Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    Consciousness according to modern theories of quantum mmechanics relate to the MIND entity, rather than brain and mind is considered to be non physical. That mind , outside the boundaries of dimensions that our physical bodies exist in, is considered to be the source of awareness and consciousness. Dr. Casey Blood has done Some excellent work on this. The mind doesn't alter the wave function of the reality we see, it only perceives the changes it is going through. And also, that as it is non physical, it doesn't die with physical death of brain. The consiousness simply "moves on"
    To another plane of existence. And I'm not quoting any religious scripture here. This theory, mathematically, is more sound than the multiverse theory but requires a challanges scientology's foundations.. Hence .. Not a popular one. But a highly probable one nonetheless
    I'm talking about actual medical/neurological studies of the brain/body interaction, not the musings of a self-confessed spritualist and mysticist (I hesitate to call anyone with a PhD, a crackpot, but the two are not mutually exclusive).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I'm talking about actual medical/neurological studies of the brain/body interaction, not the musings of a self-confessed spritualist and mysticist (I hesitate to call anyone with a PhD, a crackpot, but the two are not mutually exclusive).
    That would be considered your opinion, which you are fully entitled to but it surely ain't a counter argument. It's more of ad hominem. We can label and stereptype one another and end up not understanding the other person. How can you bring up a topic and restrict the discussion to the episteme that you believe in and any other episteme goes down the drain. Not really a discussion then is it ??
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    That would be considered your opinion, which you are fully entitled to but it surely ain't a counter argument. It's more of ad hominem. We can label and stereptype one another and end up not understanding the other person. How can you bring up a topic and restrict the discussion to the episteme that you believe in and any other episteme goes down the drain. Not really a discussion then is it ??
    Here we go again.
    Please submit published research papers from within peer-reviewed and scientifically respected journals to support your claim.
    From my current knowledge of the mind and brain (BSc Psychology and MSc Neuroscience) I can tell you that you're talking gobbledy goop.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A published peer reviewed paper to prove the existence of hereafter ?

    I rest my case.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    That would be considered your opinion, which you are fully entitled to but it surely ain't a counter argument. It's more of ad hominem. We can label and stereptype one another and end up not understanding the other person. How can you bring up a topic and restrict the discussion to the episteme that you believe in and any other episteme goes down the drain. Not really a discussion then is it ??
    If the discussion is about the experimental and observational evidence for brain/mind duality, then it is entirely reasonable to reject unsupported mysticism as an irrelevance.

    I know that "spiritual" people like to think that their personal opinions about one particular woo or another is as convincing evidence as controlled, repeatable experiments conducted under scientific method. But it isn't. Not even close.

    That's not to say that you aren't entitled to believe your particular brand of woo , just don't expect others to take it seriously until there is some evidence to support it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Here we go again.
    Please submit published research papers from within peer-reviewed and scientifically respected journals to support your claim.
    No need. Man on t'internet said it's true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    A published peer reviewed paper to prove the existence of hereafter ?

    I rest my case.
    How about one that supports your claim that the mind is not dependent on the physical brain?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Here we go again.
    Please submit published research papers from within peer-reviewed and scientifically respected journals to support your claim.
    From my current knowledge of the mind and brain (BSc Psychology and MSc Neuroscience) I can tell you that you're talking gobbledy goop.
    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/20...ces-study.page
    How 'bout the world's largest near-death experience study? NDE's aside, at least one was able to identify the audible that occurred after all brain activity had ceased.

    You can argue 'It's only one', but one is all it takes to cast doubt on the presumption that the brain is the be-all and end-all of mind.

    Are you willing to admit that, at the very least, more studies need to be done to confirm the position and that you cannot with certainty state the lack of an afterlife?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Qe2 ..

    I do appreciate you saying that everyone is entitled to their belief however silly it may be. And "everyone" may think the same about you and we can all live in peace. What's science to you is pursuit of an illusion to some. What's faith/belief to some is for a byproduct of neuro chemistry to you. And it's all perfectly fine. We don't have to convert anyone .... So then , why this question in the first place ? If you ask a question that is subjective in nature then you must listen and respect the tools a person uses for his spiritual reasoning even if you think of them as outright stupid .....

    Ethics is the primary casualty when beliefs get questioned on scientific grounds. But ethics again to you must be a byproduct of neurochemicals playing games with one's head.

    So it's still like .. Prove your faith to the rest of us or get ready to be Rediculed.. So very academic eh
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    Qe2 ..

    I do appreciate you saying that everyone is entitled to their belief however silly it may be. And "everyone" may think the same about you and we can all live in peace. What's science to you is pursuit of an illusion to some. What's faith/belief to some is for a byproduct of neuro chemistry to you. And it's all perfectly fine. We don't have to convert anyone .... So then , why this question in the first place ? If you ask a question that is subjective in nature then you must listen and respect the tools a person uses for his spiritual reasoning even if you think of them as outright stupid .....

    Ethics is the primary casualty when beliefs get questioned on scientific grounds. But ethics again to you must be a byproduct of neurochemicals playing games with one's head.

    So it's still like .. Prove your faith to the rest of us or get ready to be Rediculed.. So very academic eh
    But its not subjective. You just say it is because you want it to be, because it fits your standing... which is something humans tend to do quite often.

    You don't talk about things like neurochemistry with any apparent insight. Why don't you research the relationship between the brain and behavior. It's not like you even have to look far. Look at what happens when one has a stroke or neurodegenerative disease (both of which are highly prevalent, unfortunately).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    But its not subjective. You just say it is because you want it to be, because it fits your standing... which is something humans tend to do quite often.

    You don't talk about things like neurochemistry with any apparent insight. Why don't you research the relationship between the brain and behavior. It's not like you even have to look far. Look at what happens when one has a stroke or neurodegenerative disease (both of which are highly prevalent, unfortunately).
    You still haven't addressed the Southampton NDE study I provided.

    Of the people who were brought back from death(That is: heart failure for more than several minutes, where the brain ceases to work entirely and no activity is registered), more than half reported a near death experience of some type. 10% had clear memories of said experience and - Most intriguingly - One person was able to identify the audible that played after all brain activity had ceased, several minutes after cardiac arrest.

    Thousands of cases reviewed in a controlled environment(The cardiac ward of several major UK hospitals). One -could- argue the NDE's are a part of the process of death, but the identification of the audible casts doubt on the OP's thesis. It was only one case in thousands, but that's all it takes - Now, there needs to be more study and a duplication by a peer, but there is at least -some- evidence that there -could- be an afterlife.

    All done by a major university, published and peer-reviewed. The study of NDE's is still in its infancy, however, and to claim there is no evidence for an afterlife is not a scientifically sound statement. More accurately: "There is little evidence of an afterlife, but science has not even attempted in any serious way up until a few years ago to even attempt to verify the existence of an afterlife."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    But its not subjective. You just say it is because you want it to be, because it fits your standing... which is something humans tend to do quite often.

    You don't talk about things like neurochemistry with any apparent insight. Why don't you research the relationship between the brain and behavior. It's not like you even have to look far. Look at what happens when one has a stroke or neurodegenerative disease (both of which are highly prevalent, unfortunately).
    My argument was not exactly technical or scientific in nature. And no I'm no expert on neuro science .. All I'm asking is that if you, or any other person well versed in the subject start asking for scientific explanations of a purely subjective belief which may or may not be true (that is not even the question) and would only except an answer which must be peer reviewed and published in a certain category journal .... What exactly are u trying to achieve ?? this post is not started by people of faith trying to give a scientific explanation of afterlife ... it started off by demand of a scientific explanation of a belief which is not derived from science.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    You still haven't addressed the Southampton NDE study I provided.

    Of the people who were brought back from death(That is: heart failure for more than several minutes, where the brain ceases to work entirely and no activity is registered), more than half reported a near death experience of some type. 10% had clear memories of said experience and - Most intriguingly - One person was able to identify the audible that played after all brain activity had ceased, several minutes after cardiac arrest.

    Thousands of cases reviewed in a controlled environment(The cardiac ward of several major UK hospitals). One -could- argue the NDE's are a part of the process of death, but the identification of the audible casts doubt on the OP's thesis. It was only one case in thousands, but that's all it takes - Now, there needs to be more study and a duplication by a peer, but there is at least -some- evidence that there -could- be an afterlife.

    All done by a major university, published and peer-reviewed. The study of NDE's is still in its infancy, however, and to claim there is no evidence for an afterlife is not a scientifically sound statement. More accurately: "There is little evidence of an afterlife, but science has not even attempted in any serious way up until a few years ago to even attempt to verify the existence of an afterlife."
    Thank you for the interesting info.
    Please can you send me the study so I can read it?

    Though there is an issue; that the brain is always working, unless it is dead. Death is characterised by the cessation of brain function - not of heart function.

    As far as I understand, the brain functions in some way right up until 'brain death' - whereby no electrical EEG activity is displayed (though some functions, particularly complex processes, are more sensitive to hypoxic/ischemic damage than others).
    For instance, you can be 'brought back' after 30 minutes of oxygen starvation, albeit with severe brain damage (probably not worth it, IMO).

    Regardless the study still sounds very interesting, in that it may suggest that even when unconscious and in a severe state (with low brain oxygenation etc.), that recall memory of a stimulus is possible. Though my knowledge of this area is limited.

    I just spent like 25 hours at work - hope what I said is relevant and makes sense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    My argument was not exactly technical or scientific in nature. And no I'm no expert on neuro science .. All I'm asking is that if you, or any other person well versed in the subject start asking for scientific explanations of a purely subjective belief which may or may not be true (that is not even the question) and would only except an answer which must be peer reviewed and published in a certain category journal .... What exactly are u trying to achieve ?? this post is not started by people of faith trying to give a scientific explanation of afterlife ... it started off by demand of a scientific explanation of a belief which is not derived from science.
    The issue is that afterlife can have no reasonable basis to exist. It doesn't have to be 'peer reviewed', it just has to be sound thought. The notion that the mind is separate to the brain is impausable - and is thinking from quite a few hundred years ago now.
    If you suggest that the brain is not responsible for the mind then you need some observation to support your theory (of which is obviously unsupportable because there is no such evidence).
    People aren't trying to deride for the sake of it - its just that rational people don't like what they perceive to be irrationality; usually because it can be harmful.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    While I can't prove that there is an afterlife, I can at least give you a reason to believe that it is possible.Have you heard of a thing called "Boltzmann brain?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brainIt's a hypothetical self-aware entity that may arise due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos.Given that Universe may be infinite (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astro...-big-universe/) it is at least possible that such a Boltzmann brain will arise.Furthermore, it also possible that such a brain will just happen to have all the memories and mental capacity that you have right now.So from a point of such a Boltzmann brain, it will be as if you were 'reborn' in the afterlife.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Thank you for the interesting info.
    Please can you send me the study so I can read it?

    Though there is an issue; that the brain is always working, unless it is dead. Death is characterised by the cessation of brain function - not of heart function.

    As far as I understand, the brain functions in some way right up until 'brain death' - whereby no electrical EEG activity is displayed (though some functions, particularly complex processes, are more sensitive to hypoxic/ischemic damage than others).
    For instance, you can be 'brought back' after 30 minutes of oxygen starvation, albeit with severe brain damage (probably not worth it, IMO).

    Regardless the study still sounds very interesting, in that it may suggest that even when unconscious and in a severe state (with low brain oxygenation etc.), that recall memory of a stimulus is possible. Though my knowledge of this area is limited.

    I just spent like 25 hours at work - hope what I said is relevant and makes sense.
    Here you go!

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/20...ces-study.page
    In particular, you will find in the study that the times audible only occurred after all brain activity had ceased.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Here you go!

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/20...ces-study.page
    In particular, you will find in the study that the times audible only occurred after all brain activity had ceased.
    Thanks for the insight. I had a read of the page, though the actual study would be preferable as it is not always entirely clear from summaries (including flaws in the research).

    From what you provided there, their use of the term 'death' is a bit misleading in that they should probably use the term dying.

    They are essentially measuring explicit memory recall when the brain is in an impaired state in which brain oxygenation is reduced (such as in reducing hippocampal, amygdala, and frontal cortical functioning).
    In this way, I took from what they said that a significant proportion had some implicit memory of the events (so some encoding occurred) but these memories were not vivid or accurate depictions of events - due to poor encoding and consolidation of memories, as brain structures were impaired.

    Unfortunately gives no insight into a prospective afterlife - because you would have to be dead and then come back and report your experiences. Unfortunately brain death you cannot come back from (because it is what you are). A heart attack doesn't stop brain functioning or 'kill' the individual - it is the resultant brain damage that occurs progressively (such as in strokes, but a global cut off rather than of a specific area).

    I hope my interpretation makes sense
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The Earth is flat.
    OO, I was thinking that earth is round.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Thanks for the insight. I had a read of the page, though the actual study would be preferable as it is not always entirely clear from summaries (including flaws in the research).

    From what you provided there, their use of the term 'death' is a bit misleading in that they should probably use the term dying.

    They are essentially measuring explicit memory recall when the brain is in an impaired state in which brain oxygenation is reduced (such as in reducing hippocampal, amygdala, and frontal cortical functioning).
    In this way, I took from what they said that a significant proportion had some implicit memory of the events (so some encoding occurred) but these memories were not vivid or accurate depictions of events - due to poor encoding and consolidation of memories, as brain structures were impaired.

    Unfortunately gives no insight into a prospective afterlife - because you would have to be dead and then come back and report your experiences. Unfortunately brain death you cannot come back from (because it is what you are). A heart attack doesn't stop brain functioning or 'kill' the individual - it is the resultant brain damage that occurs progressively (such as in strokes, but a global cut off rather than of a specific area).

    I hope my interpretation makes sense
    The link for the study was in the Uni's web page.

    http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/...739-4/fulltext
    The actual study requires you to subscribe to the journal which, as a student, you probably have through your school. But I feel that you didn't actually read the study as you continue to misrepresent what was in it.

    Several minutes after cardiac arrest -all- brain activity ceases, which is when the audible occurred. This is important because part of the study was to see if anyone could identify the audible when there was no brain activity.

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-0...n-cardiac.html
    Here is a helpful primer on activity in the brain after cardiac arrest.

    There were sensors for monitoring brain activity. The audible -only- occurred after brain activity ceased. That was part of the study.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    The link for the study was in the Uni's web page.

    http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/...739-4/fulltext
    The actual study requires you to subscribe to the journal which, as a student, you probably have through your school. But I feel that you didn't actually read the study as you continue to misrepresent what was in it.

    Several minutes after cardiac arrest -all- brain activity ceases, which is when the audible occurred. This is important because part of the study was to see if anyone could identify the audible when there was no brain activity.

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-0...n-cardiac.html
    Here is a helpful primer on activity in the brain after cardiac arrest.

    There were sensors for monitoring brain activity. The audible -only- occurred after brain activity ceased. That was part of the study.
    Thanks, I do have access and have had a peek at it. Though for some reason it wouldn't let me save as a PDF.
    Previously I said I didn't read it as it was not available, but I did read all of their interpretation of the study.

    I have not really misinterpreted anything as far as I can see, and I feel I was pretty accurate; but when you do say so you should explicitly state what you think was so can be cleared up.

    The issue is that brain activity DOES NOT cease after cardiac arrest (it only ever stops working when you're dead, forever; or... profoundly disabled), it just reduces considerably (due to lack of oxygenation).
    It is interesting that this memory encoding (AS BRAIN IS FUNCTIONING) is more than thought would be and serves to explain PTSD post resuscitation.

    This does not really relate to the afterlife, as far as I can see.

    (caps for clarity and emphasis of point - not shouting aha)

    Note: In the study there was no observation of electrophysiological markers for cognition (i.e. monitoring brain activity) - mainly because it wasn't an experimental study, but rather they had interviews with those who had a CA.
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.