Near Death experiences to atheist

[apophenia]

I have also had some strange things happen to me; however, I think some things that we consider paranormal, are actually normal. We only use a small percentage of our brains, and probably just don't understand the science behind these things yet.

In that sense there is no 'paranormal', nor any 'supernatural' - these words refer to either phenomena which are not understood yet (as you and I are suggesting some events may be); or to presumed, imagined, or disingenuously fabricated events.

Sometimes I get an inkling of something happening in the subatomic realm which relates to holographic images.

Holograms have other surprising traits as well. If you cut one in half, each half contains whole views of the entire holographic image. The same is true if you cut out a small piece -­- even a tiny fragment will still contain the whole picture. On top of that, if you make a hologram of a magnifying glass, the holographic version will magnify the other objects in the hologram, just like a real one.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/hologram.htm

What my brain seems to be trying to tell me, is that quantum events somehow exist in their totality ( the universe ) in a form akin to a holographic image.

I am not referring to the 'holographic universe' hypothesis. Although that is interesting too.

I mean that I suspect that the structure of the universe is an ' informational matrix' which is holographic - just like any part of a holographic image contains the whole picture, any 'part' of the universe contains the whole universe.

How else could I be in two places at once when I'm not anywhere at all ? :areyoucra

 

[Magic Man]

I never said the above sentence. Let's try:

"Look these guys studied it and say this, so you might want to consider it"

I personally considered it and found it very valuable and believable.

Are you talking about your sages or actual scientists? My point was that we don't trust scientists simply because they say something. We trust them because we can see the evidence and experiments behind their claims. The same cannot be said of your sages' studies of OBEs. So, I'll consider their claims as soon as they have support for them the same way scientists do.

There's really many uses of the words science and scientists and I don't really care about semantics.

Sure, but there's only one correct use.

Fine, let's use some other words.

Are you saying: 'There's no rigorous way to observe or study alleged super-physical realms; hence they can't exist or even be considered to exist.'?

I'm saying there are ways to test hypotheses to find out the truth of claims. Some people are doing this, but funnily enough, they don't come up with any evidence for OBEs being real.

I think it's correct that mainstream science is rigorous and is agnostic on super-physical questions. But we don't have to limit everything we believe about existence to what mainstream science knows. We can consider information from sources not amenable to the rigorous scientific process in our beliefs on the structure of existence.

Sure, we can consider anything. You seem to think people like me who reject supernatural explanations of phenomena like supposed NDEs haven't even considered those explanations. That's not true for most of us. I'l consider anything. But after considering them and finding that none of them have any evidence, and they are all suspect in very similar ways, I feel justified in dismissing them and being skeptical of any new claims.

 

[Magic Man]

We only use a small percentage of our brains, and probably just don't understand the science behind these things yet.

Only using a small percentage of our brains is a myth. We use our entire brains, although not 100% of it 100% of the time.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Only using a small percentage of our brains is a myth. We use our entire brains, although not 100% of it 100% of the time.

There actually seems to be quite a few people who only use a small percentage of their brains. However, utilizing their whole brains wouldn't give them magical superpowers - it would simply bring them up to a normal cognitive level.

 

[Alceste]

In that sense there is no 'paranormal', nor any 'supernatural' - these words refer to either phenomena which are not understood yet (as you and I are suggesting some events may be); or to presumed, imagined, or disingenuously fabricated events.

Sometimes I get an inkling of something happening in the subatomic realm which relates to holographic images.



What my brain seems to be trying to tell me, is that quantum events somehow exist in their totality ( the universe ) in a form akin to a holographic image.

I am not referring to the 'holographic universe' hypothesis. Although that is interesting too.

I mean that I suspect that the structure of the universe is an ' informational matrix' which is holographic - just like any part of a holographic image contains the whole picture, any 'part' of the universe contains the whole universe.

How else could I be in two places at once when I'm not anywhere at all ? :areyoucra

That is an interesting thought. For myself, I feel I have had access to information that conflicts with a linear conceptualization of time and a three dimensional conceptualization of space. But the information I pick up is not perfect. A dream of playing hackey sack with a beer bottle, for example, gave me a sneak preview of the person I dreamed of (previously a stranger) miming hackey sack and holding a beer bottle. The Nurtingen I dreamed of was not the real one - the sign I read was in English and the town was too small and bright - more like Bruges. There are glitches. So (assuming for the sake of discussion that I'm remembering what really happened) it seems there is translation of raw information into images happening as the information is received.

 

[Ingledsva]

In that sense there is no 'paranormal', nor any 'supernatural' - these words refer to either phenomena which are not understood yet (as you and I are suggesting some events may be); or to presumed, imagined, or disingenuously fabricated events.

Sometimes I get an inkling of something happening in the subatomic realm which relates to holographic images.

What my brain seems to be trying to tell me, is that quantum events somehow exist in their totality ( the universe ) in a form akin to a holographic image.

I am not referring to the 'holographic universe' hypothesis. Although that is interesting too.

I mean that I suspect that the structure of the universe is an ' informational matrix' which is holographic - just like any part of a holographic image contains the whole picture, any 'part' of the universe contains the whole universe.

How else could I be in two places at once when I'm not anywhere at all ? :areyoucra

Sitting at the Ocean’s edge
I see; a reflection of me!

Sitting in the Ocean’s edge
A reflection; I see me!

*

 

[Sha'irullah]

LOL I would love that.

I am not sure on what he will say though, perhaps something like "you did good you heretic". Imagine it being said in his boisterous intelligent voice. Good way to die.

 

[1137]

Only using a small percentage of our brains is a myth. We use our entire brains, although not 100% of it 100% of the time.

I think when people say this they mean more we don't use our brains / minds to their full potential.

 

[Magic Man]

I think when people say this they mean more we don't use our brains / minds to their full potential.

And that's still a myth.

 

[1137]

And that's still a myth.

Maybe. I know plenty of people who don't use their mind's full potential. They just sit around smoking marijuana listening to pink Floyd.

 

[Ingledsva]

Only using a small percentage of our brains is a myth. We use our entire brains, although not 100% of it 100% of the time.

Actually that isn’t true. Einstein’s brain was smaller than normal – but he obviously used more of it then the “normal” human.
A “normal” person’s brain has a broad 50:50 ratio of long and short connections between the various regions.
A genius’s brain is biased towards long or short connections. Meaning they can hone in on a favored subject, but also have acuity in many areas.
Geniuses have fewer dopamine receptors in the thalamus. This allows more neuronal signals which means they can process and store more information, and use that extra stored information, and extra processing power, to consider more unusual solutions to problems or data. They literally use more of their brains.

*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually that isn’t true. Einstein’s brain was smaller than normal – but he obviously used more of it then the “normal” human.
A “normal” person’s brain has a broad 50:50 ratio of long and short connections between the various regions.
A genius’s brain is biased towards long or short connections. Meaning they can hone in on a favored subject, but also have acuity in many areas.
Geniuses have fewer dopamine receptors in the thalamus. This allows more neuronal signals which means they can process and store more information, and use that extra stored information, and extra processing power, to consider more unusual solutions to problems or data. They literally use more of their brains.

*

That's not really accurate. They don't use "more" of their brains, they just use their brains more efficiently. All human beings use basically all of their brains, and geniuses don't use any "more" of their brain than anyone else - we all use 100% of our brains.

Brain Connection » Powered by Posit Science - Your Brain Health Headquarters
CCMR - Ask A Scientist!

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Simple question: How can you explain the numerous reports of people that can see outside of their body when they die and come back to life? (To atheist)

Atheists don't necessarily dispute the existence of an afterlife. The term "atheist" strictly applies to rejection of belief in a deity/deities

 

[Ingledsva]

Atheists don't necessarily dispute the existence of an afterlife. The term "atheist" strictly applies to rejection of belief in a deity/deities

As long as it is as compost or bug food.

*

 

[George-ananda]

Are you talking about your sages or actual scientists?

Sages/mystics/gurus and not scientists. Scientists are more like us, they can't directly experience these other realms as a part of reality.

My point was that we don't trust scientists simply because they say something. We trust them because we can see the evidence and experiments behind their claims. The same cannot be said of your sages' studies of OBEs.

As I've said above in this thread, the teachings of the Hindu masters can not be tested with the 'scientific method'. We all agree to that.

But again my concern here is not pure 'Science' but what is the most reasonable beliefs for me to hold about the structure of the universe. And in that regard I consider information not yet amenable to the scientific method in this century.

So, I'll consider their claims as soon as they have support for them the same way scientists do.

Then you will be limited to the stage science happens to be at during your lifetime.

I, on the other hand, see it reasonable to also consider things not currently testable by the 'scientific method'.

I'm saying there are ways to test hypotheses to find out the truth of claims. Some people are doing this, but funnily enough, they don't come up with any evidence for OBEs being real.

Funny, but I've also heard that 'Remote Viewing' has been statistically confirmed independently in multiple labs. Some of us also consider analyses not written by the so-called 'skeptics'.

Sure, we can consider anything. You seem to think people like me who reject supernatural explanations of phenomena like supposed NDEs haven't even considered those explanations. That's not true for most of us. I'l consider anything. But after considering them and finding that none of them have any evidence, and they are all suspect in very similar ways, I feel justified in dismissing them and being skeptical of any new claims.

Some of us consider the same evidence and come to a different point of view. So we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

As long as it is as compost or bug food.

*

There are atheists I know that believe in reincarnation (which I guess is sort of an afterlife, or rather a life... after a life?). Though I don't know any atheists that believe in an afterlife as far as a heaven/hell/Elysium type deal, that wouldn't disqualify them from being atheists, as long as there are no gods involved. Atheist is a very general term that people take to mean something very specific

 

[Ingledsva]

There are atheists I know that believe in reincarnation (which I guess is sort of an afterlife, or rather a life... after a life?). Though I don't know any atheists that believe in an afterlife as far as a heaven/hell/Elysium type deal, that wouldn't disqualify them from being atheists, as long as there are no gods involved. Atheist is a very general term that people take to mean something very specific

How do they qualify that idea without a god source?

Why do they think they are reincarnating over and over and over?

*

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

How do they qualify that idea without a god source?

Why do they think they are reincarnating over and over and over?

*

If a god isn't necessary for the existence of this world, why would it be necessary for either the existence of another world or to be reborn into the same world?

 

[Ingledsva]

How do they qualify that idea without a god source?

Why do they think they are reincarnating over and over and over?

If a god isn't necessary for the existence of this world, why would it be necessary for either the existence of another world or to be reborn into the same world?

Because we evolved to this stage of human being that brakes down over a period of time - leading to death - and worm food.

Those bodies don't reanimate, etc. What do they think is the "THEM" that has the power to create another body and live again?

Most reincarnation people believe they have a soul that transcends death - usually associated to a Divine Deity - and their soul is coming back over-and-over to reach some state of perfection.

So how did these Atheists come up with this "outside know science" idea that some part of them lives past the grave - AND can CREATE a new body?

*

 

[Runewolf1973]

ok. I don't. Emotion is a neurological phenomenon. It is not unheard of for blind people to see things in dreams. Anything else I would have to see the documentation.

Curious if this has happened to anyone who's been blind from birth? How would they know what anything really looked like? Perhaps a person blind from birth who then sees images in their dreams are either remembering things from past life experiences, or perhaps they are astral planing in their sleep and seeing out of their body? Or can the mind "imagine" and then create what it does not know?