander's experience is consistent with similar visions of the afterlife.

Only similar in that all of these 'experiences' are vague and difficult to describe.  When people have an inexpiable experience, whether it is similar to another's inexpiable experience or not, they will inevitably describe the experience similarly due to the fact that we only have so many words that can describe an inexpiable experience.

A tunnel of light was certainly described.

[NestEggNessy]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

So then youre saying something can exist without being real. With that logic we could infer that heaven exists through his "hallucination" of it. If we want to go down that route then we can say that every experience is created by the mind and therfore all experiences exist but are not real, i.e music, relationships, movies, conversations etc...

The big difference you seem to be misunderstanding is the source of the experience.  Was the experience caused by our interpretation of real external stimulus?  Or was it caused by the brain itself?

Here's another definition for you.  Words mean things you know...

"A hallucination, in the broadest sense of the word, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus. In a stricter sense, hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space."

i understand what youre saying about how hallucinations arent real in the sense that theyre not physically present so that others can verify their existence. Like you said, words have meanings and deeper implications, so in this case to hallucinate is a personal experience, much like being in deep thought, a trance, or dreaming. That being said you cant deny that those experiences mentioned exist in some way. The thoughts a person were thinking exist, the dream state a person was in last night existed, the state of mind of someone who is meditating exists. They exist because of real phenomenea such as someone who is dying from something real and in that time they bring this heaven thing into existence, nawmean?

[dank]

I haven't really read any near death experiences, but I do remember, when I was pretty young, 7-8, a TV show was discussing the phenomena and describing it as going through a purple tunnel, including all life experiences and memories.  Of all the TV shows I've watched, I remember this one quite well.

I have seen tunnels of energy myself, with my eyes closed, or even with my eyes open.  I've seen them in the sky, on the wall, wherever, I saw energy manifesting into my reality.  One point, a couple years ago, I went through one of these tunnels in a meditative state.  A light arose, presumably, at the end of the tunnel and as I felt more energy, I shot through the hole.  Some form of astral projections.  I left my body and experienced another reality with red mountainous hills and some kind of grey creatures.  I believe fear led me to thinking it was some sort of hell type world, but this was a result of what I was believing.  I don't think there is any sort of hell, other than a mental state and what we manifest into reality, like war.

I can say from my experience, hallucinations are much more than perceived, for what I experienced was more real than our reality.  Hallucinations are another dimension.  And I think we all see them, to some extent, some more than others.

[MysteryMiner]

As you cannot disprove the existence of another reality, or afterlife, it's quite obstinate to disregard the possibility.  Your lack of spiritual experience does not justify lack of spiritual existence.

I can't prove for 100% that parallel universes, afterlife or god does not exist. For believers this means that inability to disprove is a proof of existence by itself. Also with my best efforts I probably will not be able to prove that You are not retard or faggot. So for believers this means that You must be both of them, right?

There is a great difference between believing and knowing.

[dank]

For believers this means that inability to disprove is a proof of existence by itself.

This is not true, you're assuming something for a broad range of people.  I believe in spirituality because I have experienced it.  Nothing supersedes experiences, not even knowledge or understanding.

[SysRun]

For believers this means that inability to disprove is a proof of existence by itself.

This is not true, you're assuming something for a broad range of people.  I believe in spirituality because I have experienced it.  Nothing supersedes experiences, not even knowledge or understanding.

Crazy Uncle Jeffery, is that you?

"Knowledge is in your heart in the 5th Dimension Gaia Ascention which will happen Dec. 21st 2012" (no bullshit) is what he says.

Oh, and he can communicate with mosquitos through the insects' antennae. Yeah, you've done your share of hard mind altering drugs.

[foggyb]

Here's another one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGQDkCi-OIY

Tammy Leroux shot herself, had an afterlife experience, then returned to life in surgery, where she remembered every detail.

The best parts are in the middle, don't stop watching.

[dank]

For believers this means that inability to disprove is a proof of existence by itself.

This is not true, you're assuming something for a broad range of people.  I believe in spirituality because I have experienced it.  Nothing supersedes experiences, not even knowledge or understanding.

Crazy Uncle Jeffery, is that you?

"Knowledge is in your heart in the 5th Dimension Gaia Ascention which will happen Dec. 21st 2012" (no bullshit) is what he says.

Oh, and he can communicate with mosquitos through the insects' antennae. Yeah, you've done your share of hard mind altering drugs.

He's right.  Humans are evolving exponentially, we will hit a point in the near future when that mass shift in consciousness happens.  It's part of evolution.

[repentance]

"Knowledge is in your heart in the 5th Dimension Gaia Ascention which will happen Dec. 21st 2012" (no bullshit) is what he says.

So are they all planning to "ascend" Heaven's Gate style on 21 December?

[Atlas]

Here's another one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGQDkCi-OIY

Tammy Leroux shot herself, had an afterlife experience, then returned to life in surgery, where she remembered every detail.

The best parts are in the middle, don't stop watching.

She is of a very small minority that mentions a hell.

Now, in many hynotherapy sessions, there are mentions of individuals that exile themselves in solitude and shame after death because of a painful life. However, it is of the individual's own choice and desire.

[repentance]

Delusions of any kind are very real to those experiencing them.  That doesn't mean that a schizophrenic experiencing command hallucinations is tapping into some kind of cosmic consciousness or that aliens are really putting thoughts into the mind of someone experiencing a psychotic break.

[dank]

No, but their own consciousness is still bending reality by believing they're there.

[foggyb]

Delusions of any kind are very real to those experiencing them.  That doesn't mean that a schizophrenic experiencing command hallucinations is tapping into some kind of cosmic consciousness or that aliens are really putting thoughts into the mind of someone experiencing a psychotic break.

I think we can all tell the difference between  schizophrenic and someone who knows what they experienced.

Here's a video of a real schizophrenic, just to make the difference real clear:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35gcBL1ZwY4

[repentance]

No, but their own consciousness is still bending reality by believing they're there.

Which is all that's happening when you think your "soul" is tapping into cosmic consciousness - your mind is creating an illusion which is no more "enlightenment" than the command hallucinations of a schizophrenic.  

[dank]

That's exactly is what happens with life, your mind creates an illusion.

[foggyb]

No, but their own consciousness is still bending reality by believing they're there.

Which is all that's happening when you think your "soul" is tapping into cosmic consciousness - your mind is creating an illusion which is no more "enlightenment" than the command hallucinations of a schizophrenic.  

That is an assumption. We have no way to test for supernatural realities because science can't measure supernatural phenomena. That is a problem of science, not a problem of realities. Science is merely a tool, if you use the wrong tool for the job, of course you'll find nothing. Can't watch TV with a radio, that's one analogy I like to use.

Science is a learning field, where the tools used in science are continually being upgraded. It is a big mistake to discount the experiences of people that don't match your reality because we're too primitive in our technology to see past the end of our noses.

Only a short time ago, the study of subatomic particles was almost non-existent, almost entirely theoretical. But scientists kept an open mind and devised ways to detect the phenomena they predicted to exist. Today we can prove that subatomic particles exist, and look back at past scientific theory and chuckle at their ignorance.

[dank]

Nicely put.

[foggyb]

That's exactly is what happens with life, your mind creates an illusion.

An illusion is a distortion of the senses. So, how do you tell, Dank, that your theory of illusion, is not an illusion?

How can you trust your thoughts, if they are 100% wrong?

BOOM. That worldview blows itself up. It can't work.

[dank]

Yeah, your mind makes itself distort the senses, altering reality.  Reality is malleable with your mind, because we are spiritual beings.

[amencon]

Don't have a link, however I remember reading about a study of near death experiences.  The study found that most of the people who glimpsed the "afterlife" in these experiences were religious beforehand...

[Atlas]

Don't have a link, however I remember reading about a study of near death experiences.  The study found that most of the people who glimpsed the "afterlife" in these experiences were religious beforehand...

Most people are religious. Go figure. It doesn't take a study to deduce that.

[foggyb]

Don't have a link, however I remember reading about a study of near death experiences.  The study found that most of the people who glimpsed the "afterlife" in these experiences were religious beforehand...

Most people are religious. Go figure. It doesn't take a study to deduce that.

Good point. Atheism has a very small minority. How about that, amencon? Studies show....

[foggyb]

Yeah, your mind makes itself distort the senses, altering reality.  Reality is malleable with your mind, because we are spiritual beings.

Dank, that means you can't know anything to be real, including the theory itself. If what you say is true, then what you say, can't be true.

I believe that we can mostly trust our senses, our minds function reasonably well and we can know many things to be true.

[mobodick]

Religion ≠ spirituality.

Life is eternal, you only change forms after death, back to your original state as a soul.

Death is the rebirth of your spirit, it's a beautiful thing.  Though you may never physically see a passed one, in this reality, again, a bond remains between your soul and those who are close to you, after death.

When my Grandma passed away, my cousin, very young at the time (5-7?) picked up the phone, a few days later, and told her Mom that Grandma had called her.  Spiritual happenings are often experiences by kids, as they are young and much closer to the pure, conscious state of mind.

spirituality ≠ real actual universe.
Start by understanding the instrument which we use to observe the universe (our brain) and you will understand that what you call spirituality is a product of the grey stuff in your head and not a property of the universe as a whole.

[mobodick]

Don't have a link, however I remember reading about a study of near death experiences.  The study found that most of the people who glimpsed the "afterlife" in these experiences were religious beforehand...

That reminds me of a study about astroloy and birthsigns.
It showed that people who knew the concept of birthsigns (but do not nessesarily believe in them) showed more resemblance to their sign than people who have never heared of this concept.
The problem with people is that we all think that we are in control while we usually are driven by a lot of instinct-like stuff that we then try to rationalize afterwards to make it seem we understand ourselfs and the world around us.
Big fire coming from a mountain? Sure, it was the gods. It must have been because noone is capable of doing such big things.

[dank]

Religion ≠ spirituality.

Life is eternal, you only change forms after death, back to your original state as a soul.

Death is the rebirth of your spirit, it's a beautiful thing.  Though you may never physically see a passed one, in this reality, again, a bond remains between your soul and those who are close to you, after death.

When my Grandma passed away, my cousin, very young at the time (5-7?) picked up the phone, a few days later, and told her Mom that Grandma had called her.  Spiritual happenings are often experiences by kids, as they are young and much closer to the pure, conscious state of mind.

spirituality ≠ real actual universe.
Start by understanding the instrument which we use to observe the universe (our brain) and you will understand that what you call spirituality is a product of the grey stuff in your head and not a property of the universe as a whole.

Can you explain on that?  Grey stuff makes people have spiritual experiences?  What about consciousness?

I'm curious as to how many people that talk about spirituality on here have even tried something like meditating, let alone astral projecting.

[mobodick]

Religion ≠ spirituality.

Life is eternal, you only change forms after death, back to your original state as a soul.

Death is the rebirth of your spirit, it's a beautiful thing.  Though you may never physically see a passed one, in this reality, again, a bond remains between your soul and those who are close to you, after death.

When my Grandma passed away, my cousin, very young at the time (5-7?) picked up the phone, a few days later, and told her Mom that Grandma had called her.  Spiritual happenings are often experiences by kids, as they are young and much closer to the pure, conscious state of mind.

spirituality ≠ real actual universe.
Start by understanding the instrument which we use to observe the universe (our brain) and you will understand that what you call spirituality is a product of the grey stuff in your head and not a property of the universe as a whole.

Can you explain on that?  Grey stuff makes people have spiritual experiences? What about consciousness?

I'm curious as to how many people that talk about spirituality on here have even tried something like meditating, let alone astral projecting.

Yup, that too.
Try being concious while your brain is not working.  
In fact, it gets incredibly weird.
What we call conciousness is really an aggregate of several more or less independant parts of the brain. Some people have a disfunctioning 'aggregator' and their conciousness is not singular but consists of multiple parts concerned with the different parts of the 'being' experience.
And there are loads of cases where people with specific brain damage have specific changes to what they experience as consiousness. It's interesting to see, for instance, what happens to people when their brrain is split (the link between the two halves is severed). These people have a unique way of functioning that alows us to map certain subconcious operations of the brain.
It shows, for instance, that we have a part in our brain that no matter the quality of given information will allways come up with an answer, but it doesn't care about how accurate that answer is. Hence we humans have the capacity to think of a possible story even if we don't know the actual facts. You should realy look that up on the internet, it's incredibly fascinating.

I wonder how many people who do astral projecting can verify it scientifically.
It should be easy, project yourself to a place where you can identify something without having seen it before.
Well, there have been a shitload of these tests with people claiming they can do extrasensory shit and all.
And guess what, no actual effects on the actual real universe in all cases.
Noone who claimed they can project themselfs somewhere was able to guess the subject any better than random chance.
James Randi has some good information.
Incidentally, the foundation he started is still (for at least 30 or 40 years now) offering a very large sum of money to anyone who can show an actual real effect of their presumed psychic powers. Needless to say, lots have tried and noone has succeeded.

[mobodick]

Religion ≠ spirituality.

Life is eternal, you only change forms after death, back to your original state as a soul.

Death is the rebirth of your spirit, it's a beautiful thing.  Though you may never physically see a passed one, in this reality, again, a bond remains between your soul and those who are close to you, after death.

When my Grandma passed away, my cousin, very young at the time (5-7?) picked up the phone, a few days later, and told her Mom that Grandma had called her.  Spiritual happenings are often experiences by kids, as they are young and much closer to the pure, conscious state of mind.

spirituality ≠ real actual universe.
Start by understanding the instrument which we use to observe the universe (our brain) and you will understand that what you call spirituality is a product of the grey stuff in your head and not a property of the universe as a whole.

Can you explain on that?  Grey stuff makes people have spiritual experiences?  What about consciousness?

I'm curious as to how many people that talk about spirituality on here have even tried something like meditating, let alone astral projecting.

BTW, meditation is a good way to achieve states of disbound conciousness.
Even easily achievable things like a trance state allow you to decoulpe ego from the subconcious.
Dancing is a prime example of that.

[dank]

Yup, that too.
Try being concious while your brain is not working.  
In fact, it gets incredibly weird.
What we call conciousness is really an aggregate of several more or less independant parts of the brain. Some people have a disfunctioning 'aggregator' and their conciousness is not singular but consists of multiple parts concerned with the different parts of the 'being' experience.
And there are loads of cases where people with specific brain damage have specific changes to what they experience as consiousness. It's interesting to see, for instance, what happens to people when their brrain is split (the link between the two halves is severed). These people have a unique way of functioning that alows us to map certain subconcious operations of the brain.
It shows, for instance, that we have a part in our brain that no matter the quality of given information will allways come up with an answer, but it doesn't care about how accurate that answer is. Hence we humans have the capacity to think of a possible story even if we don't know the actual facts. You should realy look that up on the internet, it's incredibly fascinating.

That's fine, but science does not disprove spirituality.  Being conscious while your brain isn't working would be to return to our pure conscious energy form.

I wonder how many people who do astral projecting can verify it scientifically.
It should be easy, project yourself to a place where you can identify something without having seen it before.
Well, there have been a shitload of these tests with people claiming they can do extrasensory shit and all.
And guess what, no actual effects on the actual real universe in all cases.
Noone who claimed they can project themselfs somewhere was able to guess the subject any better than random chance.
James Randi has some good information.
Incidentally, the foundation he started is still (for at least 30 or 40 years now) offering a very large sum of money to anyone who can show an actual real effect of their presumed psychic powers. Needless to say, lots have tried and noone has succeeded.

That's because they're trying to prove supernatural happenings for their ego, for money.  It only occurs in absence of ego.

Astral projecting is not necessarily traveling our reality.  While I have heard of it, I have only traveled other realities.

Again, you can't verify or disprove spirituality with science, science is limited to our reality.  Perhaps we will find a way, besides quantum physics, to further validate the alternative forms of energy around us.

[mobodick]

Yup, that too.
Try being concious while your brain is not working.  
In fact, it gets incredibly weird.
What we call conciousness is really an aggregate of several more or less independant parts of the brain. Some people have a disfunctioning 'aggregator' and their conciousness is not singular but consists of multiple parts concerned with the different parts of the 'being' experience.
And there are loads of cases where people with specific brain damage have specific changes to what they experience as consiousness. It's interesting to see, for instance, what happens to people when their brrain is split (the link between the two halves is severed). These people have a unique way of functioning that alows us to map certain subconcious operations of the brain.
It shows, for instance, that we have a part in our brain that no matter the quality of given information will allways come up with an answer, but it doesn't care about how accurate that answer is. Hence we humans have the capacity to think of a possible story even if we don't know the actual facts. You should realy look that up on the internet, it's incredibly fascinating.

That's fine, but science does not disprove spirituality.  Being conscious while your brain isn't working would be to return to our pure conscious energy form.

That would make sense if by 'pure conciousness' you mean 'no conciousness at all'.
Science cannot disprove a belief.
It would be the same thing as asking science to disprove the green elephant that has been living on my ceiling for over two months.
But you should realy look up Randi as he will show you that science does disprove claims of spirituality.
Noone claiming that there is something more than the brain operating has been able to show any, and i mean any real world effects.
So i can say i believe there is this elephant, or the spaghetti monster, and science cannot disprove it.
If i say that i have real world evidence that this elephant is there then science can take a look and verify this.
And this has been tried and tried over and over again and there just are no real world examples of spirituality acting on the universe. It is inside your head (and since we as a species are genetically very similar, other peoples heads).
You realy need to realize that your brain is much more special than you want it to be and that is the only source of what we experience as conciousness.

I wonder how many people who do astral projecting can verify it scientifically.
It should be easy, project yourself to a place where you can identify something without having seen it before.
Well, there have been a shitload of these tests with people claiming they can do extrasensory shit and all.
And guess what, no actual effects on the actual real universe in all cases.
Noone who claimed they can project themselfs somewhere was able to guess the subject any better than random chance.
James Randi has some good information.
Incidentally, the foundation he started is still (for at least 30 or 40 years now) offering a very large sum of money to anyone who can show an actual real effect of their presumed psychic powers. Needless to say, lots have tried and noone has succeeded.

That's because they're trying to prove supernatural happenings for their ego, for money.  It only occurs in absence of ego.

Astral projecting is not necessarily traveling our reality.  While I have heard of it, I have only traveled other realities.

Again, you can't verify or disprove spirituality with science, science is limited to our reality.  Perhaps we will find a way, besides quantum physics, to further validate the alternative forms of energy around us.

Yeah, that's the nonsense explanation that most 'believers' come up with as their first reaction.
But consider this: Why didn't anyone not driven by ego or greed step up and picked up the million dollars to give to charity?
Well, in fact, there were lots of such people who genuinely thought they had the powers and wanted to use the money for a good cause. These people also failed the test.

Ok, now let me predict your next thought on this. You'll think the tests are flawed.
And so goes the story of a believer that chooses to believe above knowing and understanding.

BTW, Randi is an ex-magician. He understands deeply the flaws of human brains as he exploited them for magical effect.
People are very capable of completely deluding themselfs by believing irrational things, even when presented with evidence to the contrary...
I myself produce and mix music as a hobby and i can tell you (as can any professional that makes decisions heavily based on their direct experience) that stuff like confirmation bias are your worst enemy because your brains are screwing with you big time all the time.
It took me years to understand why a mix sounded so good in the evening but turned out complete rubbish when listening to it the next day.
Same goes for adiophiles, they are also believers that cannot get their claims confirmed through proper ABX testing. It is all between your ears.

I agree that this is not an easy truth to digest.
Take it slowly and comb for evidence.

[mobodick]

Astral projecting is not necessarily traveling our reality.  While I have heard of it, I have only traveled other realities.

But the funny (or sad) thing is that this is exactly where you would need to travel to not make it detectable by science.
The problem is that when you look at history you can see how science has cleared up our view of the universe.
People used to believe (very strongly and convincingly, just like you believe in astral projection) that there were gods living in the clouds.
Once we got to the clouds we found there were no spiritual beings there.
So the gods moved to the stars.
But when we started looking beyond the stars we found, again, no gods or spiritual beings.
So now the only place for these feelings is some abstract universe outside the universe or similar things.
The failure to produce real world effects is the biggest failing of any proponent of any spiritual system.
Believers of any kind have been driven into a corner and their only escape is outside of the real world.
But, you know, no reason for stopping believing in things that are not in our real world... 

[dank]

You're still taking the presumption that your lack of experience indicates lack of existence.  I don't see why a spiritual world and our world can't coexist.  My interactions with the spiritual realm, throughout my life, has given me the experience to believe in it and know it's existence.

If you ask anybody who has had a divine spiritual experience, they'll tell you it's more real than our world is.  The question then becomes, if our reality is real, why was the spiritual reality more real?  Is our reality real?

[mobodick]

You're still taking the presumption that your lack of experience indicates lack of existence.  I don't see why a spiritual world and our world can't coexist.  My interactions with the spiritual realm, throughout my life, has given me the experience to believe in it and know it's existence.

If you ask anybody who has had a divine spiritual experience, they'll tell you it's more real than our world is.  The question then becomes, if our reality is real, why was the spiritual reality more real?  Is our reality real?

I've had a divine spiritual experience and i have learned a lot from it.
But do i think it is more than a burp of my brain? Nah.

Reality is real BY DEFINITION.
You can't go about and change the meaning of words because it suits your feelings better. (well, you can but you would not make much sense)
If you define something outside of reality you are indicating that it is not real.
And besides, give me one example, one tiny fact (which does not come down to how you feel) that indicates that reality is not somehow real.
Spiritual world more real than reality?
I've experienced hallucinations that were more 'real' than reality, yet i don't think they actually were real somehow.

If you experience something that makes you feel it is real does not automatically make it real.
It is just how our brain works and it has been shown ad nauseam.

[dank]

How about quantum physics?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

You're assuming there is only one reality.

[foggyb]

Reality is real BY DEFINITION.

If you define something outside of reality you are indicating that it is not real.
And besides, give me one example, one tiny fact (which does not come down to how you feel) that indicates that reality is not somehow real.

Sure. Lets talk about what we think are solid objects. Did you know that 'solid' matter really is 99.99% empty space? Its true! Atoms are VASTLY empty, its the electrical field generated in the atom that gives us the illusion of solid objects.


Diameter of a nucleus is around 10^-12 cm.
Diameter of an atom is on the order of 10^-8 cm (up to 5*10^-8).

Taking the smaller range of the atom, the ratio is:

atom/nucleus = 10^-8/10^-12 = 10^4

Thus, if the nucleus was 6cm in diameter, the atom would be:

6cm * 10^4 = 60000cm = 600 meters in diameter


See the Rutherford experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

This isn't news, that experiment was done in 1909!

Could that mean that our current "reality" is not real in the way we perceive it to be? Could our reality be an overlay on top of a base system? I believe so.

[mobodick]

How about quantum physics?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

You're assuming there is only one reality.

It's not an assumption, it's a definition.
There is nothing outside of reality.
If you find soumething you think is outside of reality it is actually somehow part of reality.
There are no un-real things.

[Atlas]

Reality is Reality.

A = A

Oh my god, it's Ayn Rand all over again.

[mobodick]

Reality is real BY DEFINITION.

If you define something outside of reality you are indicating that it is not real.
And besides, give me one example, one tiny fact (which does not come down to how you feel) that indicates that reality is not somehow real.

Sure. Lets talk about what we think are solid objects. Did you know that 'solid' matter really is 99.99% empty space? Its true! Atoms are VASTLY empty, its the electrical field generated in the atom that gives us the illusion of solid objects.


Diameter of a nucleus is around 10^-12 cm.
Diameter of an atom is on the order of 10^-8 cm (up to 5*10^-8).

Taking the smaller range of the atom, the ratio is:

atom/nucleus = 10^-8/10^-12 = 10^4

Thus, if the nucleus was 6cm in diameter, the atom would be:

6cm * 10^4 = 60000cm = 600 meters in diameter


See the Rutherford experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

This isn't news, that experiment was done in 1909!

Could that mean that our current "reality" is not real in the way we perceive it to be? Could our reality be an overlay on top of a base system? I believe so.

So because things we see are actually the effects of EM fields makes them less real?
The scale of the stuff in the universe is incredible.
But that is not important for establishing reality.
What IS important is consistency.
Things behave consistently at every level. That's why we can extract laws of nature from stuff.

Reality is CERTAINLY not as we perceive it with our senses.
Our senses are incredibly ill-equipped to see the universe in all its glory.
What's even worse is that our brains are very flawed in certain ways.
We can overlook things that are there and we can think something is there when there is nothing.
That is why we extend our capabilities of poking at reality with scientific instruments.
Telescopes allow us to see deep into the cosmos, even up untill the point it started.
Microscopes allow us to see things smaller than we could have with the naked eye.
Particle accelerators allow us to see inside of atoms and confirm that they are mostly 'empty' space.

And all these instruments show a pretty consistent view.
So if you believe that you exist and that other people exist then you will have to ask yourself why everyone that cares to look at the universe sees something that is behaving the same way as what others can see.
Apparently we all share this existence and it's physically very consistent for everyone.

[foggyb]

So because things we see are actually the effects of EM fields makes them less real?

No. Knowing about EM fields tells us we have a lot to learn about what is real.

Apparently we all share this existence and it's physically very consistent for everyone.

Yes it is consistent physically. We are designed to perceive it as such. That doesn't prove there isn't another underlying reality.

[ccohen322]

This was a fascinating read, thanks for sharing!

[mobodick]

So because things we see are actually the effects of EM fields makes them less real?

No. Knowing about EM fields tells us we have a lot to learn about what is real.

That is the consequence of looking at something as vast as the universe.
But that doesnt make complete fantasies any more real.

Apparently we all share this existence and it's physically very consistent for everyone.

Yes it is consistent physically. We are designed to perceive it as such. That doesn't prove there isn't another underlying reality.

Yes, but if there is an underlying 'reality' than it must somehow be part of our reality otherwise it could not be underlying it. So there must be a physical effect on our 'reality' otherwise it is just fantasy.
Anyhow, show me anything un-real that is appreciable outside of your own brain or thought and i will agree with you.
Also, you can look for ways for your consiousness to have an effect on the world without a physical body, or better yet, without a brain.

[amencon]

Don't have a link, however I remember reading about a study of near death experiences.  The study found that most of the people who glimpsed the "afterlife" in these experiences were religious beforehand...

Most people are religious. Go figure. It doesn't take a study to deduce that.

Well I couldn't find the details so I guess it's pointless to debate.  However if the phenomena wasn't something made up in peoples' minds and they were actually glimpsing an afterlife you'd think it would have a similar chance to happen in all NDEs regardless of the religiosity of the person experiencing it. 

If you have 10 religious subjects and 10 non religious and the afterlife only appears to those religious would that tell you nothing?

Anyway it's moot since I can only loosely paraphrase the results.  Not that any study will convince anyone otherwise anyway.

Do people believe DMT users go to the afterlife as well?  I think it's easy to make poor conclusions about experiences you don't truly understand and can't process and don't see people's recounts of NDEs as much evidence of anything conclusive one way or the other.

[foggyb]

But that doesnt make complete fantasies any more real.

No, complete fantasies aren't real. It's you're job, now that you've made the claim, to show conclusively that the supernatural is a fantasy. "Everyone knows it" is not a good argument, because we have at least two people who directly refute your claim. You need to show that a neurosurgeon and an intelligent articulate young woman are both incompetent at separating fantasy from reality.

Yes, but if there is an underlying 'reality' than it must somehow be part of our reality otherwise it could not be underlying it. So there must be a physical effect on our 'reality' otherwise it is just fantasy.

underlying present participle of un·der·lie (Verb)
Verb:   
Be the cause or basis of (something): "the fundamental issue that underlies the conflict".

Rethink your quote in the context of the correct definition of the term 'underlying'.

Why 'must' there be a physical effect? The underlying reality is a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

Anyhow, show me anything un-real that is appreciable outside of your own brain or thought and i will agree with you.

Easy. Truth (as a concept) exists outside of and separate from any human brain. Logical contradictions are another example.

[dank]

How about quantum physics?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

You're assuming there is only one reality.

It's not an assumption, it's a definition.
There is nothing outside of reality.
If you find soumething you think is outside of reality it is actually somehow part of reality.
There are no un-real things.

You're mixing reality and universe.

reality: is the state of things as they actually exist
universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Your mind creates what exists and it can very for different people because we believe different things.  If you meditate and hallucinate, those hallucinations actually exist, they become reality.  You cannot say another reality doesn't exist just because you have never seen it.  Universe is everything, there is nothing outside of the universe because the universe is all, it is one.

[mobodick]

But that doesnt make complete fantasies any more real.

No, complete fantasies aren't real. It's you're job, now that you've made the claim, to show conclusively that the supernatural is a fantasy. "Everyone knows it" is not a good argument, because we have at least two people who directly refute your claim. You need to show that a neurosurgeon and an intelligent articulate young woman are both incompetent at separating fantasy from reality.

Yes, but if there is an underlying 'reality' than it must somehow be part of our reality otherwise it could not be underlying it. So there must be a physical effect on our 'reality' otherwise it is just fantasy.

underlying present participle of un·der·lie (Verb)
Verb:   
Be the cause or basis of (something): "the fundamental issue that underlies the conflict".

Rethink your quote in the context of the correct definition of the term 'underlying'.

Why 'must' there be a physical effect? The underlying reality is a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

Causing something or being a basis is a physical effect expressed in reality.
If there was no physical effect it would be impossible to know about it.

Anyhow, show me anything un-real that is appreciable outside of your own brain or thought and i will agree with you.

Easy. Truth (as a concept) exists outside of and separate from any human brain. Logical contradictions are another example.

Truth is completely a human notion and can only be considered by human brains.
Realiy is not true or false, it just is.
Your view of reality can be true or false (or somewhere in between), and that is still a purely human notion.

[mobodick]

How about quantum physics?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

You're assuming there is only one reality.

It's not an assumption, it's a definition.
There is nothing outside of reality.
If you find soumething you think is outside of reality it is actually somehow part of reality.
There are no un-real things.

You're mixing reality and universe.

reality: is the state of things as they actually exist
universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Your mind creates what exists and it can very for different people because we believe different things.  If you meditate and hallucinate, those hallucinations actually exist, they become reality.  You cannot say another reality doesn't exist just because you have never seen it.  Universe is everything, there is nothing outside of the universe because the universe is all, it is one.

I'm not even going to debate this. You're mixing reality with fantasy and there is no way reason can compete with that.

[dank]

Ok, well, those are the definitions...

[foggyb]

Causing something or being a basis is a physical effect expressed in reality.
If there was no physical effect it would be impossible to know about it.

No, if one is not attuned to spiritual things. Corinthians 2:14 says:

14. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Truth is completely a human notion and can only be considered by human brains.
Realiy is not true or false, it just is.

Your view of reality can be true or false (or somewhere in between), and that is still a purely human notion.

You just broke the laws of logic....and your own argument. Truth IS an unbreakable constant. We may not always know what the truth is, and some questions cannot be answered true or false. But some can. You've been arguing that 'this' reality is true! Do you mean to say that if all humans were to die off, that this reality would no longer be true? That this dimension would cease to exist? Then you agree with Dank that everything is an illusion of the mind.

The example of logical contradictions is very similar. For instance, it is a logical contradiction to say "my car is in the parking lot, and my car is not in the parking lot". If this law is broken, there would be chaos. Matter could be in two places at once. We didn't invent this law. It must have been put in place before the creation of the universe. Otherwise no ordered universe is possible.

[mobodick]

Causing something or being a basis is a physical effect expressed in reality.
If there was no physical effect it would be impossible to know about it.

No, if one is not attuned to spiritual things. Corinthians 2:14 says:

14. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

After many many tests people seem incapable to transfer information with the use of attunement to spiritual things.
You can't explain away bullshit with a religious quote.
And what kind of quote is that anyway. It teaches you to put your hands on your ears and go 'NANANANANANANANA'. The text tells you to ignore other opinion. Nice work...

Truth is completely a human notion and can only be considered by human brains.
Realiy is not true or false, it just is.

Your view of reality can be true or false (or somewhere in between), and that is still a purely human notion.

You just broke the laws of logic....and your own argument. Truth IS an unbreakable constant. We may not always know what the truth is, and some questions cannot be answered true or false. But some can. You've been arguing that 'this' reality is true! Do you mean to say that if all humans were to die off, that this reality would no longer be true? That this dimension would cease to exist? Then you agree with Dank that everything is an illusion of the mind.

The example of logical contradictions is very similar. For instance, it is a logical contradiction to say "my car is in the parking lot, and my car is not in the parking lot". If this law is broken, there would be chaos. Matter could be in two places at once. We didn't invent this law. It must have been put in place before the creation of the universe. Otherwise no ordered universe is possible.

For truth you need a judge and reality doesn't judge.
You can only have truth if you ask a question.
Consider your example.
Who's logical connondrum is that?
The cars?
The parking lots?
No, it's the person considering it.

And some types of matter do not adhere to simple logic, but is still consistent.
Read about the Pauli exclusion principle, for instance, or entanglement.
I'm not sure what you mean by putting matter in place because there was no matter right after the beginning of the universe. There was a shitload of energy and that energy later condensed into matter.
Your idea of 'must have been put' sounds like a deliberate act and so it is just another uninformed excuse to justify your believe in something that must have put it there.
But there is absolutely no evidence to assume even the slightest bit that things were 'put into place' and someone hit the start button.
Nothing, except your belief, points us to some part of reality where we can find evidence of the existance of a spiritual world.

[foggyb]

For truth you need a judge and reality doesn't judge.
You can only have truth if you ask a question.
Consider your example.
Who's logical connondrum is that?
The cars?
The parking lots?
No, it's the person considering it.

That is incorrect. Again, no person needs to be present for that logical contradiction argument to work. It may not be of any significance if there are no persons present to evaluate the logic argument, but that does not nullify the argument or logic itself.

Secondly, its not a conundrum.

co·nun·drum/kəˈnəndrəm/
Noun:   
A confusing and difficult problem or question.
A question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.

A logical contradiction cannot happen, ever. No matter if humans are present or not. Its not a riddle, nor is it confusing or difficult to understand. Logic is a critical component to the structure and order of the universe. Without it, there can only be chaos.

To the point, logic exists apart from ANY physical reality or human mind. That is evidence of something going on behind the scenes.

[tiberiandusk]

If you wake up again then you weren't really dead. You exist in your brain. If your heart and breathing stop for a while your brain will start to die. If you are resuscitated in a short amount of time you wake up normal. If it takes longer you end up disabled or a vegetable and your idea of You is different or gone entirely. The time it takes to go from brain alive to brain dead is different depending on temperature and life support. Where exactly You go away in this timeline of brain completely alive to brain completely dead is still a mystery.

TLDR, how many of your brain cells have to be damaged or dead for consciousness to cease.

[mobodick]

For truth you need a judge and reality doesn't judge.
You can only have truth if you ask a question.
Consider your example.
Who's logical connondrum is that?
The cars?
The parking lots?
No, it's the person considering it.

That is incorrect. Again, no person needs to be present for that logical contradiction argument to work. It may not be of any significance if there are no persons present to evaluate the logic argument, but that does not nullify the argument or logic itself.

Secondly, its not a conundrum.

co·nun·drum/kəˈnəndrəm/
Noun:   
A confusing and difficult problem or question.
A question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.

A logical contradiction cannot happen, ever. No matter if humans are present or not. Its not a riddle, nor is it confusing or difficult to understand. Logic is a critical component to the structure and order of the universe. Without it, there can only be chaos.

To the point, logic exists apart from ANY physical reality or human mind. That is evidence of something going on behind the scenes.

Logic does not 'exist', it is a methodology applied by humans.
It is a tool for mapping a consistent space. It exists in the same way as mathematics exist.
In that respect truth is only a confirmation to the observer of the state of the subject.
Imagine we lived in a universe where cars could indeed be in two states at the same time. Your logic would then have to allow for thing to be in two states at the same time. Just as our logic is adapted to the mechanics of our universe.
And in fact such logic falls apart on the quantum level. Things at the nanoscopic scale can indeed be contradictory when seen through classical logic.
Logic seems consistent because our universe is consistent at our scale.
Fly into a black hole and things become a lot less 'logical'.  

And my excuses that i don't speak your language very well.

Edit: oh, and the going physics theory says the universe is indeed based on chaos.

[malevolent]

Well it looks like he simply wants to earn some money:

http://www.amazon.com/Proof-of-Heaven-ebook/dp/B008AK8FHM

[foggyb]

TLDR, how many of your brain cells have to be damaged or dead for consciousness to cease.

Although we may not be able to detect any physical consciousness, it is plausible that the person has a limited physical awareness, but cannot communicate through their damaged physical faculties anymore, in spite of the soul still being present.

Science cannot prove that awareness has ceased in a brain damaged person, it can only prove that physical responses are no longer active.

Well it looks like he simply wants to earn some money:

http://www.amazon.com/Proof-of-Heaven-ebook/dp/B008AK8FHM

Scientists publish books too.

[foggyb]

Logic does not 'exist', it is a methodology applied by humans.
It is a tool for mapping a consistent space. It exists in the same way as mathematics exist.

And yet the structure and order behind things like logic and mathematics do not cease to exist if we stop thinking about them. This is the non-physical reality that, as I have been arguing, exists.

Imagine we lived in a universe where cars could indeed be in two states at the same time. Your logic would then have to allow for thing to be in two states at the same time. Just as our logic is adapted to the mechanics of our universe.

Exactly. An IMAGINARY universe where logical contradictions can happen. Such a universe exists only in the imagination, according to all evidence.

Logic seems consistent because our universe is consistent at our scale.
Fly into a black hole and things become a lot less 'logical'.  

Logic seems consistent because it is consistent. We don't live in black holes, so you can't call that our physical reality.

Edit: oh, and the going physics theory says the universe is indeed based on chaos.

Yes, and a constantly changing theory, I might add.

Your English is fine. English was not my first language either. 

[mobodick]

Logic does not 'exist', it is a methodology applied by humans.
It is a tool for mapping a consistent space. It exists in the same way as mathematics exist.

And yet the structure and order behind things like logic and mathematics do not cease to exist if we stop thinking about them. This is the non-physical reality that, as I have been arguing, exists.

Right, because they are abstractions based on our local universe. And since the structure of our local universe doesnt change we get to keep our logic.
And there is no other reality than the one where you read this.

Imagine we lived in a universe where cars could indeed be in two states at the same time. Your logic would then have to allow for thing to be in two states at the same time. Just as our logic is adapted to the mechanics of our universe.

Exactly. An IMAGINARY universe where logical contradictions can happen. Such a universe exists only in the imagination, according to all evidence.

It was just an example. It shows that if you change the properties of the universe you will have to change logic.
Anyway, we would have to define what we mean by logic and by truth.

Logic seems consistent because our universe is consistent at our scale.
Fly into a black hole and things become a lot less 'logical'.  

Logic seems consistent because it is consistent. We don't live in black holes, so you can't call that our physical reality.

I can only repeat the sentence that you removed from the quote:
And in fact such logic falls apart on the quantum level. Things at the nanoscopic scale can indeed be contradictory when seen through classical logic.

At the quantum scale (which is everywhere in our universe) things follow their own set of logic rules. We had to create a new set because the univere behaves differently at that scale. Out usual logic rules just do not apply.
So there is just no denying that what we call logic is just a tool to help us understand the world.

Edit: oh, and the going physics theory says the universe is indeed based on chaos.

Yes, and a constantly changing theory, I might add.

Your English is fine. English was not my first language either.  

Scientific theories constantly change to more precise versions that better describe the universe we find.
And there are libraries full of stuff that we already found out.
We can roughly see things on a scale of 10^50 all the way down to 10^-36.
Yet, no evidence at all of a spiritual reality. Not even a hint.
These things only exist in peoples imagination.

Science can change because it has an open mind to critisism. The mind of a believer is often as stubborn as a brick.

Anyway, this is getting way too deep for a bitcoin forum.

[bgmc]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

Scientifically, this is the only thing that makes sense. The mind is powerful enough to deceive the self, especially when having an NDE. The curious thing about NDE's is that the experience is always consistent with the person's religion. ALL NDE's are different. If there was one religion that was correct all the others were wrong, then shouldn't all NDE's be very similar? But they aren't. And NDEs are very powerful hallucinations, so powerful that indeed the person thinks they are real. I can say all this, and if I have an NDE, I also might convinced it was real.

[rokkyroad]

I see dead people.

[dank]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

Scientifically, this is the only thing that makes sense. The mind is powerful enough to deceive the self, especially when having an NDE. The curious thing about NDE's is that the experience is always consistent with the person's religion. ALL NDE's are different. If there was one religion that was correct all the others were wrong, then shouldn't all NDE's be very similar? But they aren't. And NDEs are very powerful hallucinations, so powerful that indeed the person thinks they are real. I can say all this, and if I have an NDE, I also might convinced it was real.

Everything you see is manifested within the mind.  If you experience it, it is real.  NDE's are more real than life itself because when it comes to it, life is an illusion we create in our heads.