First hint of 'life after death'

[Gijs]

consciousness is like a wave function and is not locally. The brains are the hardware or the receiver as Lou says. You can explain it (quantum mechanical).

 

[MeSci]

Apologies if this link has already been posted, but it offers scientific explanations for some of the phenomena of near-death experiences.

 

[barbc56]

@MeSci

When I click on you link, it takes me back to this page. It sounds fascinating.

Barb

 

[Gijs]

I guess I just put all speculation of this sort in the same box with Zeus throwing lightening bolts. There is usually a more reasonable explanation. I am currently leaning towards the research that shows that consciousness is found in the electrical workings of the brain. That is wondrous enough for me.

This is not possible for explanation because near death consciousness is bright and after cardiac arrest the electrical in the brain falls out within less then 30 seconds... after this period people experience near death...

 

[JAM]

It doesn't sound as though they were loved ones!

My grandfather very much was, but there are still things I wouldn't want him to see! lol The step-grandmother was NOT! She was my step-dad's mother, so no relation to my grandfather.

 

[JAM]

Not very cool, I like a mystery.

But that is a mystery within a million mysteries! That is just one question answered in a long line of philosophical questions that we have yet to solve scientifically. We are living in a time when many of the BIG questions are on the brink of being answered. Where did life begin? How? When?
Who are we? What makes us human?
Questions that were purely philosophical are becoming empirical as we technology increases and we can observe more and more phenomenon, so exciting!

 

[JAM]

This is not possible for explanation because near death consciousness is bright and after cardiac arrest the electrical in the brain falls out within less then 30 seconds... after this period people experience near death...

Please define "bright". If I understand what you said correctly, it in no way contradicts current scientific thought and evidence that consciousness is centered in the brain/ nervous system.

 

[natasa778]

Questions that were purely philosophical are becoming empirical as we technology increases and we can observe more and more phenomenon, so exciting!

On the contrary: the more we are able to observe the more UNable we are to truly understand. Quantum phenomena being just one example. 100 years of detailed observations and we are still not even close to making any sense of it

 

[JAM]

On the contrary: the more we are able to observe the more UNable we are to truly understand. Quantum phenomena being just one example. 100 years of detailed observations and we are still not even close to making any sense of it

I disagree, for example, we are now able to map emotions in the brain, that is fantastic! The pieces have been falling into place astoundingly fast over just the past decade.

 

[natasa778]

I disagree, for example, we are now able to map emotions in the brain, that is fantastic! The pieces have been falling into place astoundingly fast over just the past decade.

Oh but those are easy peasy things, easy to do given the right toys ;-) Consciouness is another league entirely, we don't even know what tools to start constructing to start looking for it. And if we ever do, what is not to say we don't run into the same problem of 'seeing but not really understanding' as we do with the quantum stuff

 

[zzz]

I disagree, for example, we are now able to map emotions in the brain, that is fantastic! The pieces have been falling into place astoundingly fast over just the past decade.

Technically, we aren't mapping emotions. We are mapping the blood flow to the parts of the brain that are active when various emotions are experienced. From this we infer that neural transmissions are occurring there. But these neural transmissions are merely electrical currents, and electrical currents are not happy, sad, angry, compassionate, etc. However, since they happen in conjunction with these feelings, these currents are known as "neural correlates of consciousness", or NCC, by neuroscientists. There is correlation there, but not an identity; what emotions and consciousness are is still completely unknown from the point of view of neuroscience. Some people like to say that they are an epiphenomenon of brain activity, but there is no evidence or precedent for that; everything else that can be labeled "epiphenomena" can by scientifically tied back to its source using standard laws of physics. Not so for consciousness and its various aspects.

From a strictly scientific point of view, what consciousness and its various aspects are is completely unexplained at this point.

 

[JAM]

Technically, we aren't mapping emotions. We are mapping the blood flow to the parts of the brain that are active when various emotions are experienced. From this we infer that neural transmissions are occurring there. But these neural transmissions are merely electrical currents, and electrical currents are not happy, sad, angry, compassionate, etc. However, since they happen in conjunction with these feelings, these currents are known as "neural correlates of consciousness", or NCC, by neuroscientists. There is correlation there, but not an identity; what emotions and consciousness are is still completely unknown from the point of view of neuroscience. Some people like to say that they are an epiphenomenon of brain activity, but there is no evidence or precedent for that; everything else that can be labeled "epiphenomena" can by scientifically tied back to its source using standard laws of physics. Not so for consciousness and its various aspects.

From a strictly scientific point of view, what consciousness and its various aspects are is completely unexplained at this point.

Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain, we don't have a complete picture yet, but the puzzle pieces are stacking up quickly.

 

[free at last]

Its one of those subjects where no one is going to entirely agree. But there is some evidence that things may not be as simple as the brain creating consciousness.As Jam believes. I used to believe that was so too.
But after seeing certain research. This study here for example. and others that a member here put me onto.
From Dr Kenneth ring. I am not so sure.

Yes none of this is proof. For those who require such proof that is undeniable.

But it does suggest quite strongly. That things might not be as clear cut as was once first thought.

The studies done by Professor Ring. Into the blind who have NDEs Does paint a similar picture to this recent study here.
With at least one case. where it suggests strongly that the consciousness, was able to break free. Of a subject who was critically ill at the time.

I in no way believe at the moment, this is proof of such things. Just that it is important research that will have a bearing on all of us.

And especially so if DR Ring is right. Its one of those subjects that a lot of people with have views on. Some of those views will be guided by how they was raised in the community. And there own personal belief systems.
But to learn anything new in this world. Sometimes we do have to look at the controversial. Or evidence that hasn't yet been proven one way or the other. As is the case here.
As I suggested these ideas do explain the paradox between infinite Time. And being alive for such a tiny fraction of time RIGHT NOW.
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/first-hint-of-life-after-death.33005/page-3

 

[free at last]

Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain, we don't have a complete picture yet, but the puzzle pieces are stacking up quickly.

I don't agree,to say such a thing, denies the possibility that what we are being told by some of these researchers. could be correct, there is no way for you to know this. So the best you can say is SOME evidence is pointing towards to consciousness residing in the brain.
Not ALL as you suggest ?

 

[free at last]

On the contrary: the more we are able to observe the more UNable we are to truly understand. Quantum phenomena being just one example. 100 years of detailed observations and we are still not even close to making any sense of it

I believe you are right Natasa Though it does go both ways.
But for sure some discoveries about the nature of the universe often create more problems than they explain. That is a fact that nearly all cosmologists would likely agree with. The nature of dark matter and dark energy for example.If this is true about cosmology. I am certain it applies to all fields of research.

 

[free at last]

It is very difficult to explain consciousness. We could say its a electrical impulse in the brain. But of course what of other electrical impulses. In Robots for example. So far we have not been able to create consciousness in robots.

It could just be a technology limitation. At the moment we have no way of knowing for sure.

I do get the feeling that consciousness is a lot more than just electricity in our brains. What about all forms of electricity. Could they posses consciousness ?

Could consciousness be coming from a much larger source. One that resides somehow in the entire universe.

lets say consciousness comes from a place we could call the Core.

A place where all consciousness resides. Is it possible that our brains can contain a small amount of that consciousness. But upon dying. Consciousness is released or freed back to the core. But now with the extra memories that each person has gathered over there lives on the physical world we call earth.
I have no idea. But its a idea that I have been thinking a lot about lately. and might explain this studies conclusions and others, if correct

 

[natasa778]

I don't agree,to say such a thing, denies the possibility that what we are being told by some of these researchers. could be correct, there is no way for you to know this. So the best you can say is SOME evidence is pointing towards to consciousness residing in the brain.
Not ALL as you suggest ?

This reminds me I recently watched an hour long presentation by a leading neuroscientist, hottest name in the field, titled something along the lines of 'neuroscientific explanation of consciousness'. Turns out it was all about her theories and interpretations of what might-could-may be happening, trying to prop her belief that brain does create consciousness, but without much proper evidence. An epic let down. If that was really the closest we are to scientifically proving how brain creates consciousness... well we'll sooner figure out time travel and how to fly spaceships on antimatter fuel before we put our finger on consciouness.

 

[JAM]

I don't agree,to say such a thing, denies the possibility that what we are being told by some of these researchers. could be correct, there is no way for you to know this. So the best you can say is SOME evidence is pointing towards to consciousness residing in the brain.
Not ALL as you suggest ?

I didn't say all, but the preponderance does seem to be that way.

 

[free at last]

It might also explain some peoples belief in reincarnation. How the Consciousness could go back from the core, and into a newborn baby. Ready to expand in the brain, as the container brain, becomes more able to hold a more complex version of consciousness as both the baby and there brains develop ?
Its nuts I know. But this is the kind of thing I have been thinking lately
Question am I cracking up
Don't answer

 

[free at last]

This reminds me I recently watched an hour long presentation by a leading neuroscientist, hottest name in the field, titled something along the lines of 'neuroscientific explanation of consciousness'. Turns out it was all about her theories and interpretations of what might-could-may be happening, trying to prop her belief that brain does create consciousness, but without much proper evidence. An epic let down. If that was really the closest we are to scientifically proving how brain creates consciousness... well we'll sooner figure out time travel and how to fly spaceships on antimatter fuel before we put our finger on consciouness.

Completely agree. you might as well listen to my theories. As they probably have as much validity. As other best guesses, at this total mystery