After Life - Does It Exist ?

[Ill_handle_it]

I recently happened upon a small book written by Ivy Northage The book briefly explains what happens to the soul at the point of death and specifically 'heaven and hell'. The term is used in a general sense and is not in anyway to be associated with a religious interpretation of heaven and hell.

In summary she suggests that wrongful acts are not punished as such. More accurately,we are required to "view" the knock on effects of such deeds (and these are potentially infinite). Of course there is no time in the afterlife but going over all of these "bad deeds" negatively affects our spiritual progression (I really am summarising).

One section I found interesting explained what happens if a person dies in an accident or unexpectedly. In some cases the person will not accept they are "dead" simply because they can still see the "world" as a living body would (at least for a short period). Although the victim would have been unaware his his/her impending doom - others on the non-physical plane,will have been waiting for them and to provide assistance.

Now I'm not saying I take all this as gospel - I merely suggest that is interesting.

Edit - name spelt incorrectly.

[MrPin]

I've been "dead" for over 200 years, and I have no use for mirrors!

[StainlessSteelCat]

Probably fairer to say that the book explains what one person believes happens to the soul etc..

I suspect most of the rest of world disagrees with her in the detail, if not the substance. For example, I'm not even sure we have a soul for anything to happen to, and I think I remember reading something recently that there is an explosion of electrical impulses in the brain at the point of death. This may explain the near death experiences that some experience:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23672150

Personally, I am immensely comfortable with the idea that we do our best with the short time we have here, and then return to the soil for someone, or something else to have a go with our atoms. No afterlife necessary, except perhaps in the fading memories of those who loved us. We, and those to come, are immensely lucky to be able to do so as so many potential lives never get the chance to be lived at all.

But if someone else derives more comfort with a different non-science based notion of how things are, and aren't going to make other lives a misery by inflicting it on them, that is also cool.

[The Masked Tulip]

Where were we for the billions of years before homo sapiens evolved? Were we all waiting or were we something else?

[Bloo Loo]

Where were we for the billions of years before homo sapiens evolved? Were we all waiting or were we something else?

waiting for Government to stop interfering with cave prices.

[Ologhai Jones]

I recently happened upon a small book written by Ivy Northgate. The book briefly explains what happens to the soul at the point of death and specifically 'heaven and hell'. The term is used in a general sense and is not in anyway to be associated with a religious interpretation of heaven and hell.

What evidence does she present for her views?

[bearwithasorehead]

after life does exist, but afterlife doesn't.

[happy_renting]

Re. OP: No.

[Bloo Loo]

What evidence does she present for her views?

Observation and accounts from Near Death experiences, out of body experiences ( I had one of those), and the unavailability of science to understand what awareness actually is.

I have a pet theory on awareness.

[Ologhai Jones]

I have a pet theory on awareness.

Ooh, do tell.

[Hail the Tripod]

In some cases the person will not accept they are "dead" simply because they can still see the "world" as a living body would (at least for a short period).

So if any part of the visual system is severely damaged from the cornea through to the retina, and along the optic nerves, and the relevant part of the brain, then a person is incapable of seeing. There is, sadly, plenty of evidence for this. However if a person suffers catastrophic failure of all of the visual system (and every other organic component) we should assume that a person can still see (in the absence of evidence either way)? Makes me wonder why we bother with bodies at all.

[Riedquat]

Observation and accounts from Near Death experiences, out of body experiences ( I had one of those), and the unavailability of science to understand what awareness actually is.

I have a pet theory on awareness.

A lack of scientific knowledge on a subject doesn't lend any weight to other explanations.

I've no reason to think that there's an afterlife. You're born, you live, you die, that's it, there's no purpose or reason to any of it either, it just is. Someone once asked "how can you live with that view?" which I found a weird question to ask, as if what I would like it to be should be what I think rather than what things actually seem to be.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Probably fairer to say that the book explains what one person believes happens to the soul etc..

I suspect most of the rest of world disagrees with her in the detail, if not the substance. For example, I'm not even sure we have a soul for anything to happen to, and I think I remember reading something recently that there is an explosion of electrical impulses in the brain at the point of death. This may explain the near death experiences that some experience:

The 'Life Review' crops up in a high proportion of reported NDEs. I haven't read this particular woman's book but what's she's suggesting is a riff on a common point of view shared by people who believe that NDE's may be more than an hallucinatory experiences generated by a dying brain.

There is peer reviewed, documented research on NDEs which I have reasons to suspect some folk who dismiss the possible significance of NDEs out of hand have not reviewed. I'm not suggesting that there will never be a complete, satisfactory materialistic explanation for NDEs. What I am suggesting that some who discount NDE's potential significance are doing so on philosophical grounds because a non-materialistic significance would not fit their existing paradigm.

fwiw I spent most of my life quite comfortable with the certain extinction of my consciousness at the point of death. In 20th/21st century Britain there's nothing particular radical about that point of view. Britain has been at the forefront of materialist philosophy for centuries. It's not news, or in any way radical, to discover that Materialists are comfortable with no continuation of consciousness after death. I'm more interested to hear how comfortable they are with the prospects of the opposite outcome. I mention that because after my favourite reported NDE the late Freddie Ayer wrote...

In 1988, shortly before his death, Ayer wrote an article entitled, "What I saw when I was dead",^[22] describing an unusualnear-death experience. Of the experience, Ayer first said that it "slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be."^[23] However, a few days later he revised this, saying "what I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief".^[24]

In 2001 Dr. Jeremy George, the attending physician, claimed that Ayer had confided to him: "I saw a Divine Being. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise all my books and opinions." Ayer's son Nick, however, said that he had never mentioned this to him though he did find his father's words to be extraordinary, and said he had long felt there was something possibly suspect about his father's version of his near death experience.

[Riedquat]

What I am suggesting that some who discount NDE's potential significance are dong so on philosophical grounds because a non-materialistic significance would not fit their existing paradigm.

Which they do because there's never been any sensible reason to have a different paradigm.

[StainlessSteelCat]

To me it seems as though awareness is a continuum. At one end, you have creatures which respond in automatic ways to stimulus - and at the other end, species who are able to recognise themselves, consider future consequences, and their place in the society they operate in. I think degrees of awareness may actually vary within species too.

[StainlessSteelCat]

The 'Life Review' crops up in a high proportion of reported NDEs. I haven't read this particular woman's book but what's she's suggesting is a riff on a common point of view shared by people who believe that NDE's may be more than an hallucinatory experiences generated by a dying brain.

There is peer reviewed, documented research on NDEs which I have reasons to suspect some folk who dismiss the possible significance of NDEs out of hand have not reviewed. I'm not suggesting that there will never be a complete, satisfactory materialistic explanation for NDEs. What I am suggesting that some who discount NDE's potential significance are dong so on philosophical grounds because a non-materialistic significance would not fit their existing paradigm.

fwiw I spent most of my life quite comfortable with the certain extinction of my consciousness at the point of death. In 20th/21st century Britain there's nothing particular radical about that point of view. Britain has been at the forefront of materialist philosophy for centuries. It's not news, or in any way radical, to discover that Materialists are comfortable with no continuation of consciousness after death. I'm more interested to hear how comfortable they are with the prospects of the opposite outcome. I mention that because after my favourite reported NDE the late Freddie Ayer wrote...

I have had many paradigm shifts in my beliefs over the years, and am always open to others. To me, lack of openness to something new would really be a living death. Flipping your comment on it's head; there's nothing new in the belief in afterlife either - in fact it's likely been the default view of most of humanity for tens of thousands of years, and is the foundation of most belief systems that persist today.

I'd be very happy to review, and change my mind as a consequence, peer reviewed, documented NDE research which has been published in credible journals that suggests they are more than the last gasp of a dying brain or other hallucinations. Do you have any?

Given you have raised the question; what was it that finally persuaded you to change your mind? And what changes did you make to your life as a result?

[Bloo Loo]

A lack of scientific knowledge on a subject doesn't lend any weight to other explanations.

I've no reason to think that there's an afterlife. You're born, you live, you die, that's it, there's no purpose or reason to any of it either, it just is. Someone once asked "how can you live with that view?" which I found a weird question to ask, as if what I would like it to be should be what I think rather than what things actually seem to be.

A perfectly valid view

[Bloo Loo]

Ooh, do tell.

Its quite simple really, there is a program running in the Brain somewhere monitoring what is seen heard, smelt or felt, tasted etc. It simply is asking a question..."Have I seen this before and did it harm me or help me?"

The answer requires memory, and thus experience, which is quite likely to be a fundamental of self.

[crashmonitor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-29064891

From the other topic.....absolutely certain this guy did and was in a hurry to get there too.

[bendy]

If there is then there should also be a beforelife, no?

The downside to that is that I don't remember any of it so if there is an afterlife I probably won't be aware that I'm experiencing it!

[Nuggets Mahoney]

I'd be very happy to review, and change my mind as a consequence, peer reviewed, documented NDE research which has been published in credible journals that suggests they are more than the last gasp of a dying brain or other hallucinations. Do you have any?

Given you have raised the question; what was it than finally persuaded you to change your mind? And what changes did you make to your life as a result?

I've changed my mind from certainty to agnosticism/ indifference.

As for life changes, I have made some which I'm not going to get into here because they'd sound trite. Those changes weren't made in response to any hard data but along the lines of Pascal's Wager. In a fully materialistic universe anything I do or think has no significance whatsoever. I've no philosophical problem with that. However, rather than living life along those lines I find it easier to structure my day on the basis that there is a point.

As the for the papers, I'm not suggesting that there's material which categorically rules out a fully materialist explanation. What I have yet to see is a materialist explanation, or group of explanations, which fully accounts for the core NDE experience and why some people report them and some don't. What there are are papers documenting studies of reported NDE experiences which start mumbling a bit when it comes to concluding about possible mechanisms.

One of the papers most frequently referred to by NDE devotees is Pin van Lommel's 2001 paper, presumably because it made its way into The Lancet...

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

[Riedquat]

What I have yet to see is a materialist explanation, or group of explanations, which fully accounts for the core NDE experience and why some people report them and some don't. What there are are papers documenting studies of reported NDE experiences which start mumbling a bit when it comes to concluding about possible mechanisms.

Which means nothing. The current lack of an explanation in no way whatsoever lends credence to other paradigms. It just means no-one's yet managed to get to the bottom of it.

[JustYield]

If there is then there should also be a beforelife, no?

The downside to that is that I don't remember any of it so if there is an afterlife I probably won't be aware that I'm experiencing it!

As a know-it-all 18 year old, I explained to some much older folks that since there was a time before I existed I am quite happy for there to be a time after I exist - there is no reason to think that anything continues once you die. The idea sort of popped into my head, I know it's hardly original. They were dumbstruck though.

I quite Like Louis CK's latest take on it - challenging people who believe that not only did God create the whole Universe he also felt the need to make another thing, off to the side, called Heaven! I already made everything, what more do you want?! Jesus!

[Riedquat]

I already made everything, what more do you want?! Jesus!

Apparently so.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Which means nothing. The current lack of an explanation in no way whatsoever lends credence to other paradigms. It just means no-one's yet managed to get to the bottom of it.

I passed on reeling off references to actual NDE accounts where people seem to be able to recount what was going on around them, including beyond the line of sight of their bodies, even when they had flat EEGs. Which if they were verified would change things a bit. By their nature, these things are going to be tricky to study though I believe there is a study close to being published

As part of the AWARE study Parnia and colleagues have investigated out of body claims by using hidden targets placed on shelves that could only be seen from above.[13] Parnia has written "if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories".[13] Parnia issued a statement indicating that the first phase of the project has been completed and the results are undergoing peer review for publication in a medical journal.[14] No subjects saw the images mounted out of sight according to Parnia's early report of the results of the study at an American Heart Association meeting in November 2013. Οnly two out of the 152 patients reported any visual experiences, and one of them described events that could be verified.

Unfortunately, the premise 'if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories' strikes me as being flawed.

The counter argument to taking the NDE experience at face value is usually along the lines that subjects experienced their NDE before their EEG flattened, or after they were resuscitated and that their account of what was taking place around them when they were 'dead' is essentially a synthesised guess of what was taking place. What would be interesting would be if someone collated NDE accounts where, even though the subject experienced what was going on around them with great clarity, they were totally off the mark. If someone has done this I'm unaware of it.