Evidence Of Life After Death

[zzz 0]

If you read further about Pam Reynolds you'll find that the parts of her memory that were corroborated were from before the EEG flatlined, not after.

That is not true....she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. And your saying this isn't evidence of life/consciousness after death?! Are you still suggesting that she physically heard and saw things later verified with a flatlined EEG? Again, this is published in a scientific journal. Have a nice day!

[brvheart 1,752]

"In the scientific community, the explanation of NDEs as proof of an afterlife is often regarded as pseudoscience due to the fact that this justification for the phenomenon does not follow the tenets of the scientific method. The profound metaphysical question of whether or not there is life after death extends beyond the realm of the observable natural world and therefore cannot be proved or disproved through scientific inquiry (Carey, 124).Using Occam’s Razor, proponents of the naturalistic perspective can provide rival explanations that are scientifically more plausible than that of the afterlife theory because their rationalizations are supported with research conducted through the scientific method (Carey, 43). For example, those who undergo NDEs often feel as if they are traveling through a tunnel or narrow passageway. One explanation for this phenomenon is that the tunnel represents the path that leads a person to the final threshold between life and death. According to the principles of Occam’s Razor, a more probable rival explanation for the tunneled vision is the proposal of Jack Cowan, a neurobiologist at the University of Chicago.According to Cowan, brain activity that is normally kept stable is debilitated due to the lack of oxygen that the brain experiences near death, generating stripes of activity that move across the cortex (1982). Using brain mapping, Cowan is able to demonstrate how the stripes in the cortex would appear like concentric rings or spirals, creating the visualization of tunnel-like patterns. Although it is impossible to undeniably prove that Cowan’s theory discredits the afterlife theory, the law of Occam’s Razor makes it more conceivable over the rival explanation of life after death.Theories that NDEs are proof that an afterlife exists do not rely upon testable hypotheses that can be recreated and examined (Carey, 119). Because the characteristic effects of a NDE are perceptible only to the person who is experiencing one, it is impossible for researchers to physically observe the phenomenon and arrive at any reliable conclusions as to the explanation for their occurrence. Thus, the life after death theory of NDEs cannot technically be interpreted as genuinely scientific in nature."

[copernicus 0]

"In the scientific community, the explanation of NDEs as proof of an afterlife is often regarded as pseudoscience due to the fact that this justification for the phenomenon does not follow the tenets of the scientific method. The profound metaphysical question of whether or not there is life after death extends beyond the realm of the observable natural world and therefore cannot be proved or disproved through scientific inquiry (Carey, 124).Using Occam’s Razor, proponents of the naturalistic perspective can provide rival explanations that are scientifically more plausible than that of the afterlife theory because their rationalizations are supported with research conducted through the scientific method (Carey, 43). For example, those who undergo NDEs often feel as if they are traveling through a tunnel or narrow passageway. One explanation for this phenomenon is that the tunnel represents the path that leads a person to the final threshold between life and death. According to the principles of Occam’s Razor, a more probable rival explanation for the tunneled vision is the proposal of Jack Cowan, a neurobiologist at the University of Chicago.According to Cowan, brain activity that is normally kept stable is debilitated due to the lack of oxygen that the brain experiences near death, generating stripes of activity that move across the cortex (1982). Using brain mapping, Cowan is able to demonstrate how the stripes in the cortex would appear like concentric rings or spirals, creating the visualization of tunnel-like patterns. Although it is impossible to undeniably prove that Cowan’s theory discredits the afterlife theory, the law of Occam’s Razor makes it more conceivable over the rival explanation of life after death.Theories that NDEs are proof that an afterlife exists do not rely upon testable hypotheses that can be recreated and examined (Carey, 119). Because the characteristic effects of a NDE are perceptible only to the person who is experiencing one, it is impossible for researchers to physically observe the phenomenon and arrive at any reliable conclusions as to the explanation for their occurrence. Thus, the life after death theory of NDEs cannot technically be interpreted as genuinely scientific in nature."

ie, zzz's claims of "scientific journals" support life after death are quite unlikely to exist, and LAD is a matter of faith...ie nonsense.

[zzz 0]

"In the scientific community, the explanation of NDEs as proof of an afterlife is often regarded as pseudoscience due to the fact that this justification for the phenomenon does not follow the tenets of the scientific method. The profound metaphysical question of whether or not there is life after death extends beyond the realm of the observable natural world and therefore cannot be proved or disproved through scientific inquiry (Carey, 124).Using Occam’s Razor, proponents of the naturalistic perspective can provide rival explanations that are scientifically more plausible than that of the afterlife theory because their rationalizations are supported with research conducted through the scientific method (Carey, 43). For example, those who undergo NDEs often feel as if they are traveling through a tunnel or narrow passageway. One explanation for this phenomenon is that the tunnel represents the path that leads a person to the final threshold between life and death. According to the principles of Occam’s Razor, a more probable rival explanation for the tunneled vision is the proposal of Jack Cowan, a neurobiologist at the University of Chicago.According to Cowan, brain activity that is normally kept stable is debilitated due to the lack of oxygen that the brain experiences near death, generating stripes of activity that move across the cortex (1982). Using brain mapping, Cowan is able to demonstrate how the stripes in the cortex would appear like concentric rings or spirals, creating the visualization of tunnel-like patterns. Although it is impossible to undeniably prove that Cowan’s theory discredits the afterlife theory, the law of Occam’s Razor makes it more conceivable over the rival explanation of life after death.Theories that NDEs are proof that an afterlife exists do not rely upon testable hypotheses that can be recreated and examined (Carey, 119). Because the characteristic effects of a NDE are perceptible only to the person who is experiencing one, it is impossible for researchers to physically observe the phenomenon and arrive at any reliable conclusions as to the explanation for their occurrence. Thus, the life after death theory of NDEs cannot technically be interpreted as genuinely scientific in nature."

None of these theories explains the Pam Reynolds case and others just like it. All signs point to her not using her physical body to hear and see. Have a nice day!

None of these theories explains the Pam Reynolds case and others just like it. All signs point to her not using her physical body to hear and see. Have a nice day!

Lancet is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Have a nice day!

[copernicus 0]

That is not true....she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. And your saying this isn't evidence of life/consciousness after death?! Are you still suggesting that she physically heard and saw things later verified with a flatlined EEG? Again, this is published in a scientific journal. Have a nice day!

1. What journal2. there is nothing in this statement that talks about whether her perceptions were before or after flatline EEG. what i have read says everything corroborated was from before flatline.3. Flatline EEG does not mean that the brain isnt functioning. it wasnt dead, if it were then it would still be dead. there has never been a totally dead brain revived. It cant be "after death" because the brain was never dead.most importantly is 1. If you cant send us to the article, then I call f.o.s.

[zzz 0]

1. What journal2. there is nothing in this statement that talks about whether her perceptions were before or after flatline EEG. what i have read says everything corroborated was from before flatline.3. Flatline EEG does not mean that the brain isnt functioning. it wasnt dead, if it were then it would still be dead. there has never been a totally dead brain revived. It cant be "after death" because the brain was never dead.most importantly is 1. If you cant send us to the article, then I call f.o.s.

1. Again, Lancet is the name. 2. Again, she saw and heard things later verified which happened with flat EEG. That is the whole point of the Reynolds case.3. Again, all 3 tests that measure brain function came out negative. It is much more likely than not that the brain wasn't functioning at all, which means it was in fact dead. Have a nice day!

[copernicus 0]

1. Again, Lancet is the name. 2. Again, she saw and heard things later verified which happened with flat EEG. That is the whole point of the Reynolds case.3. Again, all 3 tests that measure brain function came out negative. It is much more likely than not that the brain wasn't functioning at all, which means it was in fact dead. Have a nice day!

No, it was not dead, and I guarantee you will not find any claim in the Lancet article that it was. Alsoi, the Lancet article was not peer reviewed."Braude did not analyze very well the data from Near-Death Experiences, both in its possible strengths and in its possible weaknesses! He says, on page 274, that Pam Reynolds had a flat EEG (and also no blood in her brain plus body temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit - 15 degrees Celsius - and no brainstem activity) FOR ABOUT AN HOUR. Also, he says that she did have veridical perceptions WHILE IN THIS EXTREME STATE. Both these statements are incorrect. A careful reading of the very same book that Braude cited for this (Light and Death, Michael Sabom, 1998, chapter 3) clearly indicates that this extreme condition probably did not last longer than half an hour (I guess it actually lasted about 20 minutes or less) and that she had ABSOLUTELY NO verifiable perception while in this state! Surprisingly enough, this misreporting of the Pam Reynolds case is extremely ubiquitous on the internet (including www near-death com). Braude's is not the only scholarly work that misreports it. Van Lommel et al's article (The Lancet, 2001), also does! (But Emily Kelly, Bruce Greyson, and Ian Stevenson reported the case correctly in 2000, Omega Jounal of Death and Dying, vol 40(4) pp. 513-519, 1999-2000). "Also see:http://www.mortalminds.org/reynolds.htmlandhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kei.../HNDEs.html#pam

[zzz 0]

No, it was not dead, and I guarantee you will not find any claim in the Lancet article that it was. Alsoi, the Lancet article was not peer reviewed."Braude did not analyze very well the data from Near-Death Experiences, both in its possible strengths and in its possible weaknesses! He says, on page 274, that Pam Reynolds had a flat EEG (and also no blood in her brain plus body temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit - 15 degrees Celsius - and no brainstem activity) FOR ABOUT AN HOUR. Also, he says that she did have veridical perceptions WHILE IN THIS EXTREME STATE. Both these statements are incorrect. A careful reading of the very same book that Braude cited for this (Light and Death, Michael Sabom, 1998, chapter 3) clearly indicates that this extreme condition probably did not last longer than half an hour (I guess it actually lasted about 20 minutes or less) and that she had ABSOLUTELY NO verifiable perception while in this state! Surprisingly enough, this misreporting of the Pam Reynolds case is extremely ubiquitous on the internet (including www near-death com). Braude's is not the only scholarly work that misreports it. Van Lommel et al's article (The Lancet, 2001), also does! (But Emily Kelly, Bruce Greyson, and Ian Stevenson reported the case correctly in 2000, Omega Jounal of Death and Dying, vol 40(4) pp. 513-519, 1999-2000). "

So how do they explain her seeing verifiable things with her eyes taped shut. Have a nice day!

[copernicus 0]

So how do they explain her seeing verifiable things with her eyes taped shut. Have a nice day!

read the links. Have a nice day after you pull your had out of the sand.And you keep avoiding the fact that even if she had NEAR death experiences, they still are not AFTER death experiences, and thus do nothing for a claim of life after death.

[zzz 0]

read the links. Have a nice day after you pull your had out of the sand.And you keep avoiding the fact that even if she had NEAR death experiences, they still are not AFTER death experiences, and thus do nothing for a claim of life after death.

It has been well documented by Lommel and others that she saw and heard verifiable things with no detectable brain function. Have a nice day!

[copernicus 0]

It has been well documented by Lommel and others that she saw and heard verifiable things with no detectable brain function. Have a nice day!

read the links, or are you afraid to?? The direct report from the pro NDE surgeon doesnt support that.Respond to the rest of the questions with something documented. If you dont provide something substantive in your next post, you go the same place as mattnxtc...ignore.hell . Youve got nothing to say.

[zzz 0]

read the links, or are you afraid to?? The direct report from the pro NDE surgeon doesnt support that.Respond to the rest of the questions with something documented. If you dont provide something substantive in your next post, you go the same place as mattnxtc...ignore.hell . Youve got nothing to say.

I have looked at the links. They do nothing to refute the fact that Pam Reynolds saw and heard verifiable things while having no registered brain activity. Woerlee's response is that the 3 brain tests aren't 100% accurate. However, one would think that all 3 tests showing false negatives is an extremely unlikely scenario.Lommel is a pro NDE surgeon because of his scientific study that he believes shows NDEs are more likely than not evidence of life after death. I can't help it if you disregard his study in favor of conspiracy theories. Have a nice day!

[copernicus 0]

I have looked at the links. They do nothing to refute the fact that Pam Reynolds saw and heard verifiable things while having no registered brain activity. Woerlee's response is that the 3 brain tests aren't 100% accurate. However, one would think that all 3 tests showing false negatives is an extremely unlikely scenario.Lommel is a pro NDE surgeon because of his scientific study that he believes shows NDEs are more likely than not evidence of life after death. I can't help it if you disregard his study in favor of conspiracy theories. Have a nice day!

And you still refused to answer the question. buh bye have a nice life, because THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE.

[zzz 0]

And you still refused to answer the question. buh bye have a nice life, because THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE.

Again, that is just your pessimistic belief/opinion. Have a nice day!

[BWToth 0]

Again, that is just your pessimistic belief/opinion. Have a nice day!

I'm nearing the end of my rope as far as trying to have intelligent conversation with you. I'd like to see you try to think on a little bit less of a juvenile level for just one minute...if you can't...then i guess you're a lost cause.

[Yoda 1]

I don't give a shit about this thread. But it seems like everyone is having a nice day.zzz = RKIGS? Looks like it.

[BWToth 0]

Yes..maybe...But i'm thinking he actually knows what he is doing and is putting on a big act of completely asinine ignorance due to the fact that he realizes his argument has been blown up and is too immature to deal with it.

[zzz 0]

Yes..maybe...But i'm thinking he actually knows what he is doing and is putting on a big act of completely asinine ignorance due to the fact that he realizes his argument has been blown up and is too immature to deal with it.

Exactly which argument has been blown up? I don't believe anyone has asinine ignorance...then again, I'm a postitve person...Have a nice day!

[BWToth 0]

Exactly which argument has been blown up? I don't believe anyone has asinine ignorance...then again, I'm a postitve person...Have a nice day!

My point is you're acting so incredibly stupid, that i have a hard time believing its legitimate.Kind of like how I act in the $100 ring games so people think I'm a donkey....not that i'm not one.

[zzz 0]

My point is you're acting so incredibly stupid , that i have a hard time believing its legitimate.Kind of like how I act in the $100 ring games so people think I'm a donkey....not that i'm not one.

Again, that is just your negative opinion. Sorry if the truth sounds incredibly stupid to you. Have a nice day!

[BWToth 0]

Again, that is just your negative opinion. Sorry if the truth sounds incredibly stupid to you. Have a nice day!

What is the truth?

[zzz 0]

What is the truth?

The truth is saying something is incredibly stupid is a negative/pessimistic opinion. Comments like that say a lot about a person. Have a nice day!

[BWToth 0]

The truth is saying something is incredibly stupid is a negative/pessimistic opinion. Comments like that say a lot about a person. Have a nice day!

Truth= saying something is incredibly stupid is a negative/pessimistic opinionNow, please prove this. Seems like you're confusing 'Truth' with 'What I believe'

[zzz 0]

Truth= saying something is incredibly stupid is a negative/pessimistic opinionNow, please prove this. Seems like you're confusing 'Truth' with 'What I believe'

Wow. OK...The fact is that I have actions. A negative opinion would be my actions are incredibly stupid. A positive opinion would be my actions are incredibly smart. Have a nice day!

[BWToth 0]

Wow. OK...The fact is that I have actions. A negative opinion would be my actions are incredibly stupid. A positive opinion would be my actions are incredibly smart. Have a nice day!

"the devil is inredibly stupid"Edit:Can you name a negative or pessemistic opinion?I can, "some people are going to go to hell."Believing pessimistic things is wrong right?So you believe, "No one is going to hell" (because this is more optimistic)Does the truth then = "no one is going to hell" ??