What determines where we go should there be an afterlife?

I get inspired from nderf NDEs, and I believe the majority is actually the real deal. Keep em coming!

You mean keep them coming like pop corn and hot dogs ? With respect, that's not going to achieve anything, it's just going to cheapen the sincere experiences that have been authenticated. We don't need more afterlife tours, we need to persuade the scientific hierarchy that consciousness can exist independently from the brain.
 
that's not going to achieve anything

I just told you, they inspire me. Different stories contributes to the full picture in different ways. So yes, they do achieve something. There is more to the afterlife than the hard Q of C (like, say, the title of this thread).

We don't need more afterlife tours

Or songs ...or poems.
 
You mean keep them coming like pop corn and hot dogs ? With respect, that's not going to achieve anything, it's just going to cheapen the sincere experiences that have been authenticated. We don't need more afterlife tours, we need to persuade the scientific hierarchy that consciousness can exist independently from the brain.

(Genuine question though I know it probably sounds obtuse): Why do you care what the scientific community think about consciousness existing separately? Haven't you formed your own view based on the evidence you have read/seen? Countless people already have.

I think people get their evidence in different ways. I am not sure perandre is atypical in getting some consolation from hearing the experiences of others I don't see what is wrong with that. Each NDE report should be judged on its own merits.
 
I guess what I'm saying is I like my NDE rare.
I see where you're at. It's coming to the point where if you haven't had an NDE you can feel left out of the party. On the other hand I think many accounts are genuine, but the contrast between the experience and peoples' capacity to express it makes it sound trite. In the few truly profound dreams I've had, the depth of awareness and knowledge is so far beyond ordinary experience, that any attempt at retelling it could only deal in mundane equivalents of events and places, because the things themselves were transcendent, or sacred to use a more authentic word.

One dream many years ago involved a recently deceased uncle, and the scope of it left me with a little of the bereft feeling NDErs must experience on returning. It's impossible to convey that kind of stuff because it is literally beyond words, or even concepts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
(Genuine question though I know it probably sounds obtuse): Why do you care what the scientific community think about consciousness existing separately? Haven't you formed your own view based on the evidence you have read/seen? Countless people already have.
The view from the scientific community is reflected in the mainstream media, and is echoed in many walks of life from business to politics, and affects the practices, activities and decisions of those organisations. For example in my working life I've been bombarded on an almost daily basis with behaviourist psychology throughout companies I've worked for. That has a direct influence, for better or for worse on peoples actual daily lives.

I think people get their evidence in different ways. I am not sure perandre is atypical in getting some consolation from hearing the experiences of others I don't see what is wrong with that. Each NDE report should be judged on its own merits.
If I recall, perandre said that NDE reports were a source of inspiration. That is very different from saying they are a way of finding consolation, which is edging towards the idea that people seek comfort because they are afraid, at least that's a common sceptical explanation for people believing any afterlife-related ideas. Inspiration on the other hand is more than a mere comport, it can be give rise to creativity, joy, achievements in any area of life, and also ripple outwards to have a positive and beneficial effect on others.
 
(Genuine question though I know it probably sounds obtuse): Why do you care what the scientific community think about consciousness existing separately? Haven't you formed your own view based on the evidence you have read/seen? Countless people already have.

I think people get their evidence in different ways. I am not sure perandre is atypical in getting some consolation from hearing the experiences of others I don't see what is wrong with that. Each NDE report should be judged on its own merits.

"Haven't you formed your own view based on the evidence you have read/seen?"

Yes I have and I am personally certain...but I would like scientists in the media to stop telling OAP's that death is the end based on what science knows about the brain. I want to see Susan Blackmore and Chris French publicly recant their dogma :-)

"am not sure perandre is atypical in getting some consolation from hearing the experiences of others I don't see what is wrong with that. Each NDE report should be judged on its own merits.[/quote]"

Welll
I wasn't sugeesting that HE should stop looking at them. It's not wrong but would he be happy to be possibly duped ?
 
I just told you, they inspire me. Different stories contributes to the full picture in different ways. So yes, they do achieve something. There is more to the afterlife than the hard Q of C (like, say, the title of this thread).



Or songs ...or poems.

I don't really see profound experiences like NDE's as comparable to a ditty or some prose.
 
I see where you're at. It's coming to the point where if you haven't had an NDE you can feel left out of the party. On the other hand I think many accounts are genuine, but the contrast between the experience and peoples' capacity to express it makes it sound trite. In the few truly profound dreams I've had, the depth of awareness and knowledge is so far beyond ordinary experience, that any attempt at retelling it could only deal in mundane equivalents of events and places, because the things themselves were transcendent, or sacred to use a more authentic word.

One dream many years ago involved a recently deceased uncle, and the scope of it left me with a little of the bereft feeling NDErs must experience on returning. It's impossible to convey that kind of stuff because it is literally beyond words, or even concepts.

"I see where you're at. It's coming to the point where if you haven't had an NDE you can feel left out of the party. On the other hand I think many accounts are genuine, but the contrast between the experience and peoples' capacity to express it makes it sound trite."

I agree, Gabriel.

Your dream is interesting. Did you feel it was really "him" or some connection with him?
 
Last edited:
One can see what is happening with the subject of NDE particularly in the US. Any journalist knows that if he can somehow slip the NDE word in, however loosely they can get mega publicity for an article. So now near death experience has come to mean someone who nearly wrecked his/her car etc and the said article will receive tens of thousands of hits from people looking to gobble up another afterlife tale.

There's nothing wrong with it per-se but over indulgence of anything can eventually lead to depression when you can't get that "High" anymore...be it drink food or anything else

Genuine NDE's are wonderful, fascinating, don't get me wrong, I love to discover new ones but I am always wary now.
 
,,, would he be happy to be possibly duped ?
Apologies Tim, you weren't addressing me, but I hope you don't mind me chipping in with some thoughts.

I tend to look at such things as NDE accounts or other semi-mystical experiences from three points of view. One, I go by gut feeling and instinct as to whether I regard any one account as being valid or bogus. Often the contrived accounts contain a lot of the same elements as those which are (as far as I can tell) true, but there are hints and clues in the writing style. Rather like an implausible dialogue in a badly-written play, some things just don't feel right. Secondly, I weigh an account for its similarities and differences to other accounts. If it is very similar to the typical account it could be bogus, but is to me at least relatively harmless. Someone may be having a laugh at having sneaked their contrived account beneath my radar, but if it doesn't alter the overall picture, then I don't feel bad about it.

As for those accounts which break the mould and either contradict or extend the typical account, again I'd consider the style of presentation first of all, Some accounts are well-written, quite polished and could well be either fact or fiction. In these sorts of cases I don't feel obliged to file these under the category of "scientific evidence", but consider them more as I would a piece of poetry, or some other great art - if the overall effect is uplifting, then I don't feel bad about that at all. Which leaves perhaps the category which leads into darker, more hellish experiences. These are something which again I would weigh against other accounts for its consistency or otherwise. But personally I don't dwell on these darker reports regardless of their apparent veracity.

Perhaps I look at the world as a whole with a relatively non-credulous eye. For example, take any news report. We are supposed to take these as factual. But read of the same incident in several sources and the accounts may differ. And even if they agree, the report is almost inevitably coming from a particular angle, and doesn't necessarily represent the views of other people who witnessed the event. I tend to take everything I come across with a pretty large pinch of salt, no matter what its source. Perhaps some people are looking to the external world to provide certainty. I take the view that the only certainty is from within.

Edit: I should add that I consider the number of bogus NDE reports to be a very small proportion, and for that reason it isn't something which worries me unduly.
 
Last edited:
Apologies Tim, you weren't addressing me, but I hope you don't mind me chipping in with some thoughts.

I tend to look at such things as NDE accounts or other semi-mystical experiences from three points of view. One, I go by gut feeling and instinct as to whether I regard any one account as being valid or bogus. Often the contrived accounts contain a lot of the same elements as those which are (as far as i can tell) true, but there are hints and clues in the writing style. Rather like an implausible dialogue in a badly-written play, some things just don't feel right. Secondly, I weigh an account for its similarities and differences to other accounts. If it is very similar to the typical account it could be bogus, but is to me at least relatively harmless. Someone may be having a laugh at having sneaked their contrived account beneath my radar, but if it doesn't alter the overall picture, then I don't feel bad about it.

As for those accounts which break the mould and either contradict or extend the typical account, again I'd consider the style of presentation first of all, Some accounts are well-written, quite polished and could well be either fact or fiction. In these sorts of case I don't feel obliged to file these under the category of "scientific evidence", but consider them more as I would a piece of poetry, or some other great art - if the overall effect is uplifting, then I don't feel bad about that at all. Which leaves perhaps the category which leads into darker, more hellish experiences. These are something which again I would weigh against other accounts for its consistency or otherwise. But personally I don't dwell on these darker reports regardless of their apparent veracity.

Perhaps I look at the world as a whole with a relatively non-credulous eye. For example, take any news report. We are supposed to take these as factual. But read of the same incident in several sources and the accounts may differ. And even if they agree, the report is almost inevitably coming from a particular angle, and doesn't necessarily represent the views of other people who witnessed the event. I tend to take everything i come across with a pretty large pinch of salt, no matter what its source. Perhaps some people are looking to the external world to provide certainty. I take the view that the only certainty is from within.

Edit: I should add that I consider the number of bogus NDE reports to be a very small proportion, and for that reason it isn't something which worries me unduly.

Of course I don't mind, thanks. Here are two NDEs one of them I know is genuine, the other I'm not sure at all. TO follow
 
Kathleen Gardner's near-death experience would have been remarkable even if nothing had happened afterwards. She had a severe haemorrhage after the birth of her second baby, found herself unable to breathe and, as she puts it, 'popped out' of her body. Suddenly, all her pain had gone and she seemed to be half-way towards the ceiling, looking down on the doctors and nurses trying to revive her. 'The midwife was crying,' she said. 'I could see all the panic going on round the bed and I thought what a shame it was that they were paying so little attention to my new baby in its cot on the other side of the room. 'It didn't upset me though,' she added with a laugh, 'I wasn't at all caring about it!' Then she found herself going along a dark tunnel - 'sloping slightly upwards' - towards a circle of light. As she moved towards it, she began to feel 'lovely, happy, peaceful, so wonderful it's hard to describe'. Although she couldn't see a hand, she sensed that somebody within the light was trying to reach out to her. She thought: 'What am I doing here? My husband will never cope,' and immediately, to her disgust, shot back into her body, 'like a train going backwards at 200 miles an hour.' She felt agonising pain again and asked herself bitterly: 'What the hell did I do that for?'

That was in 1965 but to Kathleen, now 50 and an office administrator in Worcester, the episode is as sharp and crystal-clear as the day it happened. Never a day goes by without her thinking about it. What is even more remarkable, however, is that although the experience may only have lasted for a few seconds it fundamentally changed her life. 'I'm totally different now,' she said. 'For a start, I can't bear to kill anything. I don't even use a fly-spray. I just feel a total respect for all living things. Now I appreciate everything. 'In the old days, I used to say: 'My neighbour's had new curtains, why can't I?' Now, I'll have them if I need them, but never to keep up with other people. That experience made me realise that the things I used to think important - 'I must have a new car, I've got to have terracotta tiles in the kitchen' - just don't matter. 'And, of course, it's totally taken away my fear of dying. I don't want to die, but if that's all there is to it - the click over from being here to being there - it's nothing. I now believe that this life is only a practice run. The real living is after death. Death is life to me.' Yet Kathleen is very far from being a religious zealot. Indeed, she is one of the most down-to-earth people I have ever met. Nor has she any time for mediums 'who sit around in circles summoning up the dead'.

She was always, she said, the black sheep of her Catholic family because she didn't go to church. Now, quite sure that there is 'something above' and that, after we die, 'we shall go to where I was at', she does occasionally drop into church. She feels she ought at least to light a candle, out of gratitude and 'just to keep you covered'. Nor has the effect of the experience worn off. Five years ago, she became a vegetarian. 'The animals come by in wagons on their way to the slaughterhouse,' she said, 'and I could scream. Why should they die for me? I felt so bad about it, I had to stop.' She has also given up drinking. Even the fact that her husband Maurice, who is a lorry-driver, is unemployed doesn't bother her too much. 'I've got this laid-back thing now. If we lost our home because we couldn't keep up with the mortgage, so what? We'd find a little place somewhere. It takes an awful lot to get me down these days.' She has become so different that her husband, who has also never been religious, has changed too. 'I was always saying I must have a new car,' he said. 'Now, if I had an old banger out there for ten years, it wouldn't worry me. 'I'm 49 but I still play football and, in the old days, I used to have one or even two new pairs of boots every season. Now, I just play with the old ones. And, when I'm digging in the garden, I find myself watching to make sure I don't hurt the worms.' - -

Another one to follow
 
Last edited:
Hi Typoz

I wouldn't suggest that scientific opinion isn't important in our daily lives, it clearly is. I'm not so sure in this instance though that it makes much difference. The reason I say that is that such experiences as NDEs, mediumship etc have been experienced by folk for centuries, probably millennia and in the case of the latter are to many people 'common knowledge', by that I mean they have an opinion on the matter based on their own experience or lack thereof.

A scientific body endorsing it won't, I don't think, make much difference to the vast majority of people unless it is accompanied by a direct personal experience, which is the same position we seem to be in today.

As for the consolation/inspiration; I think probably consolation is not the right word as you say. Having said that it depends on what perandre means. If what is meant is that 'I feel reading these experiences helps me feel better about the concept of death' then I'd say that's consolation, if it's inspiration then I'm not sure how perandre is inspired or to what end. Perhaps they will say.

@tim - whenever we listen to another's evidence we risk being duped no matter how well-presented the material. If we know that it is possible that anything we receive from sources we don't know and trust might be tainted it's a good discipline to apply some kind of criteria to assess its value, as I'm sure you'd agree. Reading through lots of 'low value' reports might sharpen one's powers of analysis, no? :)
 
At a party, we joked that if anyone overdosed that they would get thrown in the back yard. Prior to inhaling the nitrous we had also taken other drugs, though I felt like the effects had worn off. I had been inhaling nitrous from balloons and despite warnings -- my judgment was a bit off from the previous highs I had been experiencing -- I began to inhale the cold nitrous directly from the tank. I do not recall the moment I asphyxiated.
I only remember the tank then being in a very dark place. I immediately recognized that I "killed myself". I felt terrible. My being did not seem to exist except what I could think. What I previously knew as my physical body felt like balls repelling each other. It felt like I hated myself so much that I was attempting to burst apart. The repelling felt like fire. Not because it was fire but because of the pieces trying to come apart. All I could think about was exactly that. How it felt to hate myself. It seemed that I was completely alone. I concluded that this horrible experience was my eternal punishment. That I would have to stay in this lonely place for eternity and think constantly about how I did this really wrong thing. I let my child and my family down. I was sad but I accepted what I had done wrong and wished that I could have done better. It felt like I was there an eternity. I think once I began to feel remorse is when I heard a voice speak to me. I can't recall it sounding like it had a specific gender, nor was it a voice I recognized. Also, I never saw anything as it spoke. I remained in this darkness while it spoke to me. It said, "You don't belong here. You need to find something in life that you love, and get out." I immediately thought of my daughter. I said her name. I said, "Spirah! I love Spirah!"


And my eyes were open, I was gasping for air, I was on the floor with a party acquaintance on top of me, his hands were pushing on my chest. He looked directly at my face and said, "I felt the flames." We did not call 911, the people present said I wasn't breathing for what seemed like a couple of minutes. I tried to rest after that incident but was still very shaken. I do not remember much else of that day.
 
Hi Typoz

I wouldn't suggest that scientific opinion isn't important in our daily lives, it clearly is. I'm not so sure in this instance though that it makes much difference. The reason I say that is that such experiences as NDEs, mediumship etc have been experienced by folk for centuries, probably millennia and in the case of the latter are to many people 'common knowledge', by that I mean they have an opinion on the matter based on their own experience or lack thereof.

A scientific body endorsing it won't, I don't think, make much difference to the vast majority of people unless it is accompanied by a direct personal experience, which is the same position we seem to be in today.

As for the consolation/inspiration; I think probably consolation is not the right word as you say. Having said that it depends on what perandre means. If what is meant is that 'I feel reading these experiences helps me feel better about the concept of death' then I'd say that's consolation, if it's inspiration then I'm not sure how perandre is inspired or to what end. Perhaps they will say.

@tim - whenever we listen to another's evidence we risk being duped no matter how well-presented the material. If we know that it is possible that anything we receive from sources we don't know and trust might be tainted it's a good discipline to apply some kind of criteria to assess its value, as I'm sure you'd agree. Reading through lots of 'low value' reports might sharpen one's powers of analysis, no? :)

Of course. Have a look at the two NDE's I posted, which do you think is more likely to be genuine ?
 
Hi Tim

Taking them at face value with the usual caveats, I'd say both experiences may have been reported honestly but what were is perhaps moot. They both seem to have had a singular effect on the person who was the subject of them however the evidence they give is, by its nature, subjective. The first one seems more typical of the 'classic NDE' report I'd say (though I am no expert and it isn't really an area of particular interest to me). There is no objective evidence in it as far as I can see but I'd be inclined to view it as being what was reported - an NDE with separation between consciousness and body. I am sure for Kathleen there is no doubt in her mind, however I find it 'interesting' but not compelling personally. It certain reads like a coherent observation by someone clear-minded.

The second one is interesting too. It is perhaps coloured by the fact that the person reporting it was under the influence of a 'substance' which was intended to alter their consciousness. I'd say it is more likely to be a hallucination but that is a layman's assessment.

Do I win a cigar? :)
 
Hi Tim

Taking them at face value with the usual caveats, I'd say both experiences may have been reported honestly but what were is perhaps moot. They both seem to have had a singular effect on the person who was the subject of them however the evidence they give is, by its nature, subjective. The first one seems more typical of the 'classic NDE' report I'd say (though I am no expert and it isn't really an area of particular interest to me). There is no objective evidence in it as far as I can see but I'd be inclined to view it as being what was reported - an NDE with separation between consciousness and body. I am sure for Kathleen there is no doubt in her mind, however I find it 'interesting' but not compelling personally. It certain reads like a coherent observation by someone clear-minded.

The second one is interesting too. It is perhaps coloured by the fact that the person reporting it was under the influence of a 'substance' which was intended to alter their consciousness. I'd say it is more likely to be a hallucination but that is a layman's assessment.

Do I win a cigar? :)

"Do I win a cigar? :)"

No, but I like your sense of humour.

On the NDE's the first one is, to me at least, clearly a profound and life changing experience. This lady never provided any medical notes as far as I know but her story has never changed over many years, she's been interviewed and filmed many times.

The other one was the first one I saw on NDERF so I wasn't really trying to select a weedy one but to me it's not worth reading. It just sounds like complete tosh.:-)
 
I read through both accounts. I'm prepared to concede that both might be fabrications.

The first seemed to match a fairly standard consensus view of an NDE and thus could be rather easier to fabricate. But most likely it is real.

The second is more awkward. Some of the writing style seemed more rehearsed rather than spontaneous, however this may be because the story has been told and retold many times. The content was certainly a bit different to a typical NDE. However, the story reads a little like a suicide attempt, not directly, but in choosing an action likely to be dangerous, and then speaking of self-hatred sounds like something close to suicide. That might explain at least in part why it doesn't conform to the mainstream. One part which remained unexplained and I wanted more information was when the acquaintance said "I felt the flames", I wish there was more detail given on what that person had experienced. I'd be more inclined to put this in an 'undecided' category, but on balance it could be a valid account too.
 
Thanks Tim :)

You're perfectly entitled to your view of course, and my own view has no more (nor less) value. In fact neither of us know the truth of the matter. This difference of opinion on the same set of data highlights perhaps that the value we assign personally to evidence can vary greatly. This was what I was alluding to in my earlier answer about forming one's own view about the evidence.

Both accounts could be fabricated, actual reports of events, misinterpretations of experience, unconscious fabrications or perhaps have one of a number of other causes. There is no corroboration for either account as I think Typoz mentioned.

Credibility of uncorroborated testimony depends on the quality of the witness IMHO. In these cases we cannot assess that. The first one could be a clever fabrication, there is no way to assess the probability of that without knowing more about the witness and the events surrounding the experience.

Actually hearing the testimony usually makes a difference in my experience. As an example: suppose I read a report of a person seeing a ghost. If I read a report of what the person said happened that's one thing, reading a written report by the witness another, hearing the witness describe the situation a third, and finally hearing it and being able to ask questions the best for me. Even then, depending on the phenomena and my personal boggle-threshold, it might be a case of seeing is truly believing, or knowing.

Neither story has any real evidential value to me.
 
Back
Top