Science proves life after death

[_bomgeography]

Sorry tapir I haven't misrepresented anything. Your the one misrepresenting. This quote is directly from the research and their findings.

You just don't like it because it disagrees with your world view. That life ends after death.

[_honorentheos]

You just don't like it because it disagrees with your world view. That life ends after death.

Even the summary you quoted doesn't make this claim. It notes that of those studied who survived cardiac arrest (about 300 of 2000 people from the study), 40% described some form of awareness during the period when their hearts had stopped and it is assumed brain activity had ceased. It goes out of it's way to note they aren't concluding that consciousness is proven to persist indefinitely beyond the undisputed end of biological activity that qualifies one as being alive.

It doesn't disagree with any materialistic, nontheistic view of the mind. You're extending the evidence to make an argument that you favor which is just as likely contradicted by the same evidence. That being for a continuation of individual unique identity beyond the destruction of the material body. It doesn't defend that claim so much as asks that one question what we know about mind and the relationship to brain activity once the heart has stopped. Most of the examples aren't of persistent individual identity, just some form of awareness. You should feel challenged by the evidence.

[Guest]

Sorry tapir I haven't misrepresented anything. Your the one misrepresenting. This quote is directly from the research and their findings.

You just don't like it because it disagrees with your world view. That life ends after death.

Oh good grief. Over and over it has been shown to you how you have misrepresented scientific findings. You are doing it all over again now with this claim of evidence for life after death. Perhaps instead of trying to tell me what I don't like, you should make an effort to right your wrong of telling me that I hate America and you might consider correcting yourself for the fabricated lie about my avatar.

What do you know about my world view anyway? I happen to enjoy this video from my favorite Iranian singer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oHObnP1sGE

[_ClarkGoble]

I'm a believer but I'd be the first to admit there's no evidence here. People's NDEs seem highly colored by their prior beliefs. The usual theory is that it's due to the part of the brain stem that regulates between REM sleep, consciousness, and normal sleep gets activated incorrectly. There's a strong correlation between people who in regular life get caught between REM and being awake and NDEs. In other words most NDEs are like lucid dreaming. (Which you can actually train yourself to do if you want)

There have been studies where writings were placed on top of shelves in operating rooms. That way if someone had an NDE where they found themselves floating above the operating table they should be able to read the text. In the study even those who said they were floating above the operating room didn't see these things, strongly suggesting the dream was created by the brain and not an actual floating state.

That's not to say there might not be real NDEs or perhaps God uses being in this lucid state to communicate something to a person. But in general I don't think we should take them at face value.

[_Brackite]

I'm also a believer, but Science hasn't proved life after death.

Scientific proof

It is often said that proof is for alcohol and mathematics, as these are really the only areas where proof has any real meaning. "Proof" is something that the opponents of science are always clamouring for, yet is not actually something that science suggests it will give - specifically in the common sense definition of "proof" that suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

Surprisingly to some, science does not deal in proof, in spite of the word being associated with science a whole lot more than perhaps it should be. Scientists will throw around phrases like "we've just proved our theory" when they should know better, but this can be excusable human nature. With some theories its very difficult not to think of them as proven (Newton's laws of motion, for instance, which always have and always will describe the behavior of objects within the limits of those theories.) Science as a method, however, deals not in proof but in evidence, and perhaps disproof when the evidence contradicts a hypothesis.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof

"Proof" is a much stronger claim than "Evidence". Proof is similar to mathematical proofs, of which it is either right or wrong. Evidence can be weak or gray.

http://wiki.c2.com/?EvidenceVersusProof




This is an interested article from about a couple of years ago.

Study finds evidence of some form of life after death

There have long been stories of near-death or out-of-body experiences but, as researchers at the University of Southampton in the U.K. wryly note, "objective studies on these experiences are limited."

So they decided to investigate whether these claims corresponded with actual events. Their conclusion: It does seem to be possible for some form of awareness to happen for up to a few minutes after death, they report in a study published in the journal Resuscitation.

Beginning in 2008, scientists looked at 2,060 people who went into cardiac arrest (which they describe as "biologically synonymous with death") at 15 different hospitals in the U.S., U.K., and Austria. Of the 330 people who survived, about 40% recalled awareness while they were clinically dead. (The lead doctor tells the Telegraph that number could be higher if some of those people's memories weren't dulled by drugs or sedatives.)

Of those, 46% had memories not commonly associated with NDEs. A sampling:

• "I was told I was going to die and the quickest way was to say the last short word I could remember."

• "All plants, no flowers"

• "Saw lions and tigers"

• "Being dragged through deep water"

Only 9% had experiences "compatible" with NDEs, and 2% had ones compatible with OBEs, where they explicitly "saw" or "heard" moments tied to their resuscitation. There was one "validated" case in which the patient was able to describe events that happened during a three-minute period in which he had no heartbeat.

"This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn't resume again until the heart has been restarted," says the study's lead researcher. "These experiences warrant further investigation." (Scientists had previously learned that rat brains go into overdrive following cardiac arrest.)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014 ... /16963061/

http://www.newser.com/story/196999/stud ... death.html

[_Physics Guy]

An entertaining novel has been written about this kind of thing: Passage, by Connie Willis. In 2002 it won the Locus award and was nominated for Nebula and Hugo awards. The book really only counts as science fiction in the sense that it makes a scientific problem — what happens around clinical death? — a major point in the plot. It's set in the real world, present day, and although it takes poetic license on some points it does not simply invent new phenomena.

Not a spoiler but a warning: while the book is by no means crude propaganda, it does eventually make an only somewhat ambiguous decision on what happens at death, and this may not agree with your own expectations. If this is going to bother you a lot, you may be left annoyed, but if you're willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of reading a story that does come to a resolution, it's an unusual novel.

[_SPG]

Science is a funny thing.

A scientist, someone that assumes s/he knows something, makes a claim. S/he might have use methods that other scientists agree with to make their observation. If YOU become a scientist, you might understand the method, even though you really don't under the foundation of the methods. But the cool thing about science is that you usually repeat the experiment.

Yet, someone dies and comes back. That is hard to repeat. If YOU die and come back, you might share your experience, but because a "scientist" can't repeat the experiment, you are not believed. Even though many thousands of people tell very similar stories, close enough to derive possibilities and patterns from, science "rejects their claim."

I can go around and ask 1 million Americans if they like peanut butter, run some numbers and tell you with a high amount of certainty how many of America's 325 million people like peanut butter. But try doing the same with life after death and suddenly, it's not science anymore.

It sort of reminds me early Catholics and their problem with reincarnation. A priest might say, "come to church or you will go to hell." The reply might be, "I go to church in my next life." So obviously reincarnation became a problem for churches.

If the "religion" of science (a very cultish group) admitted that there was life after death, it would unhinge everything. Suddenly, we would have to take religion more seriously. The Cult of Science will never admit life after death, because they could never explain it.

But I was there. I saw people. In the truck wreck that killed me and my sister, (she didn't come back) I watched 6 men lift the truck off another sister. Later, people told me that her husband, a slight man, lifted the truck off by himself. While I cannot explain how spirit beings can manifest force in this world, (I suspect through the man) I saw it happen. Because of my interested, I have read through thousands of such stories. Science is just the blind cult leader on this matter.

[_Res Ipsa]

Science is a funny thing.

A scientist, someone that assumes s/he knows something, makes a claim. S/he might have use methods that other scientists agree with to make their observation. If YOU become a scientist, you might understand the method, even though you really don't under the foundation of the methods. But the cool thing about science is that you usually repeat the experiment.

Yet, someone dies and comes back. That is hard to repeat. If YOU die and come back, you might share your experience, but because a "scientist" can't repeat the experiment, you are not believed. Even though many thousands of people tell very similar stories, close enough to derive possibilities and patterns from, science "rejects their claim."

I can go around and ask 1 million Americans if they like peanut butter, run some numbers and tell you with a high amount of certainty how many of America's 325 million people like peanut butter. But try doing the same with life after death and suddenly, it's not science anymore.

It sort of reminds me early Catholics and their problem with reincarnation. A priest might say, "come to church or you will go to hell." The reply might be, "I go to church in my next life." So obviously reincarnation became a problem for churches.

If the "religion" of science (a very cultish group) admitted that there was life after death, it would unhinge everything. Suddenly, we would have to take religion more seriously. The Cult of Science will never admit life after death, because they could never explain it.

But I was there. I saw people. In the truck wreck that killed me and my sister, (she didn't come back) I watched 6 men lift the truck off another sister. Later, people told me that her husband, a slight man, lifted the truck off by himself. While I cannot explain how spirit beings can manifest force in this world, (I suspect through the man) I saw it happen. Because of my interested, I have read through thousands of such stories. Science is just the blind cult leader on this matter.

Actually, memory is a funny thing. Science has shown that, especially over time, the brain will "remember" things that simply did not happen. What you remember today is not evidence of what actually happened. That's true for all of us. It sucks, but that's how brains work.

[_I have a question]

Doctors can actually keep somebody dead for about 45 minutes and bring them back to life without any serious effects by dropping the core body temperature down. One example mentioned the person was dead for 20 minutes enough that all brain activity had stopped.

In another example a women had an outer body experience she was dead for over half an hour brought back to life without issue due to the lowering of the core body temperature. In the recovering room she was able to describe the tools the doctor used to do surgery on her.

You seem to be saying that resurrection ain't that big of a deal.

[_SPG]

Actually, memory is a funny thing. Science has shown that, especially over time, the brain will "remember" things that simply did not happen. What you remember today is not evidence of what actually happened. That's true for all of us. It sucks, but that's how brains work.

I completely agree that the brain is temperamental, but "science" is quick to put this out when it comes to Life After Death (LAD). How do we know anything if the brain is so untrustworthy? And I agree, I don't know anything. But Science is about observation, looking for patterns. If a medical study implies that a drug is 50% effective on 10% of the population, I'm taking that baby to the bank. I think almost 50% of people that have a Near Death Experience (NDE) mention some type of awareness out of body. That is very significant.

I have read the/some research on brain activity as a person dies. I have my theories about what is happening. Information, in it's pure form is spiritual. Conveying ideas and identities isn't done so much through physical contact, but through conscious connection.

While the brain is dying, there is one part of brain that goes super active. This is why people see their life flash before their eyes, etc. But what if the brain is actually downloading life experiences and identity into another format or dimension? The subconscious of humans is a big mysterious place. How do we know life didn't work out a swarm consciousness (human internet) a long time ago, but merely keeps us conscious humans out, (as implied in the Bible by the deep sleep.) We are connected on the inside, we are one, like leaves on a tree, separate, yet part of the same thing.