E2B said: Science is the study of the physical, tangible universe. It's done a fabulous job at doing that, but what we are at our core, is so far beyond that and I'm realizing this more and more from the more NDE accounts I read. Perhaps, they are not proof necessarily (depending on who is reading it and depending on how you define 'proof'), but I would definitely call it evidence, once again.....because of the large number of cases and because of the commonality of the collective cases.
Yeh I'm a bit of a 'conundrum' for both 'sides'
When you do go back to that other topic ('not' proof of heaven 'for me') take careful note of the discussion about evidence and proof as I'm culturally comfortable, the notions of 'proven', or 'not proven' beyond all reasonable doubt. Culturally it's actually embedded as a wonderful legal system that aligns itself with the pure scientific rigours of the 'age of enlightenment' also credited to Scotland - in that people are able to be reasonably found 'guilty' as charged, 'not guilty' (innocent) of what has been charged, or a third somewhat legally unique I understand in Scotland, 'not proven' verdict where a charge has not beyond all reasonable doubt proven guilt or innocence.
There is another 'nuance' that a first person testimony cannot be constituted as proof in and of itself, but if there is supporting evidence able to be reported by another person, then it can be, and is allowed to be fully explained and taken into account in the weight of evidence. (Unlike other jurisdictions where it would be 'disallowed' completely).
It's a inherent difference in degrees of comfortableness and I dare say in 'rules of engagement' with things thought to be proven true or proven not to be true. Hence, why and how my Dad would hold me to task. The core 'thing' of his, and my, genuine scepticism and agnostic views, is this sense of 'justice' according to the facts of a matter.
For instance if a 'rationalist' tells me that I did not come back from that (nde) state with, - or that I did not have awareness and access to information beyond the 'normal physical capacity' while in that state - well that's just proven not true, not just to me, but to anyone witnessing it. The overwhelming evidence recorded on my return without any possible physical or mental 'processing' by me, just totally (and that was the 'thing' in evidence for the attending doctors and staff) blew the notion that it was just a dream or some illogical random delusion, some 'irregular' brain fart that I later made sense of. It wasn't.
As far as I was able, even not intentionally to 'prove' anything later, just in pure emotion I said "Don't let them turn that machine off until I can see him properly" - my body even at that point was not and had not been in a position where I even could have seen that my son was on a ventilator (machine) keeping him 'alive' - even apart from the fact that on return to consciousness within my body, I could not open my eyes and even when I could I could not focus them, and my Mum and a nurse were physically blocking my line of sight to my son anyway.
On a number of occasions when Ash has engaged even he has been unable to answer how - apart from my absolute knowledge of my awareness from a perspective of outside my body - did I not only know this, I saw it from above him, I described who came into the operating theatre after I was 'gone', and I also knew about his spinal injury and the permanence of it - and mentioned it (asking pre their 'investigations' of why he hadn't moved and still was not breathing hours later) what would they do, when they found the lesion - to the same nurse who I only saw from over the top of her head tending my body previously. That I had that 'ultra' awareness is for me and others who witnessed it, 'proven', not just beyond any 'reasonable doubt' but beyond any doubt at all. So the 'effect' is real. The evidence would stand up in a court in Scotland as being 'proven' beyond all reasonable doubt. It also proved that 'something' happened, to my agnostic, rational, Dad.
But, at the same time when spiritual folks jump to the conclusion that it means we 'go somewhere' when we die that is some magnificent 'heaven', I'm sorry, for me that is still 'not proven'.
So while the 'effect' has been proven, the 'cause' - not in the medical or situationally different 'causes' as individually experienced and made sense of, the actual 'cause' of this awareness - the 'capacity' for this awareness, as yet is not proven either way (to me) scientifically or spiritually beyond all reasonable doubt. If I can raise 'doubt', then it hasn't been proven, and so I'm left that I'm 'open', not closed in belief, either way.
For me, it has still not been proven that it is not a 'capacity' of physical proportions that our brains under some circumstances can 'access' information universally, globally, unrestricted by time or space
- albeit, expanded physical proportions along the lines of clair abilities and empath 'stuff' that is also for me absolutely is 'proven' to be able to perceive and interpret outside of what is 'normally' accepted in terms of sender-receiver communications across time and space and notions of what constitutes 'life'. (I genuinely see and speak to 'dead' people .... whatever 'dead' means)
I would be able to tend evidence suffice in a court in Scotland to have that upheld in so much as the 'effect', (as in the accuracy of the content of information shared in these 'states') but again not as to the 'cause' or the 'process' of how that occurs or what it means in terms of 'consciousness'.
I'm also not one to think that consciousness is generated by the brain
. I'm just not. It is more proven than not to me that we 'tap into' conscious energy at different levels / frequencies / intensities and can make logical sense (or not) of our interpretations as per discussions in the Being Human thread. (Have you read that thread E2B?)
I understand that you appreciate what you think I said, but what you don't realise, is that what you heard, is not what I meant ----
Sounds like you are suggesting that there is a potential that what NDErs experience are merely products of the brain. Or at least you're questioning if there is something with the brain that could potentially cause this
Don't put that on your inside toilet door as I once did, it creates one heck of a queue!!
I'm not saying that ndes are 'products of the brain' or even that something in brains potentially 'cause' this state, that's confusing cause and effect. It seems to be an easy mistake for folks to make - confusing cause with effect.
What I am saying is that these states are 'real' - this level of awareness potential is real, and can be 'accessed' and interpreted by the brain in various situations, and 'possibly' even 'no brain' situations although while in life, that's stretching the hypotheses I know, forgive me.
Nde is the most 'extreme' version of this 'selfless awareness' in my experience - in clair & empath ways even while fully standing up conscious, there is this 'selfless awareness' capacity to absorb information consciously, albeit not as 'completely' as in nde. Where it 'hurts' physically or effects physically I can also provide evidence that would stand up in a court - I didn't just throw myself backwards off a chair when my friend was shot through the front of her head 8 miles away from me, (and me being blown backwards as if by 'nothing' at all was witnessed as a spontaneous 'thing' by others).
I didn't have a burst appendix crippling me and doubling me over in agonising pain when my boyfriend's appendix burst, and neither did I suddenly 'make up' the manifestation of the symptoms of that agony to get myself rushed from my workplace to an emergency room. I didn't just suddenly while sitting on a couch reading the paper decide to 'act' having my stomach cut open. I didn't just suddenly lose my footing and my 'sight' and my capacity to hold my body upright at the moment my youngest was hit by a car... I was physically winded.
And many, many more 'evidenced' events, these things are 'effect', not cause.
The 'effect' then is physically evident. Things about my nde were physically and intellectually 'evident' not just to me, but for others too. Others who like me, who did not have the answers as to what the 'cause' or the 'process' of it is, but the 'effect', that's proven beyond any doubt, not even just beyond any reasonable doubt, beyond ANY doubt, even for the witnesses.
Does that make more sense of my 'position' - straddling? It might make my 'rational arguments' and 'questions' in that other topic make more sense. And, I'd appreciate your feedback on them. I really am... open ... to possibilities and varied perspectives. If I say 'pfffttt' or 'yum' I don't mean it personally
I bow to Dr Bruce Greyson again for his scientific rigour and his pure respect for experiencers. I recall him once saying to me that it was just funny (he may not have used the word 'funny' --- that's me) that scientists who KNOW the limitations of what and how they are tangibly able to examine and discuss is less than 5% of what they 'know' is influencing everything (as in 95% dark energy / matter that has no understanding on our part) and yet some will so forcefully express views about the limits of it, knowing that they don't know the limits of it (be that the 5% or the 95%) it is just arrogance in ignorance.
In many ways, I'm a pretty good 'expert witness' for both 'sides'