Scientific Evidence for Survival. Of consciousness after death.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.

 

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

[Aaron]

Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.

 

http://www.near-deat...m/evidence.html

 

I'm surprised no one replied to this. I actually missed it because I was working for a few days and wasn't able to get on the forum except to answer a few discussions I was already a part of. I think that this evidence, even though circumstantial is immensely important to those who study spiritual paths, if for no other reason than it actually gives credence to the notion of consciousness. My own belief has been for some time that we have an awareness that ties us to our bodies, the notion of self, but that it does not necessarily mean that our consciousness is entirely tied to the body. In fact the idea that people could retain their own self identity for a period after death makes sense, since the part that is self that is housed in the body, may be able to retain it for awhile, at least until those parts begin to decay, then the self would obviously no longer have an anchor within this world.

 

The consciousness that makes us so, is not made up of individual souls however, but rather a singular consciousness, so in that sense we never die. I actually really fear the idea of heaven or hell or any kind of after life, I think it would be immensely cruel to force someone to maintain the same existence for eternity. It is this idea that leads me to believe that the consciousness that we are splits itself into various consciousness, gives them only a limited time on this earth, simply because it is the most compassionate way for these other selves to experience reality.

 

In that sense who's to say that the reality we witness, the reality that we see as a group, isn't really the reality that this whole consciousness has designated to exist. Remember everything in existence is nothing more than solid light, despite the fact that it may be seen as mineral, vegetable, liquids, etc. This light may very well be the (un-)conscious thoughts of the collective conscious.

 

Anyways very interesting. Since my own experience with the higher conscious experiences, in particular with the source of energy that permeates everything yet is invisible to our own physical eye, I've begun to wonder about the nature of perception, how our perceptions play a part in reality. I'm not quite naive enough to believe that something merely exists because I think it is so, but I do think it exists because "I" want it to be so. Perhaps I will only be able to know "I" again when everyone that is I understands that they are "I" on an intimate level and that the need to continue to become I's is not needed. Then maybe we'll exist as an "I" for a few millennia before it all starts over again out of boredom.

 

Nice article Leon. Thanks for posting it.

 

Aaron

Edited November 26, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

This is the kind of "proof" I was meaning. Thanks Leon!

 

Aaron. I think your ideas are interesting. I think things exist, including ourselves, and then we "decide" whether we want them to or that way or not. But this decision is fiction, or rather it's made up.

So in theory and in practice you could decide to want everything or not want everything. We get taught (a lot) what things to want and not want. But those are just what other people want and don't want, which when faced with our reality doesn't make any sense.

 

Sorry, that sounded a bit weird.

[Aaron]

This is the kind of "proof" I was meaning. Thanks Leon!

 

Aaron. I think your ideas are interesting. I think things exist, including ourselves, and then we "decide" whether we want them to or that way or not. But this decision is fiction, or rather it's made up.

So in theory and in practice you could decide to want everything or not want everything. We get taught (a lot) what things to want and not want. But those are just what other people want and don't want, which when faced with our reality doesn't make any sense.

 

Sorry, that sounded a bit weird.

 

 

 

Hi Kate,

 

I think the amazing thing is that we are not taught to perceive something the same, we just do, even though there is oftentimes evidence that we could perceive something entirely different. What causes us to see something as being exactly the same, despite cultural, spiritual, and physiological differences? If I draw a picture of a dog, you'll know what I'm drawing, a tribesman in Africa will know as well, despite the fact that we come from different cultures. Even then, I do believe that our perception on some level is effected by something, that constant equation no one seems to be able to come up with. God? Quantum Consciousness? Enlightened Being? Who knows what it actually is, but I have no doubts that it is, and that we are inexplicably tied to it. Human being are very special in the scheme of things, because we are the only species that can understand time and space on an intellectual level. It is our ability to observe this phenomena that allows all things to exist. If there was not one or the other, then we could not exist, at least not as we do now.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And what you said would only sound weird to someone who might not understand the topic, it made complete sense to me.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

Hmm, I'd even question the idea that we see things exactly the same. There were some neat experiments done out there about field vs object focus in Westerners vs Asians. If I can find, will post. There's no question in my mind that the attributed meaning to any given thing will differ between people (although it will differ less if they've all been through the same acculturating (sp?) process). But there's another aspect to seeing which is related to not seeing. It's related to cognitive dissonance which is IMO the flip switch for not-seeing. So what I'm saying, is something can be there, right in front of you but you don't see it. To all intents and purposes you can't:-)

 

I'm not going anywhere with this. Just wanted to open it up.