Near Death experiences to atheist

[George-ananda]

I'll ask you again: tell us what your "theory" is. Once we examine it, then we can judge which one's more reasonable.

Consciousness is all One/God/Brahman. We humans are a ray/spark of this Oneness encased in five sheaths (bodies). The outermost sheath is the physical body and allows us to operate in the physical realm. The next sheath (body) most close to the physical is in some circles called the astral body. In normal consciousness the astral body interpenetrates and interconnects with the physical body. In deep sleep and times of trauma to the physical body, the astral body ‘leaves’ the physical body and will hover near it. Upon death of the physical body, the astral body leaves the field of the physical plane and travels to the astral plane (the point in the core NDE experience where they transfer from the world of doctors and resuscitation activities into a non-earthly realm). There they may see other astral entities (deceased relatives, etc.). In the unusual case where the demise of the physical body is not permanent they must reluctantly (for duty calls) leave their more beautiful and peaceful astral realm and return to their physical body.

Eventually, after eons, we lose all these sheaths and merge into God (which we always were but didn’t know it as we were under the illusion (maya) that the realm we are in is the only real realm; eventually as some mystics do, we can enlighten and see through the illusion that ‘Brahman alone is real’.

I apologize for going on a tangent and that is not the world’s best explanation and others can do better. I felt continuing the lines of our nde discussion was not going to get us anywhere new.

 

[Magic Man]

I don’t get this comment. I made it clear that seeing things from an out of the body perspective, knowing details and conversations while under general anesthesia (later confirmed) from this perspective, etc., etc., is the strongly suggestive of the paranormal part.

But the "knowing details and conversations while under general anesthesia" part has a perfectly normal explanation. Besides being under general anesthesia is not a near-death experience. It's just sleeping basically. In the case you presented, there were two details like this that were the key to making it strongly suggestive of the paranormal. Each one is easily explained without the paranormal, leaving the story as just a woman's account of stuff that happened while she was unconscious that can't be verified. So, the question is, at that point, what makes it strongly suggestive of the paranormal?

Wouldn’t be surprising?? She had a clear coherent memory of events and conversations (later confirmed) from an out of the body perspective in a way she feels certain was real. If I was a materialist that would not be what I would expect to happen.

Why would it be surprising? If you mean her recollecting what the nurses said, she was basically just asleep at that time, meaning she could still hear and process things, just as Penguin pointed out with his clock radio. Such details are only meaningful if she was in the near-death state she later entered during the surgery.

Easy and normal explanations??? She subconsciously constructed a hallucination during the time of trauma that coherently incorporated specific details and conversations her mind built and created from the facts available to her in such a way that she feels certain it was a real event. Easy and normal??

Your explanation doesn't make sense. All she did was relay some things she heard while unconscious along with a detail she could have picked up before the surgery began and a dream where she thinks she saw dead people. I mean, it's extremely normal. Before the surgery began, she saw some of the instruments and probably noticed the saw. They put her under anesthesia, and she heard some things the nurses and doctor said before she went into the near-death state, which she was in for only a few minutes. At some point she had what amounted to a dream. There is no evidence to suggest this very reasonable and easy explanation is not the correct one.

Notice how you dropped the fact that she recalled details and conversations (later confirmed). So it is more than just subjective.

You seem to be ignoring one of my main points. I'm not dropping anything. I've already addressed a couple times the fact that the details and conversations she recalled are easily explained by the fact that she was only under anesthesia at the time, not near death (meaning it's perfectly possible for her brain to process things her ears pick up) and she could easily have seen operating instruments before the surgery began. I've now said this several times just in this post, along with at least once in the post you were responding to.

That was my whole point with that post, to point this out and then point out that that leaves only a subjective recollection of what's most likely a sort of dream. So, I wonder how you could read that post without realizing that I blatantly addressed this already.

I don’t call the non-paranormal explanation easy but shall I nicely say ‘constructed’. And doing that on a whole body of stories (and other paranormal seeming events) quickly becomes unreasonable and admitting there seems to be things ‘unknown’ becomes the more reasonable position.

You don't call it easy because your mind is already set that these stories have merit, and the phenomenon they supposedly support is already a fact to you. Whether you will let yourself admit it or not, the fact is the easy explanation is that she saw the instruments before the surgery and she was only under general anesthesia when she heard the conversations, meaning it's entirely reasonable for her to recall things from that period. Then she had a sort of dream. If you want to believe it's something more, you can, but the facts don't support you.

"Doing that" on a whole body of other stories is the only way to figure out whether we should believe that there's anything paranormal going on. We look at the details to see whether there is anything about them that necessitates more than a non-paranormal explanation. You choose not to scrutinize them to any real degree because you like the conclusion that paranormal phenomena are true. I don't have any special attachment to it either way, so I choose to look at them objectively. It just so happens that every one of these stories that gets brought up ends up with the same types of problems as this one.

 

[Magic Man]

Consciousness is all One/God/Brahman. We humans are a ray/spark of this Oneness encased in five sheaths (bodies). The outermost sheath is the physical body and allows us to operate in the physical realm. The next sheath (body) most close to the physical is in some circles called the astral body. In normal consciousness the astral body interpenetrates and interconnects with the physical body. In deep sleep and times of trauma to the physical body, the astral body ‘leaves’ the physical body and will hover near it. Upon death of the physical body, the astral body leaves the field of the physical plane and travels to the astral plane (the point in the core NDE experience where they transfer from the world of doctors and resuscitation activities into a non-earthly realm). There they may see other astral entities (deceased relatives, etc.). In the unusual case where the demise of the physical body is not permanent they must reluctantly (for duty calls) leave their more beautiful and peaceful astral realm and return to their physical body.

Eventually, after eons, we lose all these sheaths and merge into God (which we always were but didn’t know it as we were under the illusion (maya) that the realm we are in is the only real realm; eventually as some mystics do, we can enlighten and see through the illusion that ‘Brahman alone is real’.

I apologize for going on a tangent and that is not the world’s best explanation and others can do better. I felt continuing the lines of our nde discussion was not going to get us anywhere new.

Thank you for that explanation. It gives me (probably us) a good idea of your thinking on the matter. Now, in your view, this explains the experiences like the one we've been talking about. I agree that it does fit the story, so that it could be the explanation. However, I'm looking for something from the story (or any story, for that matter) that points necessarily to this explanation rather than the simple one I laid out in my last post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Consciousness is all One/God/Brahman. We humans are a ray/spark of this Oneness encased in five sheaths (bodies). The outermost sheath is the physical body and allows us to operate in the physical realm. The next sheath (body) most close to the physical is in some circles called the astral body. In normal consciousness the astral body interpenetrates and interconnects with the physical body. In deep sleep and times of trauma to the physical body, the astral body ‘leaves’ the physical body and will hover near it. Upon death of the physical body, the astral body leaves the field of the physical plane and travels to the astral plane (the point in the core NDE experience where they transfer from the world of doctors and resuscitation activities into a non-earthly realm). There they may see other astral entities (deceased relatives, etc.). In the unusual case where the demise of the physical body is not permanent they must reluctantly (for duty calls) leave their more beautiful and peaceful astral realm and return to their physical body.

Eventually, after eons, we lose all these sheaths and merge into God (which we always were but didn’t know it as we were under the illusion (maya) that the realm we are in is the only real realm; eventually as some mystics do, we can enlighten and see through the illusion that ‘Brahman alone is real’.

I apologize for going on a tangent and that is not the world’s best explanation and others can do better. I felt continuing the lines of our nde discussion was not going to get us anywhere new.

Okay... so what makes you think that this is the "most reasonable" explanation?

For starters, what evidence or observations suggest to you that an "astral plane" exists? Does it interact with the physical plane? Does it suggest any falsifiable predictions (i.e. statement of the form "if an astral plane exists, we would expect to see X" or "if an astral plane did not exist, we would expect to see Y" where X and Y are thjngs we can actually observe or measure)?

 

[George-ananda]

But the "knowing details and conversations while under general anesthesia" part has a perfectly normal explanation. Besides being under general anesthesia is not a near-death experience. It's just sleeping basically. In the case you presented, there were two details like this that were the key to making it strongly suggestive of the paranormal. Each one is easily explained without the paranormal, leaving the story as just a woman's account of stuff that happened while she was unconscious that can't be verified. So, the question is, at that point, what makes it strongly suggestive of the paranormal?



Why would it be surprising? If you mean her recollecting what the nurses said, she was basically just asleep at that time, meaning she could still hear and process things, just as Penguin pointed out with his clock radio. Such details are only meaningful if she was in the near-death state she later entered during the surgery.



Your explanation doesn't make sense. All she did was relay some things she heard while unconscious along with a detail she could have picked up before the surgery began and a dream where she thinks she saw dead people. I mean, it's extremely normal. Before the surgery began, she saw some of the instruments and probably noticed the saw. They put her under anesthesia, and she heard some things the nurses and doctor said before she went into the near-death state, which she was in for only a few minutes. At some point she had what amounted to a dream. There is no evidence to suggest this very reasonable and easy explanation is not the correct one.



You seem to be ignoring one of my main points. I'm not dropping anything. I've already addressed a couple times the fact that the details and conversations she recalled are easily explained by the fact that she was only under anesthesia at the time, not near death (meaning it's perfectly possible for her brain to process things her ears pick up) and she could easily have seen operating instruments before the surgery began. I've now said this several times just in this post, along with at least once in the post you were responding to.

That was my whole point with that post, to point this out and then point out that that leaves only a subjective recollection of what's most likely a sort of dream. So, I wonder how you could read that post without realizing that I blatantly addressed this already.



You don't call it easy because your mind is already set that these stories have merit, and the phenomenon they supposedly support is already a fact to you. Whether you will let yourself admit it or not, the fact is the easy explanation is that she saw the instruments before the surgery and she was only under general anesthesia when she heard the conversations, meaning it's entirely reasonable for her to recall things from that period. Then she had a sort of dream. If you want to believe it's something more, you can, but the facts don't support you.

"Doing that" on a whole body of other stories is the only way to figure out whether we should believe that there's anything paranormal going on. We look at the details to see whether there is anything about them that necessitates more than a non-paranormal explanation. You choose not to scrutinize them to any real degree because you like the conclusion that paranormal phenomena are true. I don't have any special attachment to it either way, so I choose to look at them objectively. It just so happens that every one of these stories that gets brought up ends up with the same types of problems as this one.

OK, so what you are looking for are veridical stories with details that cannot in any reasonable way have a natural explanation. Here’s a few cases I found quickly by searching on the internet.

Example 1: An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs.

Example 3: In another instance a woman with a heart condition was dying at the same time that her sister was in a diabetic coma in another part of the same hospital. The subject reported having a conversation with her sister as both of them hovered near the ceiling watching the medical team work on her body below. When the woman awoke, she told the doctor that her sister had died while her own resuscitation was taking place. The doctor denied it, but when she insisted, he had a nurse check on it. The sister had, in fact, died during the time in question.

Example 4: A dying girl left her body and into another room in the hospital where she found her older sister crying and saying:


"Oh, Kathy, please don't die, please don't die."
The older sister was quite baffled when, later, Kathy told her exactly where she had been and what she had been saying during this time.


All I can give you here is a few shavings of ice from an iceberg. On the internet you can get more than you’ll want if it’s a subject you would like to learn more about.

And here’s also a little something I found about the hallucination theory you guys are proposing:

Hallucinations are usually illogical, fleeting, bizarre, and/or distorted, whereas the vast majority of NDEs are logical, orderly, clear, and comprehensible. People tend to forget their hallucinations, whereas most NDEs remain vivid for decades. Furthermore, NDEs often lead to profound and permanent transformations in personality, attitudes, beliefs and values, something that is never seen following hallucinations. People looking back on hallucinations typically recognize them as unreal, as fantasies, whereas, people often describe their NDEs as “more real than real.” Further, people who have experienced both hallucinations and an NDE describe them as being quite different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, so what you are looking for are veridical stories with details that cannot in any reasonable way have a natural explanation. Here’s a few cases I found quickly by searching on the internet.

Example 1: An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs.

Example 3: In another instance a woman with a heart condition was dying at the same time that her sister was in a diabetic coma in another part of the same hospital. The subject reported having a conversation with her sister as both of them hovered near the ceiling watching the medical team work on her body below. When the woman awoke, she told the doctor that her sister had died while her own resuscitation was taking place. The doctor denied it, but when she insisted, he had a nurse check on it. The sister had, in fact, died during the time in question.

Example 4: A dying girl left her body and into another room in the hospital where she found her older sister crying and saying:


"Oh, Kathy, please don't die, please don't die."
The older sister was quite baffled when, later, Kathy told her exactly where she had been and what she had been saying during this time.


All I can give you here is a few shavings of ice from an iceberg. On the internet you can get more than you’ll want if it’s a subject you would like to learn more about.

Speaking for myself, if you want me to give any weight to these at all, you'll have to give a source. There's a lot of crap on the internet.

And here’s also a little something I found about the hallucination theory you guys are proposing:

Hallucinations are usually illogical, fleeting, bizarre, and/or distorted, whereas the vast majority of NDEs are logical, orderly, clear, and comprehensible. People tend to forget their hallucinations, whereas most NDEs remain vivid for decades. Furthermore, NDEs often lead to profound and permanent transformations in personality, attitudes, beliefs and values, something that is never seen following hallucinations. People looking back on hallucinations typically recognize them as unreal, as fantasies, whereas, people often describe their NDEs as “more real than real.” Further, people who have experienced both hallucinations and an NDE describe them as being quite different.

So... you're arguing "NDEs aren't like average hallucinations, therefore magic"?

I have a feeling that there's a fair bit of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy going on here. People have a variety of experiences when they're near death, but only some of them are considered "near death experiences", and the criteria is based on similarity to an "archetypal" NDE. So yes, things that have been singled out based on their similarity will be similar.

 

[George-ananda]

Okay... so what makes you think that this is the "most reasonable" explanation?

IMO, Fully natural explanations can’t explain veridical details.

IMO, The hallucination theory has many problems (some pointed out in the previous post)

I also think my position on nde’s is the most reasonable one because I accept the eastern view of the universe for multiple reasons. It makes sense of many types of paranormal phenomenon beyond just the nde (reincarnational memories, communication from the deceased, etc., etc.). But more importantly, I accept the vedic/eastern view as it is the school of thought taught and propagated by long lines of masters/gurus/saints whose experience and wisdom I have carefully decided to accept. They tell us they know from direct experience of reality, not from trusting what others say. Let me name-drop Prahmahansa Yogananda, Sai Baba, VIvekannda, Ramana Maharishi, Ramakrishna, and many other as IMO self-realized saints.

For starters, what evidence or observations suggest to you that an "astral plane" exists?

A variety of different paranormal phenomenon (nde being one) and consistent observations of many spiritually advanced (IMO) people.

Does it interact with the physical plane?

Yes, subtly.

Does it suggest any falsifiable predictions (i.e. statement of the form "if an astral plane exists, we would expect to see X" or "if an astral plane did not exist, we would expect to see Y" where X and Y are thjngs we can actually observe or measure)?

Ok here you’re getting into what we in the west call mainstream ‘Science’. At this point in time, ‘Science’ can not detect things beyond the physical plane with the five physical senses or physical instruments. It’s still like ‘picking up an atom with a tweezer’.

I, like a reasonable person, am pro-Science. My position is that Science has advanced well, in the areas it can explore with the ‘Scientific’ method but at this time it is correct for it to stay agnostic on spiritual matters.

In summary, these are my opinions. No one can claim the rigorous certainty of the ‘Scientific’ method on any spiritual matter. So. our choices are to be agnostic (probably for the rest of our lifetimes) or we can consider and form opinions from sources not amenable to the scientific method.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, so what you are looking for are veridical stories with details that cannot in any reasonable way have a natural explanation. Here’s a few cases I found quickly by searching on the internet.

Example 1: An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs.

Example 3: In another instance a woman with a heart condition was dying at the same time that her sister was in a diabetic coma in another part of the same hospital. The subject reported having a conversation with her sister as both of them hovered near the ceiling watching the medical team work on her body below. When the woman awoke, she told the doctor that her sister had died while her own resuscitation was taking place. The doctor denied it, but when she insisted, he had a nurse check on it. The sister had, in fact, died during the time in question.

Example 4: A dying girl left her body and into another room in the hospital where she found her older sister crying and saying:


"Oh, Kathy, please don't die, please don't die."
The older sister was quite baffled when, later, Kathy told her exactly where she had been and what she had been saying during this time.

We've talked about these before when you posted the exact same thing from the same site (although you should really link to it, so as not to be guilty of plagiarism).

I think the problem I had before was that these aren't verified. All we have is the accounts from the people who had the experiences, and even then we only have them through a third party, Raymond Moody. As usual, they sound great. But I can't really give them any weight until there is more support for them, which I can't find. I could read his book that includes them, but I don't have much time for reading these days. I also doubt I'd find solid evidence supporting the stories. I'm guessing it would just be him relaying the stories people have told him.

All I can give you here is a few shavings of ice from an iceberg. On the internet you can get more than you’ll want if it’s a subject you would like to learn more about.

We've gone over this before too. I'm not much interested in digging up stories myself. You have claimed to be an authority on the subject, having done a lot of research. You can provide the examples you find most convincing and we can talk about them. Of course, as I pointed out before, for someone who's supposedly done so much research on the subject, you don't seem to have much in the way of solid stories to back up your view.

And here’s also a little something I found about the hallucination theory you guys are proposing:

Hallucinations are usually illogical, fleeting, bizarre, and/or distorted, whereas the vast majority of NDEs are logical, orderly, clear, and comprehensible. People tend to forget their hallucinations, whereas most NDEs remain vivid for decades. Furthermore, NDEs often lead to profound and permanent transformations in personality, attitudes, beliefs and values, something that is never seen following hallucinations. People looking back on hallucinations typically recognize them as unreal, as fantasies, whereas, people often describe their NDEs as “more real than real.” Further, people who have experienced both hallucinations and an NDE describe them as being quite different.

I'm not sure where this came from, but it's a little too vague with no support. The fact is people who've done drugs like PCP report visions very similar to a lot of NDEs.

Scientists have found that the drugs ketamine and PCP can create sensations in users that are nearly identical to many NDEs. In fact, some users think they are actually dying while on the drug [ref].

Link

It seems more like you're trying to find distinctions where they don't exist.

 

[Magic Man]

IMO, Fully natural explanations can’t explain veridical details.

They can in all the cases I've come across and that we've discussed. Or at least the cases in which they can't explain them are unverified and purely anecdotal.

IMO, The hallucination theory has many problems (some pointed out in the previous post)

The problems you pointed out aren't legitimate, though, and from a realistic standpoint, the hallucination theory has no real problems.

Yes, subtly.

Good, then we should be able to test these interactions scientifically and find evidence supporting them. Can you point us in the direction of any such evidence?

Ok here you’re getting into what we in the west call mainstream ‘Science’. At this point in time, ‘Science’ can not detect things beyond the physical plane with the five physical senses or physical instruments. It’s still like ‘picking up an atom with a tweezer’.

You just said the astral plane interacts with the physical one. That can be tested by science. Aside from that, claiming something can't be tested by science is admitting it is irrational and unreasonable.

In summary, these are my opinions. No one can claim the rigorous certainty of the ‘Scientific’ method on any spiritual matter. So. our choices are to be agnostic (probably for the rest of our lifetimes) or we can consider and form opinions from sources not amenable to the scientific method.

Sure, you can choose to believe things that have no evidence whatsoever. I choose not to do that, since it's not a good way to determine what's true and what's false.

 

[George-ananda]

The fact is people who've done drugs like PCP report visions very similar to a lot of NDEs.

The theory goes that some drugs screw with the physical brain which disrupts the normal interconnection between the physical and astral. Some similarities to the nde are to be expected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO, Fully natural explanations can’t explain veridical details.

Such as?

IMO, The hallucination theory has many problems (some pointed out in the previous post)

It's not just a matter of "hallucination"; it's also a matter of physiological responses. For instance, euphoria, tunnel vision, and "white outs" are all symptoms of hypoxia (oxygen deprivation of the brain or the body as a whole). These are also "classic" characteristics of an NDE.

And research points to a physical cause for another classic characteristic of an NDE: it appears that our sense of "self" - i.e. our ability to differentiate between "me" and "the outside world" - is rooted in a certain region of the brain, and when that region stops functioning (e.g. because of injury), the person loses the ability to figure out where their "self" ends and instead feels connected to everything. Does this sound familiar to you? Would you expect this region of the brain to keep functioning perfectly as the brain as a whole is dying?

I also think my position on nde’s is the most reasonable one because I accept the eastern view of the universe for multiple reasons. It makes sense of many types of paranormal phenomenon beyond just the nde (reincarnational memories, communication from the deceased, etc., etc.).

Trying to apply your model broadly just means that there are more points where it ought to be testable. At some point, it becomes decidedly unreasonable to think that there's good reason for it when time and time again, it proves to be untestable.

But more importantly, I accept the vedic/eastern view as it is the school of thought taught and propagated by long lines of masters/gurus/saints whose experience and wisdom I have carefully decided to accept. They tell us they know from direct experience of reality, not from trusting what others say. Let me name-drop Prahmahansa Yogananda, Sai Baba, VIvekannda, Ramana Maharishi, Ramakrishna, and many other as IMO self-realized saints.

I hope you realize the irony in this statement.

A variety of different paranormal phenomenon (nde being one) and consistent observations of many spiritually advanced (IMO) people.

It's rather circular to cite phenomena like NDEs as "paranormal" in your case for why NDEs should be considered paranormal.

Yes, subtly.

Can you give a specific example?

Ok here you’re getting into what we in the west call mainstream ‘Science’. At this point in time, ‘Science’ can not detect things beyond the physical plane with the five physical senses or physical instruments. It’s still like ‘picking up an atom with a tweezer’.

Actually, this is what we in the west (and everywhere else I'm familiar with) call "critical thinking", and no claim is exempt from it.

I, like a reasonable person, am pro-Science.

Your arguments on RF suggest otherwise.

My position is that Science has advanced well, in the areas it can explore with the ‘Scientific’ method but at this time it is correct for it to stay agnostic on spiritual matters.

In summary, these are my opinions. No one can claim the rigorous certainty of the ‘Scientific’ method on any spiritual matter. So. our choices are to be agnostic (probably for the rest of our lifetimes) or we can consider and form opinions from sources not amenable to the scientific method.

All I'm asking for is a reasonable standard of rationality. If you cannot meet it, then it would be irrational to accept your claims. Making bizarre claims about how your beliefs are somehow exempt from science doesn't change this.

 

[George-ananda]

You just said the astral plane interacts with the physical one. That can be tested by science.

No, not if it is beyond detection by any current physical instrument.

Aside from that, claiming something can't be tested by science is admitting it is irrational and unreasonable.

Wait. Before we had equipment to measure cosmic radiation was belief in cosmic radiation 'irrational and unreasonable'?

Sure, you can choose to believe things that have no evidence whatsoever. I choose not to do that, since it's not a good way to determine what's true and what's false.

Still 'no evidence whatsoever'? :thud:

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, not if it is beyond detection by any current physical instrument.

Let me explain the response to this in the next bit.

Wait. Before we had equipment to measure cosmic radiation was belief in cosmic radiation 'irrational and unreasonable'?

Yes It would be folly to believe in it. Its folly to believe in it now. It is not folly to adhere to whats true in the face of evidence. No one "believes" in cosmic radiation in the sense that they hold it to be true just because. There is no belief but what can be supported by evidence. IT doesn't maker certain things true or untrue but its the best we've got.

Still 'no evidence whatsoever'? :thud:

Yes. Anecdotes and testimony evidence does not make.

 

[Magic Man]

The theory goes that some drugs screw with the physical brain which disrupts the normal interconnection between the physical and astral. Some similarities to the nde are to be expected.

Ah, so now you're cobbling together explanations, huh? This could explain that phenomenon, but it's less reasonable than the obvious: that PCP and these hallucinations are both just unusual brain activity.

 

[Magic Man]

No, not if it is beyond detection by any current physical instrument.

If something interacts with the physical plane, it can be tested.

Wait. Before we had equipment to measure cosmic radiation was belief in cosmic radiation 'irrational and unreasonable'?

No. Were there people making claims about cosmic radiation before we could measure it? If so, it's probably because they could detect its effects on other things the way we should be able to detect the astral plane's effects on the physical plane.

For instance, right now science acknowledges dark matter and dark energy. We don't know much about them, and we can't measure them yet. But there are certain phenomena in the universe that can't be explained any other way, so they have termed what must be causing those things "dark energy" and "dark matter".

If there truly was a phenomenon we couldn't explain pertaining to these NDEs, even if we couldn't yet detect the astral plane or measure it, it would still be acknowledged as something that must exist. So far, there is no serious evidence that an astral plane must exist. Everything that is used as evidence for it that I know of can easily be explained through natural means. So, it's still irrational to believe the astral plane is causing these phenomena.

Still 'no evidence whatsoever'? :thud:

Correct. All you've provided are some stories. One didn't hold up to investigation, and the others are no more than anecdotes with no real support. You still haven't provided anything that necessitates a paranormal explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes It would be folly to believe in it. Its folly to believe in it now. It is not folly to adhere to whats true in the face of evidence. No one "believes" in cosmic radiation in the sense that they hold it to be true just because.

Now the error in the above is the claiming that I believe 'just because'. Contrary to your opinion I believe the paranormal evidence suggests it and the teachings of masters whose advancement I have come to believe is further than mine support it. That's a lot more than 'just because'.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Now the error in the above is the claiming that I believe 'just because'. Contrary to your opinion I believe the paranormal evidence suggests it and the teachings of masters whose advancement I have come to believe is further than mine support it. That's a lot more than 'just because'.

What is the paranormal evidence? And what teachings from whom exactly?

 

[George-ananda]

Ah, so now you're cobbling together explanations, huh? This could explain that phenomenon, but it's less reasonable than the obvious: that PCP and these hallucinations are both just unusual brain activity.

And what does unusual brain activity mean when science doesn't yet understand normal consciousness. Normal consciousness, in hindu/eastern spirituality, involves both astral and mental bodies.

 

[George-ananda]

What is the paranormal evidence?

The paranormal evidence from a host of areas that I believe support belief in spiritual realms that you do not accept as evidence. Such as the nde, reincarnational memories, spirit communication, etc..

And what teachings

The teachings on super-physical realms from the eastern/Hindu tradition that you don't accept and I do.

from whom exactly?

The many advanced/enlightened masters of the eastern/Hindu school of thought that you don't accept. Let me name-drop Prahmahansa Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Sai Baba, Vivekananda, etc.

 

[George-ananda]

For instance, right now science acknowledges dark matter and dark energy. We don't know much about them, and we can't measure them yet. But there are certain phenomena in the universe that can't be explained any other way, so they have termed what must be causing those things "dark energy" and "dark matter".

Could what some spiritualists call 'astral matter' be part of what some scientists call 'dark matter'?