Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I disagree with that claim from the Near Death Experience and other types of paranormal phenomena suggesting consciousness can exist without a working physical brain. I think there are lots of examples. Here's some I am impressed by: Afterlife EvidenceYes, and every single example we have of someone who experiences things is in the form of a being with a living brain. We have zero examples of any kind of disembodied or universal consciousness.
In that passage I talked about demonstrating to 'ourselves' as we know we can not demonstrate mental experiences to others. Please re-read the quote you are responding to.If it cannot be demonstrated to others, there is no way to rationally convince ourselves because our experience could just as easily be a hallucination, lucid dream, or other altered form of consciousness which we know are not reliable means to accurately perceive reality.
So have I.
Probably no reason to believe me but you have a reason to believe them? Followed a Guru from India for many years and sat-cit-ananda was all they talked about. Well not all but he/they talked about it a lot.
You experience something, joy, awareness, a state of pure existence. Call it satchitananda, it was described as "truth is the consciousness of bliss". Are you conscious of bliss?
Being conscious of bliss, does this make you a God?
Such an experience is beyond words, however, satcitananda (existence, consciousness, bliss) is as close a descriptor for the experience that I have seen.
It is a real experience, right? Enough have experience, that I confident enough that it's not something made up.
However it's an experience of what exactly? That we can have such an experience, does this prove what is said about it?
The key word there is near. These are folks who are nearly dead, meaning not actually dead. Meaning they have some brain activity. We have zero examples confirming consciousness in someone who is actually, completely brain dead.I disagree with that claim from the Near Death Experience and other types of paranormal phenomena suggesting consciousness can exist without a working physical brain. I think there are lots of examples.
Going through all the points on this website would take some time and lead us down a dozen rabbit trails. Why dont you pick what you think is the best piece of evidence on the site and I'll walk through it with you.Here's some I am impressed by: Afterlife Evidence
I'm sorry George, but I have to reflect that advice right back to you. What I said in response to you is, "If it cannot be demonstrated to others, there is no way to rationally convince ourselves..." To be clear, the question is not whether people have had experiences. The question is whether those experiences map onto anything in reality, outside their heads. If you cannot independently verify an experience, there is no rational way to distinguish between a hallucination, lucid dream, or some other altered state and an actual experience of "the divine" or "universal consciousness" or what have you.In that passage I talked about demonstrating to 'ourselves' as we know we can not demonstrate mental experiences to others. Please re-read the quote you are responding to.
The second, frankly more plausible, theory is that folks experience altered states of consciousness through various means, which we can and have studied empirically. They're not good ways to determine what's verifiably real outside your head. NDEs get you no closer to "universal consciousness."We are told that when Universal Consciousness is experienced we will know beyond the inherent job of the rational mind to doubt.
I have not personally experienced Universal Consciousness but have rationally come to believe that those that teach of it are on the right track. The evidence I linked above and the teachings of many 'advanced' souls dovetail into the theory I find most reasonable without really a close second theory.
The key word there is near. These are folks who are nearly dead, meaning not actually dead. Meaning they have some brain activity. We have zero examples confirming consciousness in someone who is actually, completely brain dead.
The experiencers are saying when you have the experience you will KNOW and it will no longer be a theory. I think they are likely correct and honest about this.I'm sorry George, but I have to reflect that advice right back to you. What I said in response to you is, "If it cannot be demonstrated to others, there is no way to rationally convince ourselves..." To be clear, the question is not whether people have had experiences. The question is whether those experiences map onto anything in reality, outside their heads. If you cannot independently verify an experience, there is no rational way to distinguish between a hallucination, lucid dream, or some other altered state and an actual experience of "the divine" or "universal consciousness" or what have you.
Well, after consideration of the full evidence and argumentation I believe what my best reasoning tells me is most reasonable to believe. I actually find the materialist worldview very much untenable from my years of investigation into spirituality and the paranormal.The second, frankly more plausible, theory is that folks experience altered states of consciousness through various means, which we can and have studied empirically. They're not good ways to determine what's verifiably real outside your head. NDEs get you no closer to "universal consciousness."
Let's walk through some of the examples:I am personally impressed in Near Death Experiences by cases with experiencers knowing verifiable events (activities of doctors and nurses) during times when no higher brain activity was occurring. (Some of these events even external to the room they were in and viewed from an out of body perspective.) Veridical Near Death Experiences
Several points here: does "blind" mean legally blind? Or completely, actually unable to see anything at all? Blind people are able to tell when people come in and out of the room and often who they are if they know them, as well as what they do in the room if it makes noise - we don't get any specifics of who she knew ahead of time or what specific things she was able to describe. Not a convincing example of much unless we have significantly more verified details.An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs.
So a woman accurately reported that her sister died when she knew she was in a diabetic coma in the same hospital. The chances that someone could accurately guess this are considerably higher than random chance.In another instance a woman with a heart condition was dying at the same time that her sister was in a diabetic coma in another part of the same hospital. The subject reported having a conversation with her sister as both of them hovered near the ceiling watching the medical team work on her body below. When the woman awoke, she told the doctor that her sister had died while her own resuscitation was taking place. The doctor denied it, but when she insisted, he had a nurse check on it. The sister had, in fact, died during the time in question.
Firstly, I don't know how she ruled out the idea that she could have been aware of these things while physically alive. People are aware of all kinds of things when in a semi- or barely conscious state, especially when something traumatic just happened.A dying girl left her body and into another room in the hospital where she found her older sister crying and saying:
"Oh, Kathy, please don't die, please don't die."
The older sister was quite baffled when, later, Kathy told her exactly where she had been and what she had been saying during this time.
"After it was all over, the doctor told me that I had a really bad time, and I said, "Yeah, I know."
He said, "Well, how do you know?"And I said, "I can tell you everything that happened."
He didn't believe me, so I told him the whole story, from the time I stopped breathing until the time I was kind of coming around. He was really shocked to know that I knew everything that had happened. He didn't know quite what to say, but he came in several times to ask me different things about it.
When I woke up after the accident, my father was there, and I didn't even want to know what sort of shape I was in, or how I was, or how the doctors thought I would be. All I wanted to talk about was the experience I had been through. I told my father who had dragged my body out of the building, and even what color clothes that person had on, and how they got me out, and even about all the conversation that had been going on in the area.
And my father said, "Well, yes, these things were true."
Yet, my body was physically out this whole time, and there was no way I could have seen or heard these things without being outside of my body.
I'm sorry George, but mediums are well- known frauds. Find me a medium or psychic whose abilities have been tested and confirmed in peer reviewed scientific literature.Then you didn't consider too closely (which In understand as it is quite lengthy) the evidence from people dead for many years (mediumistic, etc.) in that website.
Totally false. The way we know things about the external world is through independent verification, and we do so all the time. If I have an experience that no one else can confirm when I ask - they dont see what I see, they don't hear what I hear, etc. - that's an extremely obvious sign that I should be skeptical of my experiences. This is so, so basic George.You can take your 'how do we know' argument into everything and say we know nothing about anything.
When you can show me peer reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates the legitimacy of anything paranormal, come find me.Well, after consideration of the full evidence and argumentation I believe what my best reasoning tells me is most reasonable to believe. I actually find the materialist worldview very much untenable from my years of investigation into spirituality and the paranormal.
So have I.
Probably no reason to believe me but you have a reason to believe them? Followed a Guru from India for many years and sat-cit-ananda was all they talked about. Well not all but he/they talked about it a lot.
You experience something, joy, awareness, a state of pure existence. Call it satchitananda, it was described as "truth is the consciousness of bliss". Are you conscious of bliss?
Being conscious of bliss, does this make you a God?
Are you a god?
jesus said yes.
ray was told to say yes.
alan said yes.
the mahavakyas say yes
if the ALL is omnipresent, yes.
Why go by presumed definition of God?
Why is it not useful to know one’s true nature?
I see the body. Am I the body? I see the thoughts. Am I the thoughts? I see the breath. Am I the breath?
We all presume that ‘I am this’. But ‘this’ is an object of cognition of “I”, the subject.
All religions have prescribed “Know Thyself”.
Why use the term God? I'd suppose in this case the question would be, "Are you yourself?"
Events like these by their nature are not things that can be reproduced and studied. This is where human reason becomes the sharpest tool in the shed. I have heard by now thousands of experiences of intelligent competent people that clearly suggests events occurred that are not reasonably explainable through the materialist understanding of consciousness. And I am sure a determined materialist can wiggle out a possible way to explain away each and every event but their efforts have become so unreasonable to me as to appear as desperate clinging to an old worldview.Let's walk through some of the examples:
Several points here: does "blind" mean legally blind? Or completely, actually unable to see anything at all? Blind people are able to tell when people come in and out of the room and often who they are if they know them, as well as what they do in the room if it makes noise - we don't get any specifics of who she knew ahead of time or what specific things she was able to describe. Not a convincing example of much unless we have significantly more verified details.
So a woman accurately reported that her sister died when she knew she was in a diabetic coma in the same hospital. The chances that someone could accurately guess this are considerably higher than random chance.
Firstly, I don't know how she ruled out the idea that she could have been aware of these things while physically alive. People are aware of all kinds of things when in a semi- or barely conscious state, especially when something traumatic just happened.
The fact that she "knew" her sister was in another room (let me guess, the waiting room?) and was saying, "please don't die," while her sister was nearly dead, is again, not terribly remarkable.
The fact that these examples are so vague and we have no confirmation or independent verification of the claims is telling.
You calling them well-known frauds does not make that so. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that some have abilities not explainable through the materialist paradigm.I'm sorry George, but mediums are well- known frauds. Find me a medium or psychic whose abilities have been tested and confirmed in peer reviewed scientific literature.
The repeatable phenomena in areas like chemistry and physics for example are the strong suit of the scientific method. Science is of course great in its wheelhouse.Totally false. The way we know things about the external world is through independent verification, and we do so all the time. If I have an experience that no one else can confirm when I ask - they dont see what I see, they don't hear what I hear, etc. - that's an extremely obvious sign that I should be skeptical of my experiences. This is so, so basic George.
A peer reviewed article does not prove or disprove anything. It just means it was reviewed by peers. But anyway, here is a list of selected peer reviewed papers on psi phenomena. Peer Reviewed Papers on Psi PhenomenaWhen you can show me peer reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates the legitimacy of anything paranormal, come find me.
Are you a god?
jesus said yes.
ray was told to say yes.
alan said yes.
the mahavakyas say yes
if the ALL is omnipresent, yes.
We are all God!
Still the noise and you will realize it.
Where?
If I'm a god then how do I use my God powers to win the lottery so I can retire?Are you a god?
jesus said yes.
ray was told to say yes.
alan said yes.
the mahavakyas say yes
if the ALL is omnipresent, yes.
If you were a God, you would already know how to win the lottery...and would do so...unless not doing so filled some higher divine purpose...If I'm a god then how do I use my God powers to win the lottery so I can retire?
John 10:34-John 10:35 KJV Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
I believe that is John 10:33.