It’s an interesting coincidence that I read this thread from my mother’s hospice care hospital room. She’s on oxygen and morphine. Breathing, but can’t be woken up. Where is she?, I wondered before I pulled up my laptop. Nurse thinks she’s got less than 48 hours. Did she meet previously deceased family members yet? Or is she just floating up at the ceiling and looking down on me, as some might suggest? Wherever she is, it’s gotta be better than where I am right now – which is hell on earth. A few days ago, I asked her to come visit us, when she crosses over, whenever that may be. Her simple answer – “Of course”.
I think it’s pretty obvious that this doesn’t “prove” that heaven exists. At all. It seems to me that that will never be proven to the living.
That said, it’s an interesting read and something to give you pause.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
It’s an interesting coincidence that I read this thread from my mother’s hospice care hospital room. She’s on oxygen and morphine. Breathing, but can’t be woken up. Where is she?, I wondered before I pulled up my laptop. Nurse thinks she’s got less than 48 hours. Did she meet previously deceased family members yet? Or is she just floating up at the ceiling and looking down on me, as some might suggest? Wherever she is, it’s gotta be better than where I am right now – which is hell on earth. A few days ago, I asked her to come visit us, when she crosses over, whenever that may be. Her simple answer – “Of course”.[/quote]
I’m really sorry to hear that. Those are not easy times. I hope you stay this positive about it and that you do indeed get the chance to see her again.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
and another "As a neuroscientist, I can tell you this article is based on junk science. It?s very amateurish given that it?s from a neurosurgeon, but I suspect that?s the only reason it?s getting so much attention in the first place. So let me point out two very flawed assumptions in this article:
- that his neocortex could have been ?simply off.? The way it?s stated, it?s nonsense. If his neocortical neurons were ?stunned to complete inactivity,? then his neocortex would have died (which it didn?t, evidenced by this article). It?s a fundamental fact of neurobiology ? if neurons don?t fire, their axons retract, and then they die. This happens in a matter of hours. Moreover, deprive neurons of the ability to metabolize, and they die in a matter of minutes (think suffocation ?> brain damage in about 6 minutes).
What the author means to say is that his brain was suppressed to a very low level of metabolic activity (in an MR or PET scan, this looks like a dramatic decline in activity, but this isn?t something you can see in a CT scan showing the extent of meningitis, so that reference seems like a bizarre attempt to sound credible). Anyway, some might call that being ?shut off?, but make no mistake ? biologically, it?s not at all the case. Even doctors make this mistake, but a neurosurgeon should know better.
- that either consciousness resides in the neocortex, or it must be outside the body. Consciousness involves the whole brain (neocortex, subcortical nuclei, thalamus, midbrain structures, etc.), not just the neocortex, which the author mistakenly identifies as being the ?human? part of the brain (virtually all mammals have it; elephants have more than we do). Kids who grow up without a cortex have lived as long as twelve years old and experience a very rich consciousness.
Consciousness can be altered much more dramatically by lesioning SUBcortical structures than by lesioning the cortex. Deficits in consciousness caused by cortical lesions can be RESTORED by specific subcortical lesions (look up ?sprague effect?).
Lastly, we?ve known for nearly a decade now that many people in a persistent vegetative state DO show low levels of intrinsic brain activity, and specific activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli (hearing family tell stories, etc.)
Conclusion: This article is marshmallow fluff. His cortex wasn?t off, and it?s not the only thing that gives rise to consciousness anyway. So don?t accept amateurish claims like ?my cortex was turned off but i still felt stuff so god exists.? Consciousness is an undending puzzle, but this ain?t the magic piece!"
This guys is pretty much getting torn apart in the blogosphere amongst the neuroscience community [/quote]
How would you ‘prove’ this scientifically? It’s a personal experience. I think would think the burden lies on those saying what he experienced wasn’t real. That’s a heavily damaged, or partially shut down brain can produce a more intense state of consciousness than a fully functioning healthy one. It seems counter intuitive to say that brain on shutdown or diminshed state produces a state of super consciousness.[/quote]
What you described as impossible is exactly the mechanism by which dissociative psychedelics like ketamine, PCP, and dextromethorphan cause their effects put very simply. And his experience mirrors those psychedelic states too. [/quote]
Dextromethophan? Well I have taken my fair share of cough syrups over the years and never had a psychedelic experience. As far as the other hallucinagins you describe the user doesn’t come out of it thinking that his experience was more profound, enlightening and ‘real’ than normal. Maybe during, but not after.
[/quote]
As far as whether someone thinks the experience is profound, enlightening, or more ‘real’ than normal, that’s largely left to interpretation. After a drug experience, you know it was a drug so chances are you won’t interpret it as more real after the drug wears off. There’s been cultures that have said our dream state is more ‘real’ than our conscious state.
And yes, dextromethorphan the stuff in cough medicine. But in much much higher doses than what’s therapeutic. It’s the reason you have to be 18 in some places to buy cough medicine.
As far as what I think, I don’t think his experience proves or disproves an afterlife either way.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Btw, Muslims worship the same God as you do, but way to display your bigotry further.
[/quote]
Bigotry? You’re the one who says they’re insane, along with the rest of the religious. [/quote]
I didn’t see any bigotry in Push’s post there.
What Sloth says is not semantics…
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Haha semantics. Perhaps “Those not afraid to abandon dogma and superstition and think for themelves” would have been more appropriate? I’m not writing my dissertation here. You have no point. The revealed religions say “This is the word and will of God! Right here in the Bible/Koran/ect!” They claim knowledge. The agnostic theist simply believes without resorting to such arrogant claims of knowing the will of God itself. How can you logically argue against this position without resorting to faith?[/quote]
…In other words - what Sloth said
I failed to see anyone arguing against that position you raised - period - but, maybe they did and it just doesn’t catch my eye the way it does yours. Some people don’t see faith as something horrible that they “resort” to, so I would think they won’t be arguing from that angle anyways
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here we go again…we can’t even have an interesting discussion about this fellow’s experience without the thread devolving into the same ol’ cadre of atheists and agnostics…clucking.[/quote]
It’s not proof, so this is the thread to be in
Them watching religious people try and fit it in as evidence and / or proof just furthers the idea that they are delusional / crazy. At least on some level.
I’ve gotta say that if that’s how they see it, then maybe “clucking” is proper
Only 2 places on the face of earth makes a man believe, Rough sea’s and Fields of battle, any of you out there, whether your an existentialist an atheist or simply run through this world like a car with no brakes would never understand .
I bet my life that if any of you guys, and i mean anyone get a muzzle pointed at him and shots taken at him would refer back to god by his prayers to keep him alive and in one piece.
Don’t take things for granted.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]waelkd wrote:
Only 2 places on the face of earth makes a man believe, Rough sea’s and Fields of battle, any of you out there, whether your an existentialist an atheist or simply run through this world like a car with no brakes would never understand .
I bet my life that if any of you guys, and i mean anyone get a muzzle pointed at him and shots taken at him would refer back to god by his prayers to keep him alive and in one piece.
Don’t take things for granted.[/quote]
Yep, the old adage of “There are no atheists in foxholes” does hold up.
However, they are all around us where life is cushy and soft.
And life is made cushy and soft by men in foxholes.[/quote]
hahahahahaha, well said good sir
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I think it’s pretty obvious that this doesn’t “prove” that heaven exists. At all. It seems to me that that will never be proven to the living.
That said, it’s an interesting read and something to give you pause.[/quote]
Correct, it doesn’t really prove anything like that. It proves he had a very profound experience that changed his life. It’s up to us to believe that either he had the experience he said he had, or it was all in his head.
As far as I am concerned, I have long believed that consciousness is a perception that we experience, but is not soley a part of the body, our body has the ability to participate in it.
You can take similar people and trigger their brains in similar ways, yet the two can have completely different experiences. The brain is a sensory organ.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]waelkd wrote:
Only 2 places on the face of earth makes a man believe, Rough sea’s and Fields of battle, any of you out there, whether your an existentialist an atheist or simply run through this world like a car with no brakes would never understand .
I bet my life that if any of you guys, and i mean anyone get a muzzle pointed at him and shots taken at him would refer back to god by his prayers to keep him alive and in one piece.
Don’t take things for granted.[/quote]
Yep, the old adage of “There are no atheists in foxholes” does hold up.
However, they are all around us where life is cushy and soft.
And life is made cushy and soft by men in foxholes.[/quote]
You both insult a great number of people who indeed WERE atheist in fox holes. Perhaps you should both take a moment away from patting yourselves on the back to reflect on the men and women in those fox holes who’s convictions and beliefs were strong enough to stand up even in times of great crisis.
[quote]pat wrote:
As far as I am concerned, I have long believed that consciousness is a perception that we experience, but is not soley a part of the body, our body has the ability to participate in it.
[/quote]
Pat, can you expand on this (either here or in a PM). Its an interesting thought and one that I do not share, but I can tell you have arrived at this conclusion through much thought and research. I’m interested to see why we have come to different conclusions here.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]waelkd wrote:
Only 2 places on the face of earth makes a man believe, Rough sea’s and Fields of battle, any of you out there, whether your an existentialist an atheist or simply run through this world like a car with no brakes would never understand .
I bet my life that if any of you guys, and i mean anyone get a muzzle pointed at him and shots taken at him would refer back to god by his prayers to keep him alive and in one piece.
Don’t take things for granted.[/quote]
Yep, the old adage of “There are no atheists in foxholes” does hold up.
However, they are all around us where life is cushy and soft.
And life is made cushy and soft by men in foxholes.[/quote]
You both insult a great number of people who indeed WERE atheist in fox holes. Perhaps you should both take a moment away from patting yourselves on the back to reflect on the men and women in those fox holes who’s convictions and beliefs were strong enough to stand up even in times of great crisis.
[/quote]
no need to be so sensitive booboo
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
As far as I am concerned, I have long believed that consciousness is a perception that we experience, but is not soley a part of the body, our body has the ability to participate in it.
[/quote]
Pat, can you expand on this (either here or in a PM). Its an interesting thought and one that I do not share, but I can tell you have arrived at this conclusion through much thought and research. I’m interested to see why we have come to different conclusions here.[/quote]
Here I think would be better. This is actually nothing new and it has a name called the ‘Mind/ body problem’. Here’s a small extract on it.
What it deals with is what can be known and what cannot. Where does the body end and the ‘mind’ begin. Now, as in this case, neuroscience can tell us what parts of the brain are associated with certain functions. For instance, a PET or CT Scan can show us that a part of the brain associated with thinking is firing. What it cannot tell us is what those thoughts are. And indeed you can scan 100 people with the same brain activity, and yet they are all having different thoughts. So are thoughts physical or metaphysical? Well the answer is both. You obviously cannot think with out the physiological component, but the content of the thoughts are purely metaphysical. You cannot touch, feel, smell, taste or see them in any way, yet they do exist. Such is the case with all physical objects. They all have a physical and metaphysical component. A pencil for instance is thought of as a writing object. Well so we think, it can be a weapon too. It’s purpose is a metaphysical reality of the physical object. Then you have it’s design and reason for existing. The design is a metaphysical component. You cannot assemble a pencil with a bunch of pencil parts, with out a design, you just have a bunch of meaningless shit. Like a motor cycle, you can have all the parts of a motorcycle, but without a design, and preintended form, you have nothing, just a bunch of parts.
Or if you want to look at science. Science measures the behavior of physical objects, but what science tries to determine is correlation and meaning. Without correlation and meaning you have a collection of shit doing random things for no reason. And we know that’s not true.
The case of the authors claims is interesting because he is claiming an experience he was technically not physiologically able to have. And if he is right, then of course the consciousness we experience is only a shadow of what is truly sensible and in this case, the body isn’t an enabling factor, it is a limiting one.
We know metaphysics exists. We know there are things that exist that have no physical presence. So having an experience out side the physical body really isn’t all that magical or supernatural at all. It’s the opposite actually, it’s the most natural thing in the world.
Of course this is a small discourse on something that has been written about in volumes. I could sit here and write a dissertation, but I don’t want to write that much and you don’t want to read that much.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]waelkd wrote:
Only 2 places on the face of earth makes a man believe, Rough sea’s and Fields of battle, any of you out there, whether your an existentialist an atheist or simply run through this world like a car with no brakes would never understand .
I bet my life that if any of you guys, and i mean anyone get a muzzle pointed at him and shots taken at him would refer back to god by his prayers to keep him alive and in one piece.
Don’t take things for granted.[/quote]
Yep, the old adage of “There are no atheists in foxholes” does hold up.
However, they are all around us where life is cushy and soft.
And life is made cushy and soft by men in foxholes.[/quote]
You both insult a great number of people who indeed WERE atheist in fox holes. Perhaps you should both take a moment away from patting yourselves on the back to reflect on the men and women in those fox holes who’s convictions and beliefs were strong enough to stand up even in times of great crisis.
[/quote]
It’s not about “insulting” anyone, Jose Thin-skin. Get a fucking grip.
Go cluck about the proof of heaven deal.[/quote]
Your irony is showing.
[quote]pat wrote:
The case of the authors claims is interesting because he is claiming an experience he was technically not physiologically able to have. And if he is right, then of course the consciousness we experience is only a shadow of what is truly sensible and in this case, the body isn’t an enabling factor, it is a limiting one.[/quote]
This is incorrect pat. His experience could have occurred during the decline/rising of the function of his brain. That is a perfectly fine explanation for his experience. Just like when we have dreams, they may seem super short or super long, more real or less real that life awake, but when you wake up and check the clock you know it’s only been 8 hours(or whatever amount you sleep).
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The case of the authors claims is interesting because he is claiming an experience he was technically not physiologically able to have. And if he is right, then of course the consciousness we experience is only a shadow of what is truly sensible and in this case, the body isn’t an enabling factor, it is a limiting one.[/quote]
This is incorrect pat. His experience could have occurred during the decline/rising of the function of his brain.
[/quote]
Do you have any evidence that this is possible? I hear a lot about the various states of brain activity creating huge massive delusions that are apparently more real then familiar reality. All I hear is that it’s got to be a function of a brain in various states of decline or improvement. Except, there is no evidence of that. Where are the studies? Where is the scientific evidence that even being possible. Only that it may be kinda sorta possible. How? where? This isn’t about mere hallucinations. This is a full on experience unlike your standard hallucination. It had a quality that was beyond that.
There isn’t a whole lot of evidence that his claim was actually exactly what happened, but there is even less evidence that it was a mere function of the brain alone.
That’s not an explanation at all. The man is a neurosurgeon, I am pretty sure he can tell the difference since it just happens to be his area of expertise. So let me get this strait, we have a neurosurgeon, who knows more about the brain and it’s capabilities in various states than you or I will ever hope to know. But you insist it’s all in his head and he just had a compelling dream? How to YOU know that? How do you KNOW what he experienced wasn’t real? How do you know it was just a dream?
At what state of declining brain function does apparent consciousness increase? At was state of improving brain function does this phenomenon exist?
What’s compelling about this man’s story is that he should know better…
Pat, if you have 10 minutes I encourage you to read Sam Harris’ take on the matter. He is able to state with much more clarity the ideas I am trying to express. It’s worth the read if you are curious, which you appear to genuinely be.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven
A few of the finer points:
-
CT scans are not sufficient to determine that his cerebral cortex was “offline” or if his neurons were “stunned to complete inactivity”
-
Coma is not associated with the complete cessation of cortical activity, in any case. And to my knowledge, almost no one thinks that consciousness is purely a matter of cortical activity.
-
Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function. Dr. Alexander cuts brains; he does not appear to study them. (I only put this in because you appear to be impressed by his being a neurosurgeon, which is different than a neuroscientist or a neurologist.)
Occam’s razor guys, c’mon.