I was self-aware before I was born. At the very least, I have a confirmed memory of being born. I would say that if I were preconscious at the time, i would not have been able to have and remember a "me" experience. cn[/QUO TE]
Very interesting, and, I think very rare. Are you describing a visual memory? Do you mind providing more detail? I collect these stories.
we have to remember our brain still lives long past our body though, so after your brain dies, can we truly know what comes next?definitely something else after death i've been there - for me it felt like some kind of judgement, very dark. no point in trying to explain definitely a location thing
I'm sorry, Doer ... the memory is so specific that it might serve to identify me. cnI was self-aware before I was born. At the very least, I have a confirmed memory of being born. I would say that if I were preconscious at the time, i would not have been able to have and remember a "me" experience. cn[/QUO TE]
Very interesting, and, I think very rare. Are you describing a visual memory? Do you mind providing more detail? I collect these stories.
The burden of proof for anyone claiming that NDEs are evidence for the survival of the self beyond the physical function of the brain is to rule out other more prosaic explanations. This burden has not been met.
Neuroscientists are piecing together plausible explanations for each of the components of the NDE. The sensation of floating outside one’s body can be reliably induced by suppressing that part of the brain that makes us feel as if we possess our bodies. The experience is identical to that reported by those who have had an NDE. This experience can be replicated by drugs or magnetic stimulation. There are even reports (I have had one such patient) of people who have a typical NDE experience during seizures. The bright light can be explained as a function of hypoxia (relative lack of oxygen) either to the retina or the visual cortex. Any everything else is simply the culturally appropriate hallucinations of a hypoxic brain.
The only way to definitively distinguish between memories formed during CPR and those formed during the period of encephalopathy is for the memories to contain specific details that could only have been obtained during the CPR. This claim is often made, but either there is a lack of compelling documentation, or the details are too vague to be definitive. People describing a typical CPR experience, for example, is not specific. Sometimes people after a NDE will claim to recognize the nurse or doctor who worked on them, but they may just be attaching those memories to people they encountered before or after the experience.
OK, less specific. Most folks I get these stories from have a very specific Type of first memory. I'm always wary about pre-loading the subjects' memory with too much input. IAC, I am most interested in which sense conducted your first memory. So, without details of the events, when the memory is produced for you now, is it a visual, a sound, a feel on skin? Like that.I'm sorry, Doer ... the memory is so specific that it might serve to identify me. cn
Yes, sir, it is very hard to say and when we take into account the quantum information paradox, it's impossible to say subjectively when the inner experience stops. Also, impossible to say the nature or subjective duration of the death dream. This from wiki. Did not know about the jelly fish. No natural death? Got those genes in the lab somewhere, I hope. No telomerases? No TTAGGG coding on the gene ends?we have to remember our brain still lives long past our body though, so after your brain dies, can we truly know what comes next?
I think we all are smoking the bong and getting along, discussing science-religion, blah blah. Do you have something to add or subtract? Perhaps a reduction of your eyelids?....are we still going at this....man....science this, religion that...blah, blah, blah. Can't we all just smoke a bong and get along
...hey man, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one - tighten up or spew crap I guess... Religion isn't in the business of proving anything wrong other than our perceptions of self, imo. Why is it the strict domain of 'scientists' to prove people wrong? Does it make for a more effective cure of disease?Nobody wants to admit one simple fact.
Science has proven religion wrong time and time again. Science admits when it is wrong, changes, and tries to find out the truth again.
Religion has never proven science wrong, only science has. Religion hardly ever admits when it is wrong, and when it does, its so full of bull shit excuses about it you can smell it half way across the world.
People can't handle the truth, they don't want it, they would rather live happily in delusion. Some see this as a curse, some see it with envious eyes... some see it as absurd and rightly fucking retarded and weak.
Whatevs.
Yes, it does. It's called the Scientific Method.... Religion isn't in the business of proving anything wrong other than our perceptions of self, imo. Why is it the strict domain of 'scientists' to prove people wrong? Does it make for a more effective cure of disease?
So true. And even sometimes the religious person will bomb some towers lol. Or w/e else they decide to do.. Religion rocks!Yes, it does. It's called the Scientific Method.
View attachment 2201442
The difference is when a scientist approaches another scientist and says, "I think you made an error here.", the other scientist says, "Oh, my! Thank you!"
When you approach a person of faith and say "I think you made an error here.", they say,"NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! FAITH! FAITH! FAITH!"
I gotta agree here. Religion these days has nothing against science. And science these days is not out to disprove religion. Science looks at an obviously Subjective world and calls that Objective research. Religion takes the only Objective knowledge we have, of our own Self and calls that Subjective Experience....hey man, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one - tighten up or spew crap I guess... Religion isn't in the business of proving anything wrong other than our perceptions of self, imo. Why is it the strict domain of 'scientists' to prove people wrong? Does it make for a more effective cure of disease?
I'm not a pure genius, but it is easy to see that one of these words is not like the others, one of these words does not belong:
"science" - "fucking retarded" - "weak"
...thanks, I get that. But why apply it to another person's life? There's life, and there's science. The two go well together, yet are sort of mutually exclusive. We can't prove why people are even here in the first place. < in the physical sense, sure, that's easy to prove (fckn fun as hell too )Yes, it does. It's called the Scientific Method.
View attachment 2201442
The difference is when a scientist approaches another scientist and says, "I think you made an error here.", the other scientist says, "Oh, my! Thank you!"
When you approach a person of faith and say "I think you made an error here.", they say,"NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! FAITH! FAITH! FAITH!"
I hear that every time I exchange ideas with a person of faith. I believe the line is :"I just know."...thanks, I get that. But why apply it to another person's life? There's life, and there's science. The two go well together, yet are sort of mutually exclusive. We can't prove why people are even here in the first place. < in the physical sense, sure, that's easy to prove (fckn fun as hell too )
...personally, when pointing out a flaw in thinking, I have yet to run into someone who has said, "sorry, no, I'm right - I'm a person of faith and that means I'm right." An extreme example, but do you see what I am saying?
...and sometimes a scientist's output is verbose. "All evidence collected" - I know actual, practicing scientists who disagree with that idea (some living and some deceased - just to point out a range of age).I hear that every time I exchange ideas with a person of faith. I believe the line is :"I just know."
Science is the observation of the universe, including life. It completely applies to us all, and equally. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we should guess. And just because someone guessed, doesn't mean you should perpetuate the guess. A posse ad esse. This is what boggles the Atheists mind. If you are susceptible to faulty logic, how far does that faulty logic infect your reasoning? The spectrum ranges from those who don't even believe to people killing their children in the name of their God. If a man truly believed a "Being" was watching all the time, would he steal? No. Would he rape? No. Would he even have sex with his own wife knowing it's a heavenly porno production? No! So some who claim to have faith, really don't. They buckle their safety belts, look both ways before crossing the street, and stay away from alligators for one reason only. Observation by scientists. So why utilize the technologies based on the sciences, only to deny the evidence which supports said science. Answer= Delusion!
Delusion defined: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.
ALL evidence collected thus far does NOT support anything close to the Quran or the Bible. Yet the belief persists...Hmmmm.
I have to disagree with you there. Technology is void of feeling, yes. But scientists who don't value evidence? You have to understand that every theory is subjected to testing by 1,000's of scientists. If the theory performs for everyone, it is accepted as a valid theory. If it does not, it is ruled false. It is pointless to focus on the amount of the information we don't have. This value is limitless for us at this stage. We must endeaver to review the evidence in an unbiased manner. The only way to do that among ourselves, is to have everyone, "Take a gander" and record what they observed. Now look at what has been decided by ALL FAITHS. We call it science. Science is the observation of life without emotion. How effective would your iphone be if it suffered from depression? How good would your steering be if it experienced fear. Perhaps emotions are holding us back from reaching 1.0 on the Kardashev scale?...and sometimes a scientist's output is verbose. "All evidence collected" - I know actual, practicing scientists who disagree with that idea (some living and some deceased - just to point out a range of age).
We're missing something here and that is the fact that technology is void of feeling. Technology is dead until we make it 'come to life' by using it. I'm reminded here of Aristotle's "Prime Mover", for whatever reason