Commentary thread for tim's "NDE's" thread

This was a great read! It really makes me wonder just how exactly consciousness is bound to the body... like a magnet of sorts. Heal the body enough so that consciousness can inhabit it, and consciousness will gravitate back...

Thanks. And that could well be the case, Valmar. I think they have to want to go back though or they are told to (because they have not fulfilled what they came to the earth to accomplish or experience (everyone has different ideas about this and of course the sceptics think it's pure horseshit).

Personally, I think there is some kind of subtle body, that's what many report but I can't begin to imagine how that works.

Thanks. And that could well be the case, Valmar. I think they have to want to go back though or they are told to (because they have not fulfilled what they came to the earth to accomplish or experience (everyone has different ideas about this and of course the sceptics think it's pure horseshit).

Why they come back seems to vary, but they come back nevertheless. Those that don't... well, we never hear their accounts.

Personally, I think there is some kind of subtle body, that's what many report but I can't begin to imagine how that works.

There is definitely a subtle body ~ that's what leaves the body during OBEs. Our subtle body still isn't our Self or Soul, but just another body we inhabit, much like our physical one. The subtle body occupies the lighter astral density of this physical realm, but we're just not normally aware of it, because our body is difficult to disengage from without significant and focused mental practice. Well, maybe that's not entirely true, because people have entered OBE state from a lucid dream state, but it seems slightly tricky to get right, because of how lucid dreams work.

Why they come back seems to vary, but they come back nevertheless. Those that don't... well, we never hear their accounts.

Nevertheless, one might consider that some experiencers do describe a definite choice which they made. That implies that they might have made a different choice i.e. not to return. What might that look like from an observer in this physical reality?

It might look like that thing which we call death. Or it might possibly look like a state of indefinite coma while might be maintained for a short period, or perhaps for years, if the body is artificially kept alive. Of course that transitions into a whole other topic with its own set of questions and concerns.

You're just playing with semantics, Leadville. There is always a theoretical possibility (if the body hasn't been destroyed) that a person could be restored to life even if it meant cryogenically freezing them to be brought back in some technologically more advanced future. Therefore, it's fair to argue that such a position is unfalsifiable.

If you look at the case studies, one that comes to mind from memory, was a young Japanese girl who committed suicide in a forest (I think it was an overdose)

Her body wasn't found for many hours. They don't know exactly how long she was dead for, but they estimated it as at least five to ten hours or more (by her body temperature which was very low). They tried multiple CPR and shocks but it didn't work.

At this point anywhere else in the world (apart from South Korea and some hospitals in the US) they would have given up.  NOTE : This girl was obviously judged to be dead, it is ridiculous to suggest anything else.

In the UK she would have been handed over to the undertaker. However in Japan they have a plentiful supply of a very remarkable machine called an ECMO...Extra corporeal membrane oxygenator. So in one last desperate (many medics would say crazy) attempt to bring her back, they hooked her up to that machine (which is like a heart bypass machine) and they allowed it to run for many hours.

Eventually and incredibly, her heart fluttered back to life at some stage and after that, she was transferred to intensive care where she eventually recovered.

Are you going to try and tell us that this girl wasn't at any stage dead ?

I'm not going to try to tell you anything at all.  But none of what you've said changes what I wrote earlier.  Death is the irreversible end of life in-the-body.  If life doesn't end then the former condition wasn't death.

And please don't try to talk down to me about semantics - semantics is simply the meaning of words and phrases.   You could use any word you chose to mean whatever YOU personally wanted it to mean but it's pretty pointless if others don't understand you. 

My use of the word 'death' is very simple - death is the end of life in-the-body, an irreversible state.  A state of ongoing life that wasn't detectable doesn't mean that death had taken place.  The individual could simply have been very close to death - even for a long time.  Minimal, undetectable signs of life as medicine determines them.   Clinical death is the best current guide but it may not be infallible and the parameters could change in future as techniques improve.

We can go down the hypothetical road of cryogenic preservation of the body if you wish but if the individual is dead before preservation you'll end up with a deep-frozen corpse that can't be brought back to life.  Now if the individual is frozen slightly BEFORE death then who knows? 

Maybe the technique of restoring to life the same, preserved-but-still-living individual will one day be perfected.  At this point nobody can justifiably be certain.

"Ah, but you're the one claiming that clinically-dead people are not actually dead, even if they've been clinically dead for close to an hour. You would deny experiences like this, where the patient is obviously clinically dead:"

I would deny no such thing.  

Clinically dead simply implies no signs of life are/were obvious or detectable.  But if a clinically-dead individual subsequently makes a recovery then an eventual description of their earlier situation would more accurately be that she/he "had appeared to be dead". 

Death is an irreversible condition - the individual does not come back to life.  The life of that individual is over.

I would deny no such thing.

It would seem like you are...

Clinically dead simply implies no signs of life are/were obvious or detectable.

That's not how it is defined. Wikipedia provides a decent overview:

Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain human and many other organisms' lives. It occurs when the heart stops beating in a regular rhythm, a condition called cardiac arrest.

But if a clinically-dead individual subsequently makes a recovery then an eventual description of their earlier situation would more accurately be that she/he "had appeared to be dead". 

Death is an irreversible condition - the individual does not come back to life.  The life of that individual is over.

According to that quote I posted, the girl's body had been in the pool for at least 17 minutes! "Appeared dead"? I'm sorry, but you're definitely not more qualified than that doctor to claim what death is. Her heart wasn't beating for 45 minutes, either. She was, for all intents and purposes, dead, dead, dead, clinically-defined or otherwise.

You're the one trying to define what death is and isn't. Death doesn't imply that it is irreversible. "Had appeared to be dead" ~ yeah right.

I'm not going to try to tell you anything at all.  But none of what you've said changes what I wrote earlier.  Death is the irreversible end of life in-the-body.  If life doesn't end then the former condition wasn't death.

And please don't try to talk down to me about semantics - semantics is simply the meaning of words and phrases.   You could use any word you chose to mean whatever YOU personally wanted it to mean but it's pretty pointless if others don't understand you. 

My use of the word 'death' is very simple - death is the end of life in-the-body, an irreversible state.  A state of ongoing life that wasn't detectable doesn't mean that death had taken place.  The individual could simply have been very close to death - even for a long time.  Minimal, undetectable signs of life as medicine determines them.   Clinical death is the best current guide but it may not be infallible and the parameters could change in future as techniques improve.

We can go down the hypothetical road of cryogenic preservation of the body if you wish but if the individual is dead before preservation you'll end up with a deep-frozen corpse that can't be brought back to life.  Now if the individual is frozen slightly BEFORE death then who knows? 

Maybe the technique of restoring to life the same, preserved-but-still-living individual will one day be perfected.  At this point nobody can justifiably be certain.

Leadville said >  Death is the irreversible end of life in-the-body.  If life doesn't end then the former condition wasn't death.

That's the semantics I'm referring to. It's impossible to know if every single person that has actually died from a cardiac arrest and not come back, couldn't have been brought back if some machine had been available to assist. Therefore it stands to reason that there is no absolute point of death providing the body hasn't been destroyed.

Leadville said > Clinical death is the best current guide but it may not be infallible and the parameters could change in future as techniques improve.

The definition of clinical death is met by the stoppage of the heart. Van Lommel's patients were all clinically dead. That's the point.

 Leadville said >A state of on going life that wasn't detectable doesn't mean that death had taken place. 

Are you referring to patients in cardiac arrest ? There is no detectable life after 10-20 seconds (30 max) that's the whole point of the matter.  You aren't making any sense.

Right back atcher

Right back atcher

You mean I'm not making any sense (in your opinion) either  ?

You mean I'm not making any sense (in your opinion) either  ?

Let's just say we see matters somewhat differently.