TDB: Heaven is Real: A Doctor's Experience With the Afterlife

[alexey]

That is subjective though.

Belief is knowing for oneself.. some believe one thing, others do not.

No one can say they know this experience is false or they know it is true, its all belief

This Doctor had his own personal experience that no one can ever take away from him. He knows something happened to him and he believes it to be what he described it as.

I see no problem with personal beliefs diverging from what we know about reality... as long as they do not get pushed on me or my children, etc. Also, having agreement on reality helps us figure out what we should do about it.

[techboy]

I see no problem with personal beliefs diverging from what we know about reality... as long as they do not get pushed on me or my children, etc.

I was going to make a stupid joke, but I don't want to deal with the potential fallout, especially because I couldn't get the wording exactly right. Never mind.

Jumbo can have fun going back through the edits, though.

[Reic]

I see no problem with personal beliefs diverging from what we know about reality... as long as they do not get pushed on me or my children, etc. Also, having agreement on reality helps us figure out what we should do about it.

My reality right now is I have a beer.. what should I do with it? haha

And I agree with you 100% about the pushing. I myself am a believer, and I have friends that do not. The individuals that began to push their criticisms and non belief on me or even joking about the believers.. well that's when I cut ties... basically what techboy said haha

[alexey]

We could assume that he's just choosing to believe this without any rational explanation because that's what he felt, yes, or we could be good skeptics and leave open the possibility that, as a former reductionist and current expert in neuroscience, he has an actual good reason to exclude the naturalistic possibilities, at least until there's some actual reason (apart from an a priori commitment to naturalism) to conclude otherwise.

I am not sure where is the mystery here. His experience changed his brain. His experience was so profound, we could even say that he did not really have a choice on the matter. He may have good reasons to hold his position and we may have good reasons not to share his position.

[techboy]

I am not sure where is the mystery here. His experience changed his brain. His experience was so profound, we could even say that he did not really have a choice on the matter. He may have good reasons to hold his position and we may have good reasons not to share his position.

Your explanation is plausible, especially given your starting set of assumptions, unless there really is a good reason to exclude the possibility that the experience didn't actually happen during the period of cortical shutdown. I remain open to the possibility, should the doctor present such reasoning, even though I have not seen such thus far.

[alexey]

My reality right now is I have a beer.. what should I do with it? haha

And I agree with you 100% about the pushing. I myself am a believer, and I have friends that do not. The individuals that began to push their criticisms and non belief on me or even joking about the believers.. well that's when I cut ties... basically what techboy said haha

For what it's worth, I think that very few people actually want to insult you or your beliefs. I think that main motivation is to find a common ground and a way to coexist and cooperate... and from personal experience I can tell you that it can get pretty frustrating for unbelievers in the USA. I love our country and I think it is set up on principles that allow us to work all this out.

[PeterMP]

I see no problem with personal beliefs diverging from what we know about reality... as long as they do not get pushed on me or my children, etc. Also, having agreement on reality helps us figure out what we should do about it.

For US to KNOW something about reality, wouldn't we have to agree on it?

[alexey]

Your explanation is plausible, especially given your starting set of assumptions, unless there really is a good reason to exclude the possibility that the experience didn't actually happen during the period of cortical shutdown. I remain open to the possibility, should the doctor present such reasoning, even though I have not seen such thus far.

Before people figured out how to do brain imaging, they would figure out roles of different parts of the brain by examining people who lose them due to disease, trauma, etc... so there is a rich history of examining the relationship between the mind and the brain. I am not aware of any evidence for magic ingredients of the mind. Brain appears to be the organ that produces the mind. You lose parts of the brain, you lose parts of the mind. The idea of somehow retaining your mind after you lose the whole brain is really strange.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 05:28 PM ----------

For US to KNOW something about reality, wouldn't we have to agree on it?

I am not sure what you are getting at. We can know something that is wrong, know something that is right, think we know something that we do not actually know, agree on something that is wrong, agree on something that is right, agree on something we do not know, agree to act like we know, agree that we know enough to act, etc.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Belinda Carlisle said "Heaven is a place on Earth."

There is wisdom there.

[techboy]

I am not aware of any evidence for magic ingredients of the mind.

Unless, of course, the doctor actually has a good reason to be sure that his experience did not occur outside the period of cortical shutdown, and the experience actually happened.

Then, that would be pretty good evidence that there is a mind separate from the body, and you'd even be aware of it.

Of course, we could simply reject any new evidence that might contradict current understanding, a priori. That works too.

The idea of somehow retaining your mind after you lose the whole brain is really strange.

Lots of strange things have turned out to be true.

[alexey]

Unless, of course, the doctor actually has a good reason to be sure that his experience did not occur outside the period of cortical shutdown, and the experience actually happened.

Then, that would be pretty good evidence that there is a mind separate from the body, and you'd even be aware of it.

Of course, we could simply reject any new evidence that might contradict current understanding, a priori. That works too.

Let's hear the doctor's reason to be sure before we go about accusing people of rejecting evidence.

Lots of strange things have turned out to be true.

[Koolblue13]

fact- something might be out there, but we don't know.

just treat life like a state park and leave it nicer than you found it, enjoy some good memories and move on.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo can have fun going back through the edits, though.

I have had fun today, but this part will be more like work.

I just returned awhile ago from a great time at a regional casino with friends and co-workers (including an actual neuroscientist who I trounced on the poker table ) and though this story was discussed, the only comments I have for now are those wearing my moderator hat (the earlier post I made presents my general thoughts on the mater to date).

1. one dude was banned for two weeks for rule violations (5 & 12)

2. ASF, my friend---you need to not be such a dick just because you disagree with both a view and the manner in which the view is presented--you do that too often (first few pages especially) and with more than one poster. You need to watch it. I think that of all the non-psycho "religious posters" we've ever had, you play the dick card more than anyone ever has and it's been ok but time to dial it back.

3. alexy...for the record, at any time I review or am following a thread, if I think you have gone too OT too far for too long (especially if you're leading the movement or doing it single-handedly--which usually hasn't been the case) or too gratuitously, I will temp ban you (or anyone else doing the same sort of OT tangent).

I suggest making sure commentary maintains touch with the main topic as much as possible. Obviously, the more people who "help" with any extended tangents, the less likely anyone will be held accountable unless I'm in the mood for banning a bunch of good posters. Tangents in topics like this are widely allowed but there are limits.

4. Basically, posters should be cognizant of your posting regarding rules 5 and 12 and in the depth and nature of your OT digressions. It's not on me to explain every nuance of board management to you guys (especially ones who regularly argue at length on many topics ) with all your varying perceptions and opinions about every thing you believe "you see" happening here, plus matters regarding the actual rules and the actual topical content.

Example: SS's early comments (which are just fine) reflecting his perception of "these matters" is way different from others of equal worthiness, who in turn are yet different from others, etc. Capiche?

So be advised: any matter I act on moderation-wise will not be subject to extended elaboration or explanations via PMs or in the thread (which is against the rules btw) by members seeking to do so. With absolutely no reference to any one poster (so NO ONE should take this as "oh, he means me"), I have far exceeded any requirements on my end for giving support, guidance, and patience to explain such things and there's too many of you who are too opinionated and too persistent.

If you feel you need to at some point, use the feedback forum or send an e-mail to staff with such issues. Expect brevity in reply.

I am going to add a thank you to PeterMP, TB, alexy, Corc among others for modeling behavior in this thread that is just fine, while being neither dry nor wimpy, nor abusive of rules, yet still making their positions (like any of us have any doubts ) clear in interesting and informative ways.

From this side of the screen (the one that matters most ) you guys are doing it fine, even if some of you think the other is pretty ****ed.

Every member mentioned in this post is regarded by myself, and to the best of my knowledge the other mods, as a worthy ES'er and tailgate poster at minimum .

But keep in mind that when it comes to the bottom line on taking a mod action I think necessary, it won't matter who anyone is, how long they've been here, or how much I do/don't like them, or agree/disagree with them on any topic.

Carry on.

[maxiumone]

I believe the pfrofessor just did...you rejected what he presented because you didn't experience it yourself.

Nevermind jumbo has it covered, imagine that I am a day late and dollar short lol

[Jumbo]

As indicated, I was more skeptical than not, based on my experience with NDE topics, and that was reinforced after some new conversation with people in the field (neuroscience in two cases) about this story. I have been waiting for some credible "follow-up" pieces, but this is all I have seen so far and they just makes a couple points I think worth considering from the skeptic view, independent of whether the entire articles, sites, or writers are anything to crow about.

Hopefully more comes later as folks look into Dr. Alexander's particular experience further.

I didn't know until now that he had a book and promotional tour coming out when I first heard all the coverage of this.

http://www.twirlit.com/2012/10/10/ne...-buy-his-book/

An excerpt repeating some of the details I noted in my first post:

Alexander tells the (strangely familiar) story of a skeptic who never believed others when they told him they had seen the afterlife – that is, until he experienced it himself and somehow lost his ability to think objectively in the process. While his cortex was allegedly “offline”, Dr. Alexander went on a journey, where he saw fluffy pink clouds; winged, Angel-like creatures; a beautiful woman who told him not to be afraid; a “giant cosmic womb”; and other fantastic things.

Now I can't help myself here---but I can't look at the various pictures of the doctor and not have my suspicion go up yet another notch.




Also fwiw:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/relig...ven-near-death

Though he considered himself a Christian, Dr Alexander disregarded his patient's stories of near-death experiences as wishful thinking.

However, after experiencing it himself, Dr. Alexander said he "experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death."

I have to allow for folks who will believe it is a bias of my own that leans me towards certain thoughts I have watching him in the video linked above. But if I am operating normally, I'd say that something is odd in his affect. I also noted he has repeatedly stated that this experience has given him a "scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death" <see quote above>, yet he also makes the familiar claim that science can never weight in effectively on these matters when it suits the flow of what he's saying in other moments.

To go out on the limb, I think it's fairly likely he's either flat out, we'll say, "dissembling", in excellent self-promotional (salesman) form, or has convinced himself of something in a manner and almost (to me) appears a little delusional in affect at times (vocal tones/body language/facial expressions/eyes).

I further admit I am a bit suspicious (given the info at this point) that while this happened in 2008, the first seems we (folks I know here and not here) are hearing of it is right before his book launch. I am assuming some report will come out showing where he's talked about this in earlier years.