Thanks for the posts....

Don't get me wrong, I WANT proof. I want to prove to myself that this is real. I DO.

I just have very strict rules for my acceptance of anything this off the wall.

By the way, the scientific explanation for OBE's which can actually be triggered by manipulating the brain:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/science-life-after-de...

"Blanke determined that by electrically stimulating the woman's angular gyrus, a part of the temporal parietal junction, he could induce her OBEs. What's remarkable is that the patient experienced an OBE each time her angular gyrus was arbitrarily stimulated."

Edit: The above testing proves (sadly) to me scientifically that OBE's are completely normal, natural, and directly connected to the body

Quote:


Something to realise here is that, (to quote a Native American I once read) "the how does not necessarily explain the why."

Science can, and very likely will, eventually come up with explanations for many of these processes, that will satisfy it.  I truthfully would not want it any other way.  Verifiable Magick is not anti-Scientific, in the least; rather it is the utilisation of principles that mainstream Science has not always caught up with, in its' own thinking.  It can be beneficial, here, to remember what Science's roots were.

The utilisation of methods such as Ginny's, and Bruce's, will eventually lead to the accumulation of verifiable data and knowledge, which you will come to realise were unknowable by any conventional means.  Once that happens, very simple logic will dictate that the process described here, must be legitimate.  Bruce's method *is* Scientific according to the core definition of the word; it is verifiably reproducible, although not necessarily by strictly *mechanical* means, and that is where certain types of skepticism can get tripped up.

Bruce has mentioned coming from an engineering background himself, and I thus know that he would not tell you to throw the left hemisphere of your brain completely out the window.  It is, however, necessary to learn to use both in tandem, and that can take some time.

From memory, Bob Monroe once wrote about some experiments that were conducted with him, that involved a Faraday cage, as well.  You may find reading those to be interesting.  They to some extent implied that OBEs do have at least a partially electromagnetic component.

Bruce Moen wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:


Oh no!!   Bruce, I'm sorry!  That really wasn't meant to be a put down at all!  I just know that you wrote that you did have a lot of trouble getting rid of the Interpreter, as you called it, for a while, and truthfully I have had that difficulty as well.

Getting past the part of ourselves which is that analytical does seem to be difficult for most of us.

Well, the list of possible proofs for the afterlife mostly fall into one of these categories:

1. Ghosts
2 & 3 OBE / NDE (different but grouped together regardless as being similar)
4. Psychic Mediums

IF either of these can be taken in a laboratory set up and tested to come out successful in a repeatable experiment under controlled settings, a scientist would be forced to admit the after life is more than just a theory and could very likely be true.

1. I rule out ghosts simply because it is the least testable and provable of these choices. So let's throw that one out the door.

2. In order to test OBE and proof it's not imagination we need a precise test. Not something that is likely to be successful... therefore, OBE can also be thrown out the window because it cannot effectively be tested. Something psychical in real life like an image of something happening or numbers read of is simply a MUST due to the possibility of anything less simply being human imagination...

3. NDE, we have a lot of information, but first we need a fool proof system to scan and determine for a fact that this is happening while dead and not in a split second of an actual functioning body. So first we have to have the technology to ensure that part first... Then we need to be able to monitor people as they are dying for the test to be accurate. This is not something we are able to do with our technology.
NDE's can be scientifically thrown out, not because it is guaranteed that they are fake mind you, but due to the fact that science has strict guidelines that must be followed.

4. Psychic mediums seem to be the most testable of all of these subjects. I have personally tested two mediums and kept myself completely aloof and both have been completely unable to give me any accurate information, and they attempt to play this off as they're spirit guides not telling them anything. I AM willing to put more mediums to the test however, yet, most of them charge an arm and a leg.

James, technically, any of the topics in regards to the afterlife are acceptable as long as they can be scientifically tested effectively...


A REPEATABLE scientific experiment which shows that one of these options is a real phenomenon is a necessity for my acceptance of an afterlife, and life itself having more of a meaning than the simple instincts inherent in all life.

Ghosts are testable with certain devices but the data seems highly corruptible and untrustworthy which makes them currently unprovable with any certainty. Audio recordings are a perfect example of people hearing what they want to hear... magnetic frequencies could be happening for any number of reasons... etc.

OBE/NDE like I said is currently unprovable with our current technology for monitoring brain activity, due to our inability to interpret the data of the brain activity. We would need to know for sure the experience has nothing to do with the brain and prove that it is happening while the brain is not functioning vs happening while the brain is functioning, even if it is for a split second. Let's face it, in the brain, a huge dream can be simply a blink of an eye.... a blink of an eye... while the brain STILL functions.

Mediums still seem the most likely potential scientific proof. Even the fail rate of the medium can potentially be explained but the simple fact that they are alive and attempting to contact something dead/different which would definitely explain a certain amount of failure.

However, science would still require a fairly high success rate from the medium to be able to officially state that these people are connecting with "something" and receiving information. It could not say the spiritual answer is 100% correct but it does seem one of the simplest answer if one could rule out mind reading through data even the sitter does not know yet can verify.

Jehovah,

You seem to assume that the scientific method deals in absoulte truths, when in fact each of our individual experiences in consciousness may be different.  The scientific method involves setting up an experiement in which given certain rigorous predefined criteria, a reproducible phenomenon may be observed and agreed upon.  Yet if you explore the scientific method - really delve into it - you find that the idea that we are getting purely objective data is illusory.

It has been shown and described by scientists and some of the brightest minds, including Einstein, that the observer in any experiment is, in fact intimately tied into the outcome of the experiment.  Some quantum physicists even have posited scenarios whereby an experiment could be in either state (positive or negative) until the exact moment that an observer focuses their consciousness on the experiment and "observes." (This is the famous Schrodinger Cat paradox) 

The point behind this is, that somehow, in this Western world of ours, we make assumptions about the scientific method, and lose ourselves  - in the blind worship of reproducible observation (science).  Science is then worshipped as the only "truth," and our true perception  - which centers on who/what we really are, becomes secondary or doubted.

Anyone who searches this problem long enough eventually gets into the big issues that Descartes wrote about, and comes up with his conclusions "Cogito ergo sum," -  I think therefore I am. 

The afterlife really deals with the realm of thought.  A realm you live in right here and right now, albeit greatly restricted in the world of matter.  We look at commonly agreed on "laws" of the universe (gravity, laws of motion), and assume that these commonly agreed upon laws allow us to then describe everything that is "real" or "true" if we only apply the scientific method to the situation.  Except, when things get tricky and it is found that physics and reality are really best described by quantum states, and that this quantum theory is based upon probabilities rather than absolutes. 

In the end then, when all is said and done, I am left with my conscious perception as the only thing that is true, that is nonreducible.  In deep meditation we become aware of this - that we simply are.  We perceive.  We are part of everything, and at the same time separate from it.

If you could design experiments to prove NDEs or OOBEs are real, someone would poke holes into the theory.  Death defined as cessation of brain function on an EEG or the heart beating.  Oh really?  The heart is routinely stopped during open heart surgery and there are those who have been clinically brain dead and returned.  So as you gather reproducible data, your doubters will redefine what "death" is.  The theories for how the experiences of NDEs have formed these memories will also expand, as the fantasies of an oxygen starved mind.

And yet, through it all, there is you and I, the individual pinpoints of perception thinking and existing, a "mind" in a material world.  Those of us with personal experience would say that the mind is not truly confined to the body or produced by the body, that the mind is primary, and exists and interpenetrates this reality.  My friend Dave-MBS who was one of the most brilliant minds on this board (who I only recently learned passed away suddenly in 2008), would call this theory - "the prmacy of consciousness." 

Those led astray by worshipping the scientific method believe in the primacy of physical reality, and write off consciousness/awareness as a secondary phenomenon, dependent on neurochemistry, etc.   Those who believe in the "primacy of consciousness," believe that we, in our essence are thought/spirit, and that spirit decides to express itself in the physical world, coupling this thought to a brain (a receiver), and a physical body.  Many of us then get confused and lose our way, seeing only the physical, and denying our true nature.


Matthew

I`m sorry for your pain. It is sad the mediums you sought could not help you. I do not agree with your arguments, but I hope you can take comfort in the fact that at least people here tried to show you a point.

However, you do as the Chinese proverb goes "The listener, in the end, only hears the "No"" - regarding long explanations.

One rather big issue that you may want to think about. Science improves - and changes totally - all the time. What is not provable now may be provable in 200 years. Does this make it less true now?

I am not saying there IS an afterlife. I have my own doubts. But you have to admit that one simply cannot say either position is true at the moment, after carefully weighing the evidence.

Even if there is no afterlife, this existence can still have meaning. You matter in the here and now. You are part of the big whole, of this fascinating story of life. You are the universe thinking about itself.

The price of death is very high for existence and I can only hope the people saying there is an afterlife are right. But to say existence is meaningless without seems to me like you can only allow for one kind of meaning, the "supernatural" so to say.

Anyway, love to you. You arent alone in your fear and you arent alone in your pain. Sentinent beings have it hard.

Jehovah,

The point is not that only the afterlife is unprovable, it is that the scientific method is flawed and not a source for absolute truth.  The conclusion you draw however - that life has no meaning - is unsubstantiated, and does not emerge from the evidence that I and others presented.

Great religions, mystics and explorers on this site,  including Bruce have described in their own terms, how the "meaning" of the universe, as arising out of and being to experience and express love (PUL).  How is that possible, you say, in a seemingly random and cruel world?  It is simple.  It is your choice.  It is your thought.  It is your purpose.

My take on things (as I've said before) is that you are a point of perception in the universe.  You think, you feel.  In the physical world, you find that your thought takes on meaning in the world around you.  With introspection, you will find that thought attracts like to like.  Those who project love and light find it returned to them.  Those who project selfishness and hate, find, to their dismay that they experience selfishness and hate.  Some curse this experience and call it karma.  Others find an "aha!" moment from these experiences and take home the realization  that by changing their thought and pursuing loving thought and actions, they receive more love, and find a path back to God (the source).

As we find that we can create things in the physical world, we can see that our ability to create is part of our divine potential.  Use it as you will, but you are given plenty of teaching regarding this.  Not just from the great religions of the world  (with the "golden rule" - do unto others....) but also with your own experience as to what you bring into your life.  You are meant not to rant at the hardships but to connect the dots, and see how your inner state attracts certain things into your reality. 

These are tough concepts, but on another level so basic, and so easy to understand if you examine your own life and your own mind long enough.

Matthew