Near-death experiences are reported across cultures, with written records of them dating back to ancient Greece. Not all of these experiences actually coincide with brushes with death—one study of 58 patients who recounted near-death experiences found 30 were not actually in danger of dying, although most of them thought they were. (1)
The Near Death Experience Research Foundation- nderf.org – has thousands of published experiences, but those studied must meet certain criteria to be considered ‘near death’.
One compelling case was a child born blind who, during the experience, described vivid details, colors, shapes, and patterns she had never encountered since birth. A blind person describing colors is a phenomenon alone.
Considering NDEs from both a medical perspective and logically, it should not be possible for unconscious people to often report highly lucid experiences that are clear and logically structured. Most NDErs report supernormal consciousness at the time of their NDEs. Article HERE
TheCommonAtheist 
Authentic experiences, or the result of an oxygen starved brain…?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Somewhere between 10-20 seconds after the heart stops, so does measurable brain activity. This is when the criteria is met for the study. It also happens when people “think” they’re going to die or have a brush with death. Even on life support when their is no measurable brain activity, doesn’t mean there isn’t. Just means we cannot measure it.
The descriptions from the blind girl are compelling though. Where does that come from?
LikeLiked by 2 people
how could she describe what she “saw” if she had never experienced seeing color or shape?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Evidently when she was drowned and before resuscitation, a lady clothed in light took her on a tour of the surrounding area and she could see things vividly. She described them after her resuscitation.
LikeLike
what I’m asking is how does she know what she saw. Can someone who never has seen the color purple describe it without refering to other color?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t think so, but people born blind cannot comprehend those things until they see them. Even color blind people who see color for the first time are pretty emotional. But I assume they would have to be taught what each color is, I would imagine. This is not an isolated incident. There are others. I don’t know the answer. That’s why I posted it. If I assume to much I would be guilty of bias.
LikeLike
I cannot even describe the colour Red or any of its shades, they were all taught to me by a mother with cataracts. Now all I see is red, red and more red. But could anyone describe red in English? Only by pointing to colour can the mind learn which colour is which.
The only way a colour-blind person can discover they are colour-blind is by someone telling them what they call red is green to everyone else. But how do we now they aren’t the ones seeing true colour?
In other words,a colour is what we say it is, while we just learned it from our teachers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
a color is what the wavelength is. How we perceive it is another issue.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I cannot see a wavelength. Your description is meaningless to me.
LikeLike
you do see in wavelengths. That is what activates your optic nerve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do wavelengths we don’t see activate our optic nerve?
LikeLike
evidently not in the same way, if at all. of course I’ve just went down a rabbit hole about this subject since I’m a research addict 🙂 There are things like luminous efficiency, and perceptive efficiency and lots of things that, well, it’s been a very long time since I did anything with optics.
and here is quite a thing about photoreceptors that aren’t part of vision: https://cltc.ucdavis.edu/sites/default/files/files/publication/6-melinda-lagarce-effects-of-ambient-light-wavelengths_0.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
Read my lips, I, not my eyes, do not see wavelengths. They are invisible to my mind. The brain changes them into things. I see things, coloured things, but “I” do not see wavelengths.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and rawgod is making nonsense up again.
LikeLike
Everybody has a role to play. Some serious, some not so serious, some flippant, some sincere. Who can think differently that they do regarding what stimuli caught their focus? Whatever the case it’s a great game!
LikeLike
Sorry, Jim. I am not sure what you are talking about.
LikeLike
Everyone has a game to play—whatever makes them happy. We are the product of years of stimuli where you found your niche to get a feeling one-up on your insoluble problems. Same as everyone else. Who can decide or do differently than they do? This is not a serious game, although some take it so. If you know evolution, there is nothing going on that is not our best chance at survival. Unless you think you can outsmart your own physiology.
LikeLike
And you are still stuck in your science. Can you please draw me a picture of the wavelengths you see?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And you are still stuck in your science. ”
oh my. well, RG, best you don’t use your computer, modern medicine, modern food stuffs, GPS, etc anymore. I wouldn’t want you “stuck in my science”.
And yep, I can draw a picture of the wavelengths I see. I can draw a picture of a red apple, a purple bunch of grapes, and a yellow banana since they are reflecting those wavelengths which impinge on my optic nerve and that is what gives them their color.
LikeLike
If you are drawing apples, grapes,or bananas, you are drawing things, not wavelengths. Apples, etc, look nothing like waves. Only waves look like waves, but their lengths vary, even though they are all blue, sometimes with white froth on top of them. Next you are going to tell me you can hear wavelengths too, because you hear distinct sounds. Sounds I can hear, wavelengths I cannot. But this makes me wonder, why cannot I see sound, or hear colours?
LikeLike
wow, just wow. Well, you do show that not only crazy theist are addled.
and if I said I could draw waves, you’d claim they weren’t real lightwave lengths. 😀 and all waves aren’t blue, and you come across as a moron, not funny.
Sounds are waves too, and like the eyes, they are received by your auditory nerves and heard.
“But this makes me wonder, why cannot I see sound, or hear colours?”
Hate to tell you dear, light waves are made of photos, and sound waves are compression of the air.
Again, just amazing how ridiculous you are in your continued need to pretend how special you are.
LikeLike
If you ever learn how to read between the lines, you will not respond to the words, but to the meanings behind the words. But like your waves, and wavelengths, you are stuck in a box, and will never know reality. I do pity you.
But again, you call me theist. I am not connected in any way to theism. I am a spiritual atheist, another thing that is impossible in your world, but more than possible in mine. I know you have no respect for me, but at least get your facts straight.
LikeLike
::facepalm:: Yep, one more human who makes up nonsense and tries to make themselves special. Spiritual, theist, little difference
LikeLiked by 1 person
Huge difference, but you’ll never know it.
LikeLike
no difference at all.
LikeLike
By the way, the most amazing thing about your eyes, they see capital letters where there are none. rawgod is spelled totally as small letters, no capitals, yet you see what you want to see. There is no “RG,” as you like to think, only rg, as my friends already know, and respect.
LikeLike
wow, I used caps since I was using an abbreviation/acronym. Standard practice.
just amazing
LikeLike
How would YOU describe a color?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought I knew what colours were, but what I saw during my non-NDE were COLOURS PERSONIFIED and I had no eyes. The girl had heard the word colour, so when she saw what she experienced, she had a word to describe it. She probably did not try to name colours–that I would find questionable–but I believe she could have had this experience.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Great comment!
LikeLike
The case of the little girl is interesting but i think an explanation is possible
LikeLiked by 3 people
Do you have an idea or explanation? Are there negative brain waves we are not detecting? What puzzles me is I wonder how many survivors of NDE would have survived without resuscitation efforts? Did people not get the decision to return to their bodies before CPR was discovered?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which explanation would you accept? Are you looking for confirmation to a presupposition or will you believe what the evidence reveals?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The one that makes the least assumptions and does not involve the supernatural as its basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sincere question. What if the explanation is supernatural? Or what if what we call supernatural (as in mystical) is actually more of nature that we don’t understand now. These NDEs indicate at least the possibility of life apart from the body, a spiritual life, a continuation of he individual consciousness. Hence I wonder why you would dismiss a “supernatural” explanation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How would a supernatural explanation differ from a miraculous explanation? And once miracles are involved, I defer to Hume on miracles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we were to discover that the supernatural is actually an extension of nature itself and as understandable as the (limited) nature we know within our birth to death parameters then it would no longer be super-natural nor miraculous. I am thinking like the transfer of the soul (individual consciousness) that Cameron imagined in the movie Avatar. Just saying that maybe the explanation on NDEs would be one that expands the understanding of nature to include the continuation of the individual conscience. Why exclude the possibility other than for not wanting there to be such a thing? I’m just saying that I think not wanting something to be true is a poor basis (admittedly one I struggle to avoid or dismantle) for scientific investigation (such as the one cited by jim)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why exclude the possibility other than for not wanting there to be such a thing? — And is the opposite not true as well?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you mean that if we discover emphatically that individual consciousness ends at physical death then certainly, yep.
LikeLike
Not quite what I meant. Let me elaborate. Remember, we’re talking about possibilities.
One doesn’t want there to be such a thing so they exclude the possibility. On the opposite side, one DOES want there to be such a thing so they include the possibility.
What it boils down to is personal belief — and not just about near-death experiences. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
Then it would not be supernatural, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Exactly. It would mean that what we consider supernatural now isn’t that at all but part of the fabric of being. However, now we have these experiences that seem beyond what is defined as natural. We call these supernatural. Some deny the validity of those experiences and will only accept explanations found in what is the generally accepted physical and material nature of things. The existence of an afterlife is deemed supernatural or imaginary as is the idea of a supreme being or heaven and hell. Why could not these things also be found to be a part of existence? Can we exclude them as possible future realization or does every phenomenon have to pivot on our current prejudice? In other words does the explanation for NDEs you suppose will arise have to be in the limited terms of what we now define nature to be? Or could these be leaders into a broader natural reality that includes ongoing existence and the existence of other higher (and lower) conscious beings?
LikeLiked by 2 people
In this case it seems your belief is affecting your judgement on *what is*. I believe our knowledge of things is provisional and is subject to improvement. I have not seen an explanation that is supernatural, maybe you have an example?
LikeLike
That’s what I’m saying. Maybe the explanation is that the afterlife is natural, not supernatural. Maybe NDEs could be construed as evidence that nature extends beyond material things or before them, that it is a spectrum of being beyond birth and death of the body. Am I right that you believe any idea about afterlife or higher beings is supernatural and therefore invalid? How does one write it off without knowing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What evidence do you have for an afterlife or other beings? Why should i entertain a belief i have no way of knowing whether they exist or not?
LikeLike
To this I can only say, having been to my there, it is much different from your there, so at the very least there must be many fabrics of being.
LikeLike
And no, you misunderstand me. It is not that I don’t want there to be such a thing, such a supernatural explanation has not been provided for anything.
LikeLike
This experience can be demonstrated and recreated in a laboratory setting. Mess with the neurons and one can see just about anything. Even themselves
LikeLike
A lab is going too far. Psychedelic drugs do the same thing. Maybe even better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure. Even carbon monoxide is quicker and more assessable and produces visions and audio hallucinations.
LikeLike
As one who has met Jesus the Christ in a very real and tangible vision, I have already an explanation. These ndes are previews to the afterlife. Science is based on observation and experience. My experience is not wishful thinking. I wasn’t physically dead when I had the encounter but in many other ways I was “lost”. So reading the article confirms for me the things I have come to understand about life and specifically the spirit. Just so you know, I have spent a lot of time and thought trying to discern the make-believe articles of religion from my true experience. The process continues and convictions grow as my understanding changes.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean to post this anonymously. It is my post 🤠
LikeLiked by 1 person
So after being culturally conditioned to see what you saw, what else would you see. The after a lifetime of mental wrangling it now makes perfect sense.
“Then if anyone says unto you lo, here is Christ or there, do not believe it” Mt 23
LikeLike
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Could you elaborate? Are you saying my experience is invalid? Are you saying my encounter was an hallucination or imaginary? Also, I don’t understand your point with the Jesus quote.
LikeLike
You say you saw Jesus. His quote from Matthew says that’s not gonna happen. Your a false prophet.
In times of trauma or euphoria (which can be triggered by a lie, btw) emotions which are strictly hormones norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin, produce unreliable visions, mostly of preconditioned, cultural norms. If you were born in Saudi Arabia you’d be praising Allah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Humph. First I didn’t say he was located anywhere. I didn’t tell you where to find Christ or what to believe about him. Then without knowing much about me or the experience I had you proceed to diagnose my experience as an illness and prognose it’s causes, presumably to help me overcome my delirium. This is certainly out of character for one who I consider to be broadminded and gracious. I do praise Allah by the way. I spent the last 12 years of my career in a Muslim community. I was even deemed a true believer a “true Muslim” by one of my dearest friends and someone that I think is very spiritual. I consider that one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me. So yes, if I was in an Arabic speaking country I would, as a Christian, praise Allah. Have you read any accounts of Muslims coming to faith in Jesus through dreams or visions? There are many and some that occurred without missionary contact or other Christian influence. I see a similarity between the NDEs, my personal experience and many other accounts across the globe.
It’s a Christian site but you might be interested in it. https://lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives-php/595/01-2007
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry if that came over a little strong, Frederic. I was simply postulating valid possibilities.
As one who has met Jesus the Christ in a very real and tangible vision, I have already an explanation. I’m curious, how did you know it was Jesus? Did you ask his name, or was there an introduction? Or was it assumed or you “just knew” it was him? I have a friend that had a similar experience and when she asked the robed man his name, it was Qin Shi Huang of the first dynasty. He said she was of his people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HA-HA, Jim! You missed it … in a very real and tangible vision (emphasis mine).
You know you can’t ask questions of visions!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Long story short. I was sitting at the edge of the Soria reservoir in the mountains of Grand Canary Island as was my custom at the end of each day. I had finished “washing” my dishes with sand and water and nested them the on the beach beside me. As I gazed at the wonderful rock formations across the water, the setting sun giving me its evening episode, a strange thing happened. It was nearly instantaneous but I was very aware of each moment. First I perceived something like a clear wave, like one sees in a mirage, between me and the the rocks. Before it really registered, it zoomed toward me and enveloped me with an very warm, comforting emotion, one of calm and lightness to the point of humor. I was pretty dumbfounded as I remember it. But from somewhere within me came the question, “Who are you?” apparently directed at the presence enveloping me. Then I heard the answer, “I am Jesus.” In that moment I “saw” the essence (best way I can describe it) of a kind and cheerful youngish man of no specific ethnicity. Even stronger than this was a clear understanding of what I had until now not believed or understood and found difficult about the gospel story. It was revelatory. At once I understood in detail what the gospel and salvation was about.
It was weeks later that I decided to follow Jesus and go to a church. My journey into and through church(es) is another important part of my journey as I have intimated elsewhere. Suffice it to say I believe the church is made up of and is subordinate to people, not visa versa. I don’t believe the bible is the Word of God. I have come to love it because its authors bear witness (albeit somewhat imperfectly and often subjectively as I am doing now!)to the Word of God whom I met there at the lake. So, yes. I did ask his name and he did introduce himself and yes, I did just seem to know it was true.
Full disclosure: I had a history of drug use including hallucinogens and several bouts of mental illness. I suffered identity issues which were exacerbated by said drugs and wandering lifestyle. Even so, my encounter with Jesus was diametrically different than all of that. It was the experience of pure sanity against the backdrop of the terror I tried to express in my previous writing. I was lifted out of an indescribable darkness in about a month’s time. My life was radically and irreversibly changed.
That’s amazing about your friend. I was playing scrabble with my wife on what happened to be my deceased father’s birthday. I pulled 7 letters from the bag. E L T O N we’re the first 5. My dads name was Elton. Chills. (I do believe in accidental coincidence btw, but that was uncanny)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. There is often a difficult line to understand real and not real. I have another close friend that was cured of his alcoholism by Jesus, yet he is in perpetual recovery and still attends AA meetings. That’s not cured, in case you didn’t catch that. But he thinks so. How does one know the difference?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed!
LikeLike
Can people not suspend disbelief for just a few minutes and stop trying to use science to explain what science can never experience?.
William said it beautifully:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Don’t believe or disbelieve, just listen. Unless you listen you cannot learn…
LikeLike
As I have said before, I have spent over 50 years trying to understand my experience. I came from probably a very similar culture as George did, yet I saw none of the things he did. Still, what I saw was just as incredulous, only I had the experience and then I tried to make sense of it, I did not try to fit it into a preconditioned framework. It was spiritual, but it certainly was not religious in any way.
I generally hate quotations, I love to depend on my own thoughts, ideas, and understandings, but since I already used one quotation on this post, I think I will use another:
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign of Four (Sherlock Holmes to Watson)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw the title and thought I was about to read about the fire tearing through your property. Glad that isn’t the article.
We’ve just had to put down two animals in this last week (a shitty week if there ever was one), and it’s a curious thing — even though they are in the deepest of deepest comas (and never regain consciousness), when the final chemical takes hold and the brain realises it’s in real trouble it fires off with everything it has, ignites everything, and the body [seemingly] snaps back to life in one last effort to keep the brain alive.
Isn’t this sort of what’s happening in NDE’s?
LikeLiked by 2 people
We had another fire since we spoke. I hope we can catch this asshole, although his fire starting is as natural for him as a tsunami. What else could he do besides that? Happy I don’t have his disposition.
Sorry about the pets, John. Your hypothesis is pretty right on. The body throws everything at this brain of ours to hang on for survival. The other part is the recovery process. It’s not instant, and slowly but surely it comes back to life. Who knows which side of this is the most important?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with your point. He is not cured (or delivered as I would term being no longer subject to a compulsive behavior as opposed to cure of a physical disease) either way it’s a good thing though an actual cure is always truly exhilarating! I guess it’s a matter of experience and perspective as to the terms one uses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He argues he was cured by Jesus. Completely convinced! That is why one must trust the opinions of another, when it comes to scrutinizing beliefs. Very little can be done to believe and then judge that belief without bias
LikeLiked by 1 person
fascinating subject. i’ve been watching numerous NDEs on youtube, and what i found fascinating is that they are all as unique as each life is. in fact, i feel the person’s experience in NDE is only as much as they can take- you will never be shown more than you can handle, so to say.
also, the tendency is to experience that which the mind was accustomed to during life, so that Christians are likely to see angels and christian motifs and music (like in Dr Eben Alexander’s NDE), an atheist will just experience peace and light (like Jang Jaswal who was totally against any idea of god). you can draw your own conclusion of what this means.
people who undergo NDEs are dramatically changed, and this is beautiful to see. they completely leave behind the materialistic view of the world, they change professions to more caring ones, etc. many come back with healing powers, and most return and make miraculous, unexplained recovery (Dr Eben’s (a neurosurgeon) recovery was called ‘ludicrous’ by his peers. it was scientifically unacceptable!) they wrote a paper on his case.
Click to access Greyson_-Alexander-JNMD-2018.pdf
here is a collection of high-quality NDE’s, from Thanatos TV, for your amusement 😀
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC95WPHh1j9frBR7gyMOuBeQ
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll look at them tonight. An old friend of mine Eric Bunch, just produced a movie about this too. Here’s a trailer
LikeLiked by 1 person
great! i recognize some names here. i’ll be looking for this when it comes out. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just finished that medical review and video. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(1) Very interesting reference Monicat.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(2) As usual, the discussion on this blog is inspiring and full of integrity.
– For my part, I note that most arguments about NDE have an underlying mismatch of perspective or standpoint.
– …Let me backtrack:
– In ordinary everyday life we’re routinely placed in the position where we need to assess the validity of someone else’s experience.
– For ordinary experiences, this doesn’t create problems because the interaction is discursive. It’s mind-to-mind, so to speak. We ultimately don’t need to agree but we have some comfort in being on the same playing field.
– NDE (and spiritual experiences in general) are in a different category; they’re non-discursive, non-transferable, non-mental, possibly super-mental and not rational.
– In this case, NDE skeptics are stuck with a tool (their mind) that is not up to the task.
– This situation seems to invite endless argument, controversy, analysis, and frustration.
– And as with all mindy things, the more clever the arguments become (either pro and con) the more useless and misdirected it all begins to feel.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
– This dynamic would change if more skeptics could broaden the range of their personal experiences of consciousness.
– They don’t need to undergo a NDE — merely take a step away from their familiar mental playing field and move toward more internalized states of consciousness, preferably not drug-induced (but no slur to those who had spiritual experiences via drugs).
– Given a mere whiff of non-mental states of consciousness most rabidly anti-NDE brainiac skeptics would suddenly consider NDE quite plausible.
– The way to catch such glimpses is not via religion and dogma. It’s achieved via consciousness turning in on itself in meditation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
excellent point, to go beyond the mind. one thing that becomes apparent in these cases, is that consciousness is NOT within the brain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
one thing that becomes apparent in these cases, is that consciousness is NOT within the brain.
Well, to be fair to the mountains of evidence that exists, it is.
Traumatic brain injury (stroke, lobotomy’s, crash victims, split brain experiments) can, and do, upend an individual in an instant. Their entire being (their actions, interests, beliefs, likes, dislikes, temperament, motivations, etc.), are profoundly and permanently changed.
If there were a soul, some overarching state of consciousness independent and unique to the brain, then someone’s personality would not (should not) alter (and alter dramatically in many cases) when they suffer brain damage. Their motor functions could be affected, yes, but not their personality.
If one wants to propose the existence of a spirit, then the question they need to answer is: How can spirit represent the person if even some minor cerebral trauma evicts it so completely?
Where *is* spirit here?
LikeLiked by 3 people
(1) monicat was referring to those NDE where experiencers show null brain activity and yet are apparently having stupendous experiences of consciousness. NDE survivor and neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander is an example. After his NDE he became convinced that consciousness is not produced by the brain and that the brain is merely a filter or ‘reducing valve’ for a greater, non-physical consciousness. He similarly believes that memories are not stored in the brain. (2) More importantly, your assumption that a hypothetical ‘spirit’ or overarching consciousness must necessarily be unaffected by the physical brain is far too simplistic. Our sciences are not yet ready to address this question. The super-mental arena, sorry to say, can only be understood using concepts that currently appear in spirituality. See 2018 video of Dr. Alexander with Larry King: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci2npsJIvFc
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sorry, I didn’t see where monicat was referring to NDA’s with recorded null brain activity. Is there a reference to these cases? Be interesting if true.
Alexander is certainly free to propose the ‘reducing valve’ idea, and he might be right (great if he is), but he will still have to answer the question I posed: How can spirit represent the person if even some minor cerebral trauma evicts it so completely?
If it’s not a person’s personality, then what is it?
And here I’m not talking some minor changes in a person’s behaviour after a stroke, or an accident, or a lobotomy, etc. I’m talking about profound changes in their entire personality.
For example, in 2000, a 40-year-old schoolteacher with a perfect record suddenly became a paedophile, trading in child porn and molesting children. After his arrest he complained of imbalance, at which time doctors found an egg-sized tumour. Once it was removed, the man’s uncontrollable urges simply disappeared and he returned to his usual self. But when the tumour regrew in 2001, “its associated nefarious interests returned.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia/
So again, if there were a soul, some overarching state of consciousness independent and unique to the brain, then someone’s personality would not (should not) alter (and alter dramatically in many cases) when they suffer brain damage.
How do you explain this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He similarly believes that memories are not stored in the brain. — And where, pray tell, does he think they are stored? In the cells? Or perhaps in one’s right or left eye since that’s the organ that “sees” the world. Puleeeze.
Our sciences are not yet ready to address this question. — Of course not! Because in this matter, science doesn’t have anything to investigate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certainly some memories are stored in the brain. Stimuli applied to certain regions can stimulate recall but that’s not the end of the story. Where do ideas come from? I think you’ll like my next post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan you were so nice last time I was here. Why so cranky today? 🙂
(1) Note that parameciums have memory (but no brain).
– In addition, they can be put to ‘sleep’ by anaesthetics at the same concentration appropriate to humans. (Ref Dr. Stuart Hameroff of Arizona.edu).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(2) Similarly, please google the following phrase:
Flatworms lose their heads but not their memories
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(3) Finally, please see the works of Roger Penrose (Nobel physics) on consciousness.
– He hypothesizes that ‘understanding’ is a non-computable and non-algorithmic function.
– He and Hameroff have suggested that ‘understanding’ (and consciousness itself) is essentially harvested from space-time via quantum gravity interactions in the neuronal microtubules.
– I don’t expect you to believe these ideas but I hope you can agree that they are wonderful and imaginative ideas and that they go beyond current science.
– The question of non-neuronal memory doesn’t seem so crazy after all.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
PS It seems that a small but non-negligible fraction of heart transplant recipients spontaneously adopt some personality characteristics of their donor. I once read a book about this by USA cardiac transplant surgeon but I can’t seem to find the reference today. There have been other books since and many studies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul Pearsall: The Heart’s Code
(wikipedia on him): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pearsall
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not cranky. I just have considerably more faith in true science than things that “go beyond current science.” I’ve discovered over the years that with enough time and patience, individuals can nearly always find “evidence” to back up their personal perspectives. Yes, there are the occasional “off-beat” cases that seem to defy general science, but overall, the proof tends to be in the pudding. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are merely ounces of proof (theory) in science. Things are not what they appear to be, even admittedly, to the physicist. Sure we can manipulate a few elements, but finding what they’re made of has not gone far.
LikeLike
Of course! It has repeatedly been proven that “science” can only go so far during any given time in history. And yes, in many ways we have only scratched the surface of what could be. Further, imagining and envisioning potentialities can be fascinating and challenging.
But for me personally, I tend to lean towards “what is” and not so much those things that reportedly “go beyond current science.” (Perhaps it has have something to do with why I left Christianity?) 😋
LikeLiked by 1 person
What if “what is” is right under your nose but escapes comprehension because of the way we’ve been trained to understand what our common sense is, but it’s wrong? It’s actually judeo-christian in its view of the world. That makes me pause.
LikeLike
I guess at this point I have to ask … who is it that’s going to determine the “what is”? You and I and others can speculate and imagine, but who has the final say? (Certainly not the church!!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
No not a church at all. There are certain lines of reasoning that we never are privy to here in the west. It’s all really very simple and no hocus pocus. It’s all right in the open. No magic or secret knowledge. It’s just never comes up and it’s really that obvious.
LikeLike
Can you share where in particular?
I agree that we’re “sheltered” from many things simply due to the religious influence in this country, but by the same token, I would be circumspect about accepting just any theory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll try to get to this tonight. Been a hectic work day. It’s not a theory. It’s what there actually is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan: 4 things…
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(1) I really appreciate your point of view (you too Jim).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(2) Your description of inherent bias is spot on. But you do realize that it cuts both ways right?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(3) I disagree with you on the importance of off-beat phenomena.
– If shown to be real (bona fide) such outliers often spark the next revolutionary advance.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(4) Further to the above, it has been said (by a scifi author as I recall) that were a primitive culture to encounter the science and technology of a more advanced culture, it would appear indistinguishable from magic. Thus the flipside to your cautionary approach is that you will miss the gems that point the way forward.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, SN, I don’t think my “cautionary tone” prevents me from anything. I’m just not one to jump into the lake without testing the waters.
I went through a period after leaving the church in which I investigated a multitude of things related to our “spiritual” nature. Some had merit; others definitely did not. Thus, I tend to be rather skeptical when folks (even Jim) start bringing up thoughts/opinions/suggestions that are, for lack of a better word, “debatable.”
I’m willing to consider such ideas but on too many occasions over the years, the “evidence’ has simply been too airy-fairy for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Understood! And commiserated. (I hope that’s a proper use of the term).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bias in 100-fold less prominent by unbelief. Detachment from the beliefs of the masses one can scrutinize with no dog in the fight
LikeLike
the better question is, where is your Beeingness located?
where is That by which you know you are??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, for now, shall we just stick with the question I asked?
LikeLiked by 1 person
sorry, i hadn’t had my coffee yet!
your question implies that personality is somewhat related to consciousness, or *spirit* as you called it. and i ask you, has your personality stayed the same since you were a child and until today? what makes up a “personality”: our likes, deslikes, our tendencies (pedophilia- in the case you mentioned), our talents, our sense of humour, or lack of? do these things stay exactly the same during the course of a life time?
i know mine changed 1001 times. 5 yrs ago i laughed at things today i don’t find funny. i used to be really good at some things that i have no interest in anymore.
point is, personality is not fixed. it changes all the time. consciousness is prior to that. and to give you an example of this: your thoughts arise, and you know it, because you can observe your thought, and follow up with it or even dismiss it.
so tell me, if you can observe your own thoughts, who is the observer of your thought ??
so you say your brain suffered a trauma, and your personality changed. so what? one doesn’t need a brain damage to change their personality.
in the NDE cases, the brain is declared dead, and yet, consciousness goes on having experiences outside the limits of the body-senses. you will never convince one of these persons that they are a body, or ‘in’ a body.
i highly recommend you listen to a few of these cases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, personality does change over time, but I am talking about massive changes occurring instantly with brain trauma.
Paedophilia is not some minor behavioural change. We are talking complete changes in temperament, in interests, in likes and dislikes, in anger management, in emotional responses to events, etc. There are literally thousands of case studies where a person’s personality is turned on its head, they become a different person.
Don’t get me wrong, you’re certainly free to propose something that we might call “spirit” or “soul,” something immaterial, but the problem falls to you to demonstrate how spirit can “represent” the person if even some minor cerebral trauma evicts it so completely.
That is the question for you to answer…
LikeLiked by 2 people
i’m sorry, i’m having problems with your question. ‘evicts’ it?? who said it evicted it?
you are still moving about, are you not? you’re just doing different things.
LikeLike
I’m not sure of a better word than ‘evict.’
We are talking about people abruptly becoming entirely different people. Their actions, interests, beliefs, likes, dislikes, temperament, motivations, etc. are altered because their neurological hardware has been damaged.
That is to say, they become completely new people. There are thousands of case studies which you can read up on.
So again, if there were a soul, some overarching state of consciousness independent of the brain, then someone’s personality would not (should not) alter (and alter dramatically in many cases) when they suffer brain damage.
But it does.
How do you explain this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, you are making a wrong assumption that soul is tied to personality. you cannot seem to see past this assumption.
consciousness has nothing to do with personality.
personality is what the robot is programed to do, while consciousness is the electricity that allows the robot to function.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, so the soul does not represent the individual.
Is this correct?
LikeLiked by 1 person
no more than sunshine represents the vegetables that grow because of it. it is the same sunshine that makes everything grow.
same with soul or consciousness.
LikeLike
So you’re saying you can murder some in the baryonic world, but that physical act (and the enjoyment you got from it) is not connected in any way to your soul.
Is that right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would not trauma affect the receiver as well as his cultural inhibitions? Break off the antennae from your radio and see what happens. Seems a little bit to me this argument may even favor consciousness acting on a set of neurons that can no longer function at cultural norms.
LikeLike
So Hitler, for example, was actually a really sweet guy? 😉
LikeLike
No, but Hitler is as natural a phenomenon as a tsunami. He also was the result of input.
I worked two months in a psych hospital doing some remodeling. I realized then that we’re all on the scale of crazy. The only reason they are locked up and I am not is their coping mechanisms, their ability to process the input is societally askew.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your case study is indeed fascinating. It fits with esoteric models of consciousness and the subtle bodies. These models can also provide answers to your question (or shall we say an un-asking thereof). But I don’t think you like them because they deal with non-physical stuff.
Just to show you that science doesn’t understand the relationship between brain and consciousness here’s another case study (the man with no brain): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8R71Q8_0y0
Note that several such cases have been documented in modern times. One involved a mathematician with high IQ. See a reference at the following wikipedia page (section: Is your brain really necessary?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lorber
LikeLiked by 1 person
The video does not show that science doesn’t understand the relationship between brain and consciousness.
This one, however, is on topic, and interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John this is interesting as science. But the phenomenon described is not such a big deal after all. So one half of the meat abacus has a different opinion than the other half. As the dude might say: “…Yeah well that’s (just another) opinion, man.” And the video’s punchline about heaven and hell is utterly juvenile. Unfortunately I do understand that it represents much of current religious thinking. But seriously, this is a Kindergarten belief (opinion) system compared to what’s out there in more mature spirituality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS I’m glad you’re ok with the fact that some functioning people had hardly any brain matter. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL!! well, we see that all the time
LikeLike
You still haven’t answered the question:
Where is the spirit in these cases?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John to answer your question very specifically and from my limited understanding, the highest part of spirit is non-dimensional. It is everywhere and nowhere and it is full of paradox. Just so you know where I’m coming from, I’m partial to a worldview (I call it a ‘model’) that resides within the broad category of esotericism. In this model present day humanity is precisely in a situation in which we are disconnected from our higher selves (‘spirit’). It is our job to (re)establish the link and thus go to the next level of our spiritual evolution. The consciousness we experience in the physical body at present is largely illusory and it has very little to do with spirit. That’s the model anyway.
LikeLike
Thanks for that, but you still haven’t addressed the question put to you.
Where is ‘spirit’ when a person’s actions, their interests, beliefs, likes, dislikes, temperament, motivations, etc. can be fundamentally (and permanently) altered if their neurological hardware is damaged?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice of you to remain open-minded. From the model the answer to your question depends on the spiritual advancement of the individual. For ordinary people in our times, the higher self is disengaged; it plays essentially no role in the person’s actions, interests, beliefs, likes, dislikes, temperament etc. For more advanced people, the higher self engages to varying degrees according to the individual. In either case the neurons have no effect on the higher self. That’s the model in a nutshell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, in effect, multiple selves existing at once (I assume a common thread connecting them), each at a different ‘spiritual’ level, none responsible for the other, or liable for the other’s actions.
Am I close?
LikeLike
Yes you are close. But it’s a little more complicated than that. According to esoteric models, your higher self (HS) is a sort of archetype of you-ness. As such, your HS acts as a sort of axis around which all your incarnations occur. But there’s a ‘gotchya:’ for ordinary (spiritually non-advanced) people, the personalities that are created in different incarnations are quasi-random and are not representative of their HS. The personalities are instead temporary and largely illusory constructs that are nucleated around deep-seated traumas, desires, and habits that were collected along the way (Sanskrit: samskaras). These samskaras are attached to the physical plane and, indeed, they are what bind us to the physical. In other words, it is the samskaras which dominate the average person’s destiny (a.k.a. timeline a.k.a. incarnation trajectory) not their HS. The samskaras will continue to rule until they are purified, processed, and shed, at which time the HS can finally shine through and end the divine tragicomedy. What results at the end of this transformation is a (non-physical) ‘you-ness’ with noetic consciousness; a “child of immortality” of the Rg Veda a.k.a. an “embryo of immortality” of Taoism. …All this to say that according to the model, the link between a person’s HS and the personalities that appear in any given incarnation is (hopefully) strengthened over successive incarnations. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I realize this probably sounds like a Marvel movie plot. But the thing is I have met a person who has completed the above program and I have come to the conclusion that the model, crazy as it sounds, is real. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Now I think I talked too much. 🙂
LikeLike
This contradicts Hindu philosophy that there is nothing that is not god. Everything that happens, good or bad happens to god. This idea of individual souls, higher or lower is mute point in the end, no? I haven’t figured out why even the Hindus are stuck on egoism.
LikeLike
Yes Jim. You’re mostly right. But again things are not so simple. You’re referring to Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) which is the most popular branch of Hinduism these days. To paraphrase, they assert that the cosmos and everything we feel, see, and experience, including our individual selves, are nothing more than dreams within an absolute consciousness called Brahman. (((NOTE: not to be confused with the mere god called Brahma))). I think when you previously said ‘god’ you meant this Absolute, called Brahman. Note that some people label Brahman as “the one God” but others consider Brahman to be so transcendental that it is beyond all such labels. Still others consider Brahman to the pinnacle of consciousness within an atheistic worldview. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The esoteric model I partially described above also happens to include Brahman. What I described above were merely some details from the perspective inside the dream. The ‘gotchya’ here is that most of us are caught in that dream and for us, the dream has very real consequences .=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Finally note that all this theory is well and fine. But experientially, Brahman is available to all of us at all times. All we need to do is to purify ourselves and quiet our minds. That simple! Except that I’ve been on a path toward it for the past decade and I’ve only had precursor glimpses. Having a full, bona fide experience of Brahman is commonly called enlightenment. Me is definitely not there…yet(?) 🙂
LikeLike
The reason the Advaita Vedanta philosophy is appealing is it solves the problem of evil and carries no contradiction. IMO that’s too simple and boring once it is realized, so egos feel inclined to add more, which in essence causes this wishful conundrum.
It also aligns well with science (the Big Bang, the primordial om, the word) and really, all the major religions once one reasons them out beyond the accepted norms. But Christianity particularly is a beautiful thing because it keeps the game alive through belief, never arriving at its objectives and exists on promises. But, they have to stop short lest they give the game away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a belief that strings you along, and as along as you’ll allow them to string you along you deserve it. But ‘spiritual maturity’ is virtue signaling some inside knowledge or attainment. Please explain, because in my experience spiritual maturity is simply lowering expectations and settling into the long haul contradictions of faith. Belief IS the road block, the koan, the ultimate guru challenge of the unsolvable problem, rewarding humans for something they can’t help but do. John I’m positive is miles ahead of the pack with zero belief in a deity of any kind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jim the reason I’m here is because I feel that many people on this blog are highly advanced spiritually — in fact more advanced than myself. This is especially true of you. Another reason is that I myself was an atheist and agnostic much of my adult life. So I recognize the integrity that is here (despite the occasional undertone of crankiness :-). Like me, many people here are atheists because they have integrity; they reject conventional religious dogma. The irony is that integrity also happens to be a so-called soul force of the highest order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= In my particular case, things changed when I had the good fortune of stumbling upon a spiritual master (now deceased). He also happened to be way above my novice-skeptic pay grade. One of the things he taught was: “See for yourself, know for yourself.” The trick though, is that one cannot truly see from the ordinary mind. Thus direct experience is king but it is not experience tainted by the ordinary mental consciousness. In the best case scenario, a spiritually mature path involves no faith or belief of any kind. )I admit, however, that in practice there is usually much need for suspension of disbelief along the way). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The bottom line is that a mature spirituality is based on the vision of the higher self. Meditation is an essential tool because it’s the only way to quiet the ordinary mind and to let vaster things emerge. Unfortunately, this is not an easy program for us in the hectic modern times. And good teachers are few and far between. All I can suggest to those with the inclination is to aspire for a teacher. Serendipity has a way of showing up. BTW if it’s any comfort, one of the core philosophies of Hinduism (Samkhya) is atheistic and has given rise to spiritual systems in which there is no God and yet plenty of divinity. This might help some receptive atheists open themselves again to mystery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well the key to the mystery is first unbelief, but if you focus on that too long, it too is a roadblock. Two sides of the same coin. That isn’t where the real argument lies. Another roadblock. So, since there are no gods or deity, is there nothing else at all? I think you know the answer to that. Nothing is what the illusion has pretended. No choices have proven authentic. When given two choices they are most likely both wrong. In this case there is no god out there of any kind. It’s closer than that and it’s all right out in the open. No special knowledge or hocus pocus.
I disagree with one point. You can develop what you call “higher self” without meditation. But there again, higher self and lower self is also part of the illusion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
behind your eyes, It is called seeing,
when spoken, It is called speech,
when heard, It is called hearing,
when tasted, It is called taste.
such is Its nature. so who is to be found? what is to be seen? You are That😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
before we move on to another subject, i’ll add a joke that is on topic.
A student asks his Zen Master what happens after death.
‘I don’t know’, replied the Master.
‘But you’re the master!’ exclaimed the student.
‘Yes, said the Master, but I’m not a dead one.’
Zen. particularly practical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would be interested in your thoughts on this comment!
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2021/07/11/near-death-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-39330
LikeLike
ultimately, god is the Only and highest reality, so everything that happens does happen to ‘god’ only. however, that applies only when our own concept of ‘me’ as separate individual has completely vanished.
as long as there is even a trace concept that ‘i am a person’ doing a thing, then karma applies. almost like a magnet attracting the result of the action. the idea of individual existence creates karma. whether you do good things or bad things there will be consequences to ALL acts done from the consciousness of a separate identity and those pave the way to future rebirths.
so, your good deeds will produce a good future life, and bad deeds a nasty future life, BUT they still create the seeds for future incarnations.
so this is not just a concept to understand mentally, one has to eradicate any idea of separate identity (ego) until it cannot even enter into one’s consciousness. basically, the salt doll melting in the ocean of being. only then, any action you perform has no karma, because it is performed from what they call either ‘Christ consciousness’ or ‘Krishna consciousness’- meaning from a consciousness of complete oneness.
and, if acts are done from full awareness of oneness of everything… could you ever do anything hurtful or wrong?? impossible.
😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
that is absolutely all spiritual practice is about -the disillusion of the idea of ‘me’. the idea that ‘i am a person’. it’s just an idea, yet a god-damn persistent one! haha
LikeLiked by 1 person
This may be a case of extending the goal post—the more difficult one makes something the more excuses they have for not arriving at the objective. No?
LikeLiked by 1 person
true in some aspects. but karma and time are two laws that categorically apply on this plane. even after awakening the wheel of karma continues to roll out until it is exhausted.
it’s compared to a potter’s wheel, that continues spinning after the potters takes his hands off, but due to momentum.
only after all karma is extinguished, there is no reason to take birth again.
we all have past karma (otherwise we would not be incarnated) and always create karma in the present due to action and thoughts.
but this is a matter of ‘every action has a reaction’ and it’s observable in all aspects of life. it doesn’t have to be big actions with big results; no. it’s any result that is produced from action or thought. so if i have a strong desire to be wealthy, this will create a karma that will not stop until the desire is met.
why such emphasis on non-attachment.
the Hindus’ goal is getting off the wheel of birth and death. but it’s not the same for all. some Buddhists, for example, take an oath (i think it’s called the Bodhidharma oath) to keep coming back and help humanity until all beings are liberated. which is very beautiful.
the ultimate sacrifice. 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well then, we have a long way to go! Wow! One thing I like about Advaita Vedanta is I came to that conclusion myself. I did not know it had a name, but it is what we have when we reason it all the way out. One thing that attracts me to this philosophy is the problem of evil is really solved like no other. Whether you subscribe to the Big Bang, the primordial om, the word, even Christianity would lead to this conclusion if it weren’t for the culture it grew up in. I hope I covered that in my next post—that no one is immune or above being the entire thing. I know thing is a poor choice of words, but you get my drift.
LikeLiked by 1 person
don’t panic. they say “the fruit takes a long time to mature, but when it’s ripe, it falls suddenly”. realization can come most unexpectedly. the karma thing is real, but we don’t need to think about that. our only job is to learn to keep mind silent as often as possible. and to be convinced that our true nature is not the body (physical).
and yes, i think all spiritual traditions arrive at this unity point. there is no other way to go. do check out Nisargadatta Maharaj. nobody puts non-duality in words better than him, and has the power to put you in that space of oneness/Self.
there is a good fb page for him. if you want i’ll send you a link.
LikeLike
Hope you read this🙂
Feel free to follow the blog
https://cypher912.wordpress.com/2021/06/20/a-bus-trip/
LikeLike
Anyone describing colours is a phenomenon and I can’t imagine how she did it.
“Red is, er, reddish”?
I’ve never been sure how much of my recalled dream narratives are really what happened to me in the dream and how much I retrospectively fill in to try to make sense of what may just be a chaotic series of scenes and images. There’s some evidence our regular narrative memories work that way, with recalled ‘stories’ stitched together from fragments which overwrite our previous, degraded memory of the story and immediately begin to degrade again. That why it’s so easy to implant false memories with suggestion, such as meeting Bugs Bunny during a visit to Disneyland”.
So I’ve also gotta wonder about the narratives reported by those who were close to complete neurological shutdown.
We love to find meanings, us humans. And if we can’t find ’em, we make ’em.
LikeLiked by 2 people