J Randall Murphy
New
In my exploration of that issue I found that death is defined differently in different jurisdictions, and brain death is very different from clinical death, and it is very rare for patients to get actual brain death tests via EEG to determine brain death, and even then, studies show, activity still takes place much deeper than a surface EEG shows.'If the OBE experiencer relates a conversation that happened in another room accurately while technically dead or some version of coma I fail to see what other explication there is other then it's a OBE.
Also, auditory senses are among the last to die so they take a long time to flatten on an EEG. I know this from personal observation. So it's entirely conceivable that where death has been assumed, the patients weren't actually "dead", and that the patients are in fact receiving auditory signals on a subconscious level that are later remembered in a way that make it seem to them as if they were experiencing it in real time, when in-fact they weren't.
These sorts of incidents are obviously more common than most people think. My late spouse's sister woke-up in a morgue inside a body bag after being pronounced dead by mistake.
Also, from my firsthand discussions with doctors, I was told that they have never heard of a case where a patient has been pronounced brain-dead after a full EEG scan, but suddenly come back to life. If you have a verifiable references, by all means, post them.
I don't know about all that. Several issues to unpack there. I don't see any reason a universe creator isn't a possibility. Nor do I see any reason that a universe creator wouldn't make a universe that itself is capable of creating. In fact, it seems to me that any entity capable of creating universes, would find self-evolving universes much more interesting than boring pre-programed universes. But who knows? I guess it depends on how interesting you want your universe creator to be.Perhaps the experiencer imagines something which actually turns out to be correct, but the probabilities that a person could guess correctly are fantastical. To believe such a thing as true one would have to believe in something so remote possible as possible, believing in the fantastical.
Looking at some of the ideas of materlistic science one comes across this believing in the fantastical. An example of that is how one trillion atoms got together forming the first cellular life, by bumping into one another. A belief in the improbable, the fantastic, a miracle of accident. Or a believe in miracles.
Not exactly. I would say it's actually the opposite. It's objective reality that is non-partial — simply what it is, outside the filters of Platos cave.In so far as there being two distinct realities, objective/subjective. This assumes that consciousness can actually be non-parcial . Not colored in any way by the individual. That beliefs are not part of the looking. Clearly we can not get out of ourselves to observe anything.
Not really. I don't start with the assumption that life after death as is typically imagined is an impossibility, so that is not the "set of conditions" I begin with. The set of conditions I begin with is what is known with a high degree of scientific confidence. Then I extrapolate from there what the possibilities are ( and are not ).Your stating here consciousness independent of a body is a impossibility. Hence this is the set of conditions in which your going to be looking at the world/reality.
I'm not sure we're looking at "consensus reality" in the same way. I see consensus reality as an agreement between multiple individuals as to what constitutes a given reality.There is a set which allows for subjective mind to meld forming what we call consensus realities, but this is not strictly objective. But to get to that set we have to pass into immaterialality (consciousness=energy). But since you ruled that out as a possibility you are not able to examine these probabilities. Never the less that's where we're going.
Thanks. I find these discussions very interesting from a variety of perspectives. The thing to take away from my position is that I accept that there are phenomena that are genuine, but that some interpretations of them cannot be accurate, and therefore time could be better spent on other avenues of investigation.I have to hand it to you for taking part in a forum which is not about materlism. Giving a contrary conception.
Last edited: