Leaderboard

So you will understand when I try to teach you adjustment is necessary to your brief, and usually vague, posts ?

OK, I watched the video. And I understand why to any individual experiencing such a apparently highly mystical event, such as Pam experienced, may see that as a NDE and view it as she has. Still, the point that struck me was around the 8 minute mark and the "unexplained" conclusion. Science does not know everything as I'm sure you know. Not knowing too much about any supposed NDE, I googled and came across this excellent article in "Scientific American". Please take the time to read all of it...it discusses NDE's from different well known people........ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/ an extract from the article: "Modern death requires irreversible loss of brain function. When the brain is starved of blood flow (ischemia) and oxygen (anoxia), the patient faints in a fraction of a minute and his or her electroencephalogram, or EEG, becomes isoelectric—in other words, flat. This implies that large-scale, spatially distributed electrical activity within the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, has broken down. Like a town that loses power one neighborhood at a time, local regions of the brain go offline one after another. The mind, whose substrate is whichever neurons remain capable of generating electrical activity, does what it always does: it tells a story shaped by the person’s experience, memory and cultural expectations. Given these power outages, this experience may produce the rather strange and idiosyncratic stories that make up the corpus of NDE reports. To the person undergoing it, the NDE is as real as anything the mind produces during normal waking. When the entire brain has shut down because of complete power loss, the mind is extinguished, along with consciousness. If and when oxygen and blood flow are restored, the brain boots up, and the narrative flow of experience resumes".

Some did, but their guesses were wrong. A lot of thinking prior to independent scientific investigation was influenced by philosophy and religion, and the answers were sufficiently satisfactory until observation contradicted them. e.g. before telescopes allowed for discovery of so many new bodies, and elliptical orbits were confirmed, the crystal sphere of the heavens sufficed as an explanation.

bot (Human, algorithmic, or otherwise)

Who isn't calm?

Thanks. You've been putting up with my twisted sense of humour longer than Joigus.

FWIW I knew what you meant and LOL’d

So I feel weird keeping asking that, but remember the virus outbreak and how the party in charge of dealing with it kept pretending it was harmless? I mean, come on, it is not an niche event and it is frigging still ongoing.

I wrote it.

Maybe they could just stop forcing people from their homes and stealing the land on which they’ve settled, or not attack them during religious services… or let them have food and vaccines without blocking them.

. Money should be seen as a means ... not as an end ... friend ... . When you love something ... you put it ... as an end ... unto itself ... you understand ... . If you Love money ... you cannot Love people ... by the very nature of it ... . You'll be a miser ... trying to manipulate whosoever ... so you can achieve to your goal ... somehow ... related with money. In that circumstance ... people ... would be ... secondary ... and money ... primary ... . The scenery you mentioned ... shows money as a means ... therefore ... one ... who applies it to a reality ... in order to satisfy certain needs ... in order to achieve an end ... is not loving it ... is not adoring it. In that case, money is being used as a mere means ... . If you don't have the hability to understand a mere answer ... shut up ... or meditate carefully over it ... friend ...

I tried to show something beautiful, but they cared not look.