The afterlife and existence after death

You forgot this article?

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/S.Hameroff/QSoulchap.PDF

PS: we have two Haruhi in the forum!

Alright, i read the paper now. Interesting. It states quite a bit about how ORCH OR works. A "quantum soul" seems to be atleast plausible. But this is more like one of those many possibilities out there, right? I dont really get why that specifically should be right. I mean, i read the last part, with the following arguments for the hypothesis:
1.
Interconnectedness via entanglement among living beings and the universe
2.
Contact with cosmic wisdom/Platonic values embedded as quantum information in fundamental space-time geometry
3.
Consciousness as patterns in nonlocal fractallholographic-like space-time geometry, able to exist at deeper planes and scales independent of biology

Especially the last part would be important for a "soul", right? I didnt notice that ORCH OR stated that.
 
Its kind of weird to me that it should be something like "nde's are there so that we can die happy".

It is weird. NDErs die happy. I guess if they've been revived, they "live" happy, because they know that death is not the end. But of course, some will say "you're prone to magical thinking. That was just a major hallucination, not an afterlife visit". My goodness.
 
It is weird. NDErs die happy. I guess if they've been revived, they "live" happy, because they know that death is not the end. But of course, some will say "you're prone to magical thinking. That was just a major hallucination, not an afterlife visit". My goodness.

Well idk about that, i actually thought there about the thesis that nde's are a thing our brains made up for us so we can die happy and easy. I dont understand why they think that the brain would do that. Theres no advantage for survival in that (-> nde's would have no function at all). As i was arguing earlier on, if there is something we dont need it wont be there for long. NDE's seem to be a constant thing over the last decades - im not sure if something that doesnt fullfill any function at all would last that long.

Same goes for some sort of big last event from our subconsciousness. Im not sure if a subconsciousness can create that much imaginery stuff without any conscious actions that are involved there.
 
Wouldnt that mean that when the microtubles stop to function our existence ceases to be? Or could there be something on a quatum level (i mean, you imply that it comes down to QM, right?)? Idk, the paper that got quoted here on the quantum soul could propably fit in here? The "afterlife" could be rather unplausible if that what you are describing would be true.

And if i interpret what you wrote correctly, you say that NDE's are a product of a dying a brain of some sort. Do i understand you correctly there?

Taking your last question, No I definitely don't think NDE's are the result of a dying brain, although they may occur in such circumstances. I think they are probably to do with 1) microtubule networks processing external EM fields, due to changes in (or absence of) endogenous neuron firing, 2) microtubule spatial network patterns coherently interfering with other similar patterns.

Re your first question, is it even valid to ask it? Perhaps space-time and all within it, is a result of processing something, and not the cause, hence asking these sorts of questions may be meaningless?

Although questions about "what comes next" (if anything) are sometimes interesting to muse over, I'm not hugely interested in them. I'm more interested about what all these clues are telling me about the present. We're all going to find out (or not) what happens when we die, but can this stuff give us clues about how we should live?
 
Taking your last question, No I definitely don't think NDE's are the result of a dying brain, although they may occur in such circumstances. I think they are probably to do with 1) microtubule networks processing external EM fields, due to changes in (or absence of) endogenous neuron firing, 2) microtubule spatial network patterns coherently interfering with other similar patterns.

Re your first question, is it even valid to ask it? Perhaps space-time and all within it, is a result of processing something, and not the cause, hence asking these sorts of questions may be meaningless?

Although questions about "what comes next" (if anything) are sometimes interesting to muse over, I'm not hugely interested in them. I'm more interested about what all these clues are telling me about the present. We're all going to find out (or not) what happens when we die, but can this stuff give us clues about how we should live?

Ah well. Ty for answering.

So that would mean that NDE's are based on interactions with microtubles in your opinion? The interesting part is propably what is interacting with them huh. EM fields/other patterns that are interaction with those microtubles point to a connection to something non-local, dont they?

I dont know if it is valid to ask, as you can see i just do it. If everything we know is a process and the result is yet to be produced - ohm, well. Doesnt sound too bad :) The result will be amazing. Definitely.
To focus on the present propably would be a wise choice. I got a simple plan for that though. I want to have as much fun as i can. That leaves quite a bit of time to worry about everything that could follow my time of joy here on earth. That may sound strange (but well, we are on skeptiko right, whats exactly strange here) but it feels like im on a calling to find out what could come after my physical body stops functioning. Its more then just bugging me; even so, its not just fear anymore (the nice people here already told me that everything isnt as explicit defined as i thought it would be) that motivates me to find out. Its some sort of weird interest that i never had before. I dont know. That kind of stuff suddenly emerged a few months ago. It was like someone hitting me with a brick. If i think back im actually not sure if everything before that wasnt just sleepwalking; my awareness seems to be different since one specific day back then.
But well, different people try to solve different questions. Thats the good part when there are so many people out there. They all can search for something else.
 
Last edited:
Taking your last question, No I definitely don't think NDE's are the result of a dying brain, although they may occur in such circumstances.
A good friend of mine, since High School, had a driving accident in which the vehicle (an SUV) was completely wrecked. He (and a friend riding with him) came out completely unscathed. So there was no "dying brain" involved. And yet he did relate to me an NDE like experience including a complete life review that he had at the time of the accident. I'll never forget him telling me his account, since he simply wasn't the kind of guy to make "that" kind of story up at all. So, yes, it is not "just" the dying brain apparently that can and does initiate an NDE like experience. Probably would even be a good area to conduct more NDE research, since I think it would provide some good evidentiary data to refute some of the wildly concocted rebuttals skeptics come up with based just on a "dying brain" scenario.

I think they are probably to do with 1) microtubule networks processing external EM fields, due to changes in (or absence of) endogenous neuron firing, 2) microtubule spatial network patterns coherently interfering with other similar patterns.
Fascinating.

Re your first question, is it even valid to ask it? Perhaps space-time and all within it, is a result of processing something, and not the cause, hence asking these sorts of questions may be meaningless?

Although questions about "what comes next" (if anything) are sometimes interesting to muse over, I'm not hugely interested in them. I'm more interested about what all these clues are telling me about the present. We're all going to find out (or not) what happens when we die, but can this stuff give us clues about how we should live?
Suppose we do somehow scientifically come to a consensus and establish that consciousness does survive. Then what? There is still quite a bit of mystery left to unravel. Surely people will wonder and want to know "what comes next" if anything? For what does come next, could possibly determine how they live their life now, no? For example, if what comes next is some kind of state of remarkable bliss and love, why then bear the burden, and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, when with a bare bodkin one might quickly escape the travails of suffering that so many seem fated to live? It would seem silly to continue to suffer when so much bliss awaited you?

On the other hand, science is still working just on the question of whether it is even possible there be survival, and likely will only be answered by solving the hard problem of consciousness. And yet even when the question of consciousness is resolved, there will be so many more questions still left unanswered, that I think, will have quite a bit of bearing on how we live our lives now.

Carl Jung once wrote, "The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not?" Certainly, life after death would seem to be relatable to the infinite. But what else is relatable to the infinite?
 
Last edited:
Ah well. Ty for answering.

So that would mean that NDE's are based on interactions with microtubles in your opinion? The interesting part is propably what is interacting with them huh. EM fields/other patterns that are interaction with those microtubles point to a connection to something non-local, dont they?

I dont know if it is valid to ask, as you can see i just do it. If everything we know is a process and the result is yet to be produced - ohm, well. Doesnt sound too bad :) The result will be amazing. Definitely.
To focus on the present propably would be a wise choice. I got a simple plan for that though. I want to have as much fun as i can. That leaves quite a bit of time to worry about everything that could follow my time of joy here on earth. That may sound strange (but well, we are on skeptiko right, whats exactly strange here) but it feels like im on a calling to find out what could come after my physical body stops functioning. Its more then just bugging me; even so, its not just fear anymore (the nice people here already told me that everything isnt as explicit defined as i thought it would be) that motivates me to find out. Its some sort of weird interest that i never had before. I dont know. That kind of stuff suddenly emerged a few months ago. It was like someone hitting me with a brick. If i think back im actually not sure if everything before that wasnt just sleepwalking; my awareness seems to be different since one specific day back then.
But well, different people try to solve different questions. Thats the good part when there are so many people out there. They all can search for something else.

If you're drawn towards asking these types of questions, and you follow wherever they and their answers lead, with an open viewpoint, I think that's very good.

We can only search individually, but if we do, from my own experience, it appears we can obtain answers.
 
If you're drawn towards asking these types of questions, and you follow wherever they and their answers lead, with an open viewpoint, I think that's very good.

We can only search individually, but if we do, from my own experience, it appears we can obtain answers.
Very Jungian reply. Heh.
 
A good friend of mine, since High School, had a driving accident in which the vehicle (an SUV) was completely wrecked. He (and a friend riding with him) came out completely unscathed. So there was no "dying brain" involved. And yet he did relate to me an NDE like experience including a complete life review that he had at the time of the accident. I'll never forget him telling me his account, since he simply wasn't the kind of guy to make "that" kind of story up at all. So, yes, it is not "just" the dying brain apparently that can and does initiate an NDE like experience. Probably would even be a good area to conduct more NDE research, since I think it would provide some good evidentiary data to refute some of the wildly concocted rebuttals skeptics come up with based just on a "dying brain" scenario.


Fascinating.


Suppose we do somehow scientifically come to a consensus and establish that consciousness does survive. Then what? There is still quite a bit of mystery left to unravel. Surely people will wonder and want to know "what comes next" if anything? For what does come next, could possibly determine how they live their life now, no? For example, if what comes next is some kind of state of remarkable bliss and love, why then bear the burden, and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, when with a bare bodkin one might quickly escape the travails of suffering that so many seem fated to live? It would seem silly to continue to suffer when so much bliss awaited you?

On the other hand, science is still working just on the question of whether it is even possible there be survival, and likely will only be answered by solving the hard problem of consciousness. And yet even when the question of consciousness is resolved, there will be so many more questions still left unanswered, that I think, will have quite a bit of bearing on how we live our lives now.

Carl Jung once wrote, "The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not?" Certainly, life after death would seem to be relatable to the infinite. But what else is relatable to the infinite?

As regards to "what comes next". You know I'm only talking about my own personal viewpoint. I'm perfectly fine with others being interested in this question.
 
A good friend of mine, since High School, had a driving accident in which the vehicle (an SUV) was completely wrecked. He (and a friend riding with him) came out completely unscathed. So there was no "dying brain" involved. And yet he did relate to me an NDE like experience including a complete life review that he had at the time of the accident. I'll never forget him telling me his account, since he simply wasn't the kind of guy to make "that" kind of story up at all. So, yes, it is not "just" the dying brain apparently that can and does initiate an NDE like experience. Probably would even be a good area to conduct more NDE research, since I think it would provide some good evidentiary data to refute some of the wildly concocted rebuttals skeptics come up with based just on a "dying brain" scenario.
Its true that NDE's can occur in a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from a completely healthy, normally-functioning brain all the way to a totally inactive non-functioning brain. For me this is compelling evidence that arguments such as oxygen-deprivation and other conventional brain-based descriptions are incapable of explaining the phenomenon. However researchers such as Dr Sam Parnia have concentrated specifically on the cardiac-arrest scenario as that is a very specific condition where the condition of the brain can be studied in detail. From that angle, all the other scenarios under which an NDE can occur are less useful as the condition of the brain is unknown.

I too have come across an account from a trusted friend involved in a driving accident, which looked certain to end in the vehicle smashing at high speed into a solid stone wall. There was a slowing down of time, and an NDE-like experience, in the moments before the collision. Then somehow, the vehicle veered off the road and landed reasonably gently in an adjacent field. The occupants were unharmed.

Such experiences have been recorded long before the current cultural familiarity with the NDE. There was for example an account of a mountaineer falling from a great height to certain death, having an NDE, then somehow landing unharmed. In such cases the brain is healthy and functioning normally, there is no oxygen shortage etc. If we look at the literature regarding the NDE, it will be seen that they can occur in a very wide range of differing circumstances. As mentioned, for some people this is a weakness as it makes controlled research more difficult. But I think these wider examples are important as they form part of the complete picture and contribute to our knowledge and understanding of the subject.
 
Last edited:
Suppose we do somehow scientifically come to a consensus and establish that consciousness does survive. Then what? There is still quite a bit of mystery left to unravel. Surely people will wonder and want to know "what comes next" if anything? For what does come next, could possibly determine how they live their life now, no? For example, if what comes next is some kind of state of remarkable bliss and love, why then bear the burden, and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, when with a bare bodkin one might quickly escape the travails of suffering that so many seem fated to live? It would seem silly to continue to suffer when so much bliss awaited you

Whether we come to a 'scientific consensus' or not there is a vast body of material that purports to come from those already having survived the process of physical death. I don't think we need to be in ignorance of the next state (I don't think you're suggesting this) even if we cannot establish absolute certainty..
 
Whether we come to a 'scientific consensus' or not there is a vast body of material that purports to come from those already having survived the process of physical death. I don't think we need to be in ignorance of the next state (I don't think you're suggesting this) even if we cannot establish absolute certainty..
I agree with you. In fact, I was trying to say and not to well unfortunately, the survival question may become the more trivial question once we establish it as true. Though yes, it will be a huge paradigm shift for science.

But then you will have a whole host of other questions that will naturally follow that might be even more significant than the survival question itself. If survival is true, what is the nature of that survival? What is the nature of independent consciousness? Is reincarnation true? How does an independent consciousness interact with reality (perhaps quantum physics has provided some clues already). Is our universe especially tailored for consciousness? Is it "biocentric" as Robert Lanza and other scientists and some brave astronomers are beginning to hypothesize right now? Plenty of new questions to ask once the survival question is answered.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Is reincarnation true?
You asked a lot of valid and important questions. I'll just comment on this one. For me reincarnation was my entry-point into understanding of these things, and it was this which convinced me that survival occurs.

What I think this means is that studies in this area are not a linear process where first one thing is established, then using that as a foundation, various other matters will follow as a consequence. Instead, there are many separate but interwoven paths leading through the research and understanding of these questions. For different people, the questions occur in a different order. It is the bigger picture taking into account all of these branches which gives a fuller account of the state of our collective knowledge.

Similarly, on the question of establishing certain things scientifically, I don't think there is a precise point which might be identified as a paradigm shift. Instead, some people are already convinced, some will never be convinced. The balance may shift, but I don't expect a consensus.
 
I agree with you. In fact, I was trying to say and not to well unfortunately, the survival question may become the more trivial question once we establish it as true. Though yes, it will be a huge paradigm shift for science.

But then you will have a whole host of other questions that will naturally follow that might be even more significant than the survival question itself. If survival is true, what is the nature of that survival? What is the nature of independent consciousness? Is reincarnation true? How does an independent consciousness interact with reality (perhaps quantum physics has provided some clues already). Is our universe especially tailored for consciousness? Is it "biocentric" as Robert Lanza and other scientists and some brave astronomers are beginning to hypothesize right now? Plenty of new questions to ask once the survival question is answered.

My Best,
Bertha

The evidence for survival is so enormous it is absurd that sceptics ignore it. As regards reincarnation, for me nothing else makes sense. The other questions ..........mind bogglingly difficult, don't think some of them CAN be answered...ever.
 
You asked a lot of valid and important questions. I'll just comment on this one. For me reincarnation was my entry-point into understanding of these things, and it was this which convinced me that survival occurs.

What I think this means is that studies in this area are not a linear process where first one thing is established, then using that as a foundation, various other matters will follow as a consequence. Instead, there are many separate but interwoven paths leading through the research and understanding of these questions. For different people, the questions occur in a different order. It is the bigger picture taking into account all of these branches which gives a fuller account of the state of our collective knowledge.

Similarly, on the question of establishing certain things scientifically, I don't think there is a precise point which might be identified as a paradigm shift. Instead, some people are already convinced, some will never be convinced. The balance may shift, but I don't expect a consensus.
Stevenson's work was outstanding and is sadly disparaged and misrepresented on Wikipedia by the guerilla skeptic's editorial control there. I also think reincarnation is a likely possibility given his work, and plenty of other related material as well, such as the many mediums who have voiced the reincarnation concept, and many organized religions.

I am also constraining myself here to the more established scientific orthodoxy approach to what people assume to be true, which no doubt right now is the reductive materialistic paradigm which reigns supreme (surprisingly, even given what was established in quantum physics almost 100 years ago) and of which Stephen Hawkings and the neo-atheists have latched on to and taken to its logical conclusion in a very fundamentalistic manner.

But by no means is the officially acceptable scientific orthodoxy the only way I think one can reach for a model of truth of reality and consciousness. One alternative, would be the work of the depth psychologists, especially the work of Carl Jung. The unconscious, even though it is deemed a subjective phenomena (and orthodox science will say it is a materialistic brain created phenomena) has quite a tale to tell, and those who have spent their lives studying the unconscious like Carl Jung (or Frederic Myers) came away convinced that there is not only meaning to life, but that consciousness must be independent of the materialistic model that has been adopted by science.

Will a general consensus ever be reached? That's a great question. I think one will be reached. One of the biggest problems that the neo-atheist materialists have right now is the elephant in the room: what has been thoroughly established in quantum physics, i.e. the observer effect and more recently, the very well confirmed non-locality of entanglement. The only argument I've heard from the Skeptics so far to debunk either (which is simply impossible) is to claim that "believers" just don't understand quantum physics. Or that the observer question is still in debate. It is true the observer effect currently has a multitude of interpretations, but what many of the Skeptics either are ignorant of, or refuse to admit, is that in all the current interpretations of the measurement problem in quantum physics, consciousness is somehow involved.

I think a consensus will likely be reached. You just can't get around the findings in quantum physics or its veridicality. It's easy to make fun of the early SPR researchers, and to dismiss all psi research as just "anecdotes" written by a bunch of cranks, and come up with concocted arguments based on supposed methodology flaws ad nauseum. But it simply cannot be done with what has been established experimentally in quantum physics (such as the double slit experiment). Whereas, the great range of psychological experience in psi that has been documented over and over again by psychical researchers now for the last 100 years, relies heavily on the testimony of human beings and corroborated facts - experiments in quantum physics have not relied on such a wide range of phenomena. The phenomena can be constrained to a laboratory and repeated at will.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Back
Top