Near death experiences ,proof of afterlife ?

[cornel]

Can we say that NDEs are proof of afterlife? Sam Parnia sustained a while that NDEs experiences were caused by hallucinations as a result of the piils given to patients or cerebral damage. But ,after the largest study of NDE's experiences at Southampton university ,Sam Parnia changed his mind ,being convinced that soul ,mind ,consciousness or whatever we call it ,survives death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHcZc-JJEFw&t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnoIf2NwaRY&t

 

Not to mention that he is a top doctor ,innovator of resuscitation techniques and others.

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by cornel

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, cornel said:

But ,after the largest study of NDE's experiences at Southampton university

Can you provide a link to this study?

7 minutes ago, cornel said:

convinced that soul ,mind ,consciousness or whatever we call it ,survives death.

Except none of the subjects were dead (the clue is in “near death” experiences). 

9 minutes ago, cornel said:

Not to mention that he is a top doctor ,innovator of resuscitation techniques and others.

Yes, don’t mention that, it is irrelevant 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, cornel said:

Can we say that NDEs are proof of afterlife?

No, we can't. There is no way to test these events to investigate them scientifically.

12 hours ago, cornel said:

Sam Parnia sustained a while that NDEs experiences were caused by hallucinations as a result of the piils given to patients or cerebral damage. But ,after the largest study of NDE's experiences at Southampton university ,Sam Parnia changed his mind ,being convinced that soul ,mind ,consciousness or whatever we call it ,survives death.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence, nor is argument from authority.

[Gees]

Cornel;

I am not even sure if you are still at the forum, as you have not signed in for more than a month, but I have been thinking about your post and realize that no one else is going to give you any real rational information. There are some other members, who have brought up this subject, or something similar, so I am going to try to answer questions -- the 'click-it squad' be damned.

 

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:59 PM, cornel said:

Can we say that NDEs are proof of afterlife? 

No, for a few reasons. First, as Strange noted, there is still a body. We tend to view death as an on/off thing that happens instantaneously, but this is not often the case. If you have seen someone very old, or maybe someone dying of cancer, you know that it is sometimes a long slow process to die. Then, as noted in the video, once clinical death occurs, there is the gradual shutting down of the body that can take hours more. Birth takes nine months of physical preparation, then another few years before we have something that Psychology agrees is human consciousness. Neither birth nor death are instantaneous processes.

Second, what the hell is afterlife? Is that where you marry, have children, and continue life? Without bodies, I don't think that you could call any consciousness that may or may not exist afterlife. There is no life to it.

What NDE's do prove is that our conscious awareness can be separate from our bodies -- but this is not news. People have been talking about having controllable out-of-body experiences for a long time that have nothing to do with death. Psychology gives us different examples; such as, Multiple Personality Disorders. Some of the personalities are always aware of the body, some are not aware for years, then snap into the body and are bewildered at their own age -- so where were these personalities in the interim? Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can snap your awareness out of time and space to a distant time, and you may have no awareness of your body or what it is doing. Emotional shock can permanently remove your awareness from a fully functional body, and you will die. There are probably other examples that I just can't think of right now, but the point is that consciousness and the body are not necessarily permanently joined.

Can consciousness, in some form, continue after the body has broken down? Religion says yes, but I don't see how consciousness can continue indefinitely. There is some evidence that it can continue past the destruction of the body -- but not indefinitely. imo

 

Quote

Sam Parnia sustained a while that NDEs experiences were caused by hallucinations as a result of the piils given to patients or cerebral damage. But ,after the largest study of NDE's experiences at Southampton university ,Sam Parnia changed his mind ,being convinced that soul ,mind ,consciousness or whatever we call it ,survives death.

I agree with most of this and also consider that "pills" or chemicals could affect the outcome. It is clear from the above regarding Psychology, that emotion can seriously affect awareness, pulling it out of time and space. Emotion can also affect chemistry in our bodies, and chemistry can affect emotion -- they are circular -- so they can both be players in this game.

 

Quote

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHcZc-JJEFw&t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnoIf2NwaRY&t

 

Did you notice the caveat in the first video? While describing the pleasant feelings of love and wholeness that are experienced by people, who have NDE's, he explicitly stated that this did not include "suicides". I have read reports of people who experienced NDE's because of suicide, and their experiences are more nightmarish than anything else. Religion would no doubt equate this to suicide being wrong or bad, but my personal thoughts are that the emotional stability and well-being of the person is very pertinent to the experience.

Consider that the people that Parnia was dealing with, were people who were trying to get better. They were having procedures that would continue or improve their lives, so there was hope. They would also have been in a position where medication would relieve any pain, so they would not have had the emotional stress of pain, or of the hopelessness that causes suicide.

This is probably the best argument for Religion, as it is my opinion that a person's emotional state at death, and beliefs, are going to greatly influence what happens to them. This does not mean that if you have no religious beliefs you will be fine, because you will still have emotion and will still be bound to other people. It is unavoidable. 

 

Quote

Not to mention that he is a top doctor ,innovator of resuscitation techniques and others.

He would have to be in order to bring this subject up. I have talked to Emergency Medical Service people, who state that they could tell stories that would "curl your hair", but they only talk to each other for fear of losing their jobs. I have talked to Hospice workers, who only give information on a need to know basis, because it would threaten their jobs. The only ones that are scientists and also talk are the ones that are powerful enough to take the heat and be able continue to their work.

Gee

[Third@rk]

First My Own "NDE (s)" .................. I once had a philadelphia police officer in broad daylight, on a public septa bus, a crowded bus, quickly pull out his gun.  Right as the muzzle of the gun pressed against my head, and the trigger pulled, at that instant.  It was like the hand of god punched a hole into the bus, on the other side of my head, and very easily the african american that sat next to me, had his brains blow out ...................... this was reported in the philadelphia daily news ........................ then it was never mentioned again .................... it minus well be a moot point, but there is another way to classify the "NDE (s)"

"NDE (s)" is "Mars", it is the "Flat Earth Theory"

In otherwords, the known laws of science, must done away with to accomodate any with................like tearing out a FLAT piece of paper from a book, you know the one with the constants written on it ........................ this activity as the means of flushing out the sins of man, so it can be cut out, is the general theory, the word "NDE (s)" originates probably from the word "negro".  (Engineered as in "I Have a Dream" = NDE for sanctioned race re-education, during the booms in scientific understanding towards the "Flat Earth Theory").

Unexplained sciences that occur in particular situations, in predictable situations.......................naturally..................such events never happened and the debate continues.

(The "Brown Paper Bag", as a Flat Piece for Race Re-Education, that must be torn out, lives don't matter, maybe that was einstein ... now ... Nicola Tesla's Secret Weapon that resembled the modern cell phone? well that was real, not a device that does anything, it was just a prediction of, "when" a time frame, maybe nothing at all)

Edited October 21, 2018 by Third@rk

[Itoero]

Humans are just one of the countless lifeforms on earth. If we have afterlife then an oak tree and a mosquito also have afterlife?

[dimreepr]

On 10/20/2018 at 2:59 AM, Gees said:

What NDE's do prove is that our conscious awareness can be separate from our bodies

What!!! whatever conscious is, how can it be separate from the body it's formed in?

[Strange]

On 20/10/2018 at 2:59 AM, Gees said:

What NDE's do prove is that our conscious awareness can be separate from our bodies -- but this is not news. People have been talking about having controllable out-of-body experiences for a long time that have nothing to do with death.

People can perceive that consciousness is separated from their body. But that does not mean that the consciousness is separated (as in, existing independently of the brain).

On 20/10/2018 at 2:59 AM, Gees said:

There is some evidence that it can continue past the destruction of the body

Citation needed.

[John Cuthber]

On 10/20/2018 at 2:59 AM, Gees said:

There is some evidence that it can continue past the destruction of the body

 

On 10/20/2018 at 2:59 AM, Gees said:

I have been thinking about your post and realize that no one else is going to give you any real rational information

Sure looks that way.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Humans are just one of the countless lifeforms on earth. If we have afterlife then an oak tree and a mosquito also have afterlife?

I am going to go with yes. I gave a mosquito a near death experience once (it, along with the mosquito, was short lived, but it was near death at one point no doubt).

So I can only conclude mosquitos have an afterlife as well...if we do...

[dimreepr]

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So I can only conclude mosquos have an afterlife as well.

only after it's arse hit it's head...

[mistermack]

After watching a few minutes of Arse Talk with Sam Pernia, you have to notice what a bullshitter the man is. 

Yes, the brain can survive death, and even consciousness can survive death, AS DEFINED BY HIM. Only trouble is that his definition of death is pure bollocks. 

Where he gets with that bullshit I really don't know. Cons a few gullible people? That's not hard. Publicity? I hope it chokes him. 

[Prometheus]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

After watching a few minutes of Arse Talk with Sam Pernia, you have to notice what a bullshitter the man is. 

 

I only watched the video because of your post: it was worth it for a laugh.

It's amazing just how bad at science some medics are.

[Gees]

Itoero;

 

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

Humans are just one of the countless lifeforms on earth. If we have afterlife then an oak tree and a mosquito also have afterlife?

At least you have the sense to realize that this is about life -- not just about humans. +1 That is encouraging as many members do not seem able to comprehend the idea that all life is conscious, or aware, of some things and to some degree.

But I think you have asked the wrong question. The first question should be can some form of consciousness exist without the benefit of a physical body? If so, what form would that consciousness take? How could it maintain itself? How long could it exist without a body before it breaks down? There are "theories" that there is a mental reality that mirrors physical reality (Dualism)  and this is what people refer to as the "afterlife", but I don't see how it is possible, how it would work, how it would maintain itself, much less how it would adapt, evolve, grow, etc.

My studies of consciousness indicate that awareness can not happen without space and time, and that awareness needs matter to focus consciousness. So I don't see how an afterlife that is devoid of matter is possible. Of course, I could be wrong.

Gee

 

Dimreepr;

 

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What!!! whatever conscious is, how can it be separate from the body it's formed in?

You don't know what consciousness is, but you know where it comes from? Does that seem rational to you? Because to me it seems a lot like the thousand year old debate of Monism v Dualism where no one knew what consciousness was, but everyone wanted to argue about where it came from. Irrational.

If you look at my answer to Strange, it might answer some of your questions.

Gee

 

Strange;

 

14 hours ago, Strange said:

People can perceive that consciousness is separated from their body. But that does not mean that the consciousness is separated (as in, existing independently of the brain).

Do you know what perceive means? It means aware. If you perceive your body from anything but a first-person perspective, then your awareness, your consciousness, is outside of and separate from your body.

This is a difficult subject to comprehend without coming to some very bad and invalid conclusions. There was a time when it took a mind like Plato's in order to absorb and understand this concept, but with the help of technology, I think I can explain it in a way that most people can understand. Consider that consciousness is essentially communication -- whether it is internal or external, it is all communication.

So think of your cell phone as the body/brain and think of the telephone call as consciousness. Your voice leaves you, goes into the phone, then bounces off of satellites and multiple connections until it arrives in my phone, where it seems that you are inside my phone. Although the connection from your phone to mine seems almost instantaneous, there is actually a time when your voice is bouncing around in various places outside of the two phones. Most people would name this interim "bouncing around" time as spirituality and any recognition of it would be called a spirit, ghost, out-of-body experience, etc.

So if your phone breaks, or the body/brain dies, then the communication (consciousness) would stop. But this does not explain how the communication (consciousness) moves outside of the phones, it does not explain what that communication essentially is or how it works outside of the phones, it does not explain "spirituality", and it does not give a time frame for how long it takes for the communication to break down and no longer exist in a usable or recognizable form. There are still too many questions that do not have answers.

Although this comparison works for understanding, please note that I have no idea of how cell phones work, how their communication moves from one phone to another, or what it actually is. I know that consciousness works through chemistry, emotion, and bonding. It is also interesting to note that most reports of spirits, ghosts, etc., are made by people who deal with death on a first hand basis, like EMS people, surgeons, Hospice workers, or the immediate family of the deceased. And most of these claims are close to the time of death. This does not prove an afterlife, what it does do is show that the breakdown of consciousness is not instantaneous. 

Death scares the hell out of most of us, and turns many of us into idiots when it is discussed. So although there is a lot more to this very complex topic, I doubt the idiots and the 'click-it squad' will let me discuss it, so I will stop here. 

 

Quote

Citation needed.

Don't make this request again. You know perfectly well that Religions would state that death does not stop consciousness, and you know that Science would deny that. You would want a "citation" from Science, and since Science does not actually study death or consciousness, that is a rather foolish request.

Gee

Mistermack;

 

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

After watching a few minutes of Arse Talk with Sam Pernia, you have to notice what a bullshitter the man is. 

Yes, the brain can survive death, and even consciousness can survive death, AS DEFINED BY HIM. Only trouble is that his definition of death is pure bollocks. 

Where he gets with that bullshit I really don't know. Cons a few gullible people? That's not hard. Publicity? I hope it chokes him. 

So you think his definition of death is "pure bollocks"? Why is that? Do you have some special medical knowledge that I am unaware of, as I saw nothing in your profile that suggested you are expert or even trained in this subject.

Gee

[dimreepr]

31 minutes ago, Gees said:

You don't know what consciousness is, but you know where it comes from? Does that seem rational to you? Because to me it seems a lot like the thousand year old debate of Monism v Dualism where no one knew what consciousness was, but everyone wanted to argue about where it came from. Irrational.

If you look at my answer to Strange, it might answer some of your questions.

Gee

2

Unless you believe in a soul it comes from the brain (at least mine) rationally.

Edited October 22, 2018 by dimreepr

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Do you know what perceive means? It means aware. If you perceive your body from anything but a first-person perspective, then your awareness, your consciousness, is outside of and separate from your body.

Of course it doesn't.

If I dream of being in Africa, does that mean I am in Africa? If I hallucinate a miniature alien flying past on a golf ball, does that mean that mini aliens piloting golf balls exist? 

Almost everything we perceive is an illusion created by the brain. Normally, it lets us pretend we are looking out of our eyes at the world outside. Sometimes it tells us the we are looking at ourselves from outside. That is still our brain, inside our head doing it.

2 hours ago, Gees said:

This is a difficult subject to comprehend without coming to some very bad and invalid conclusions.

Oh right. Presumably you can understand it but it is beyond the rest of us poor mortals.

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Don't make this request again. You know perfectly well that Religions would state that death does not stop consciousness, and you know that Science would deny that. You would want a "citation" from Science, and since Science does not actually study death or consciousness, that is a rather foolish request.

So no evidence then. As I thought.

2 hours ago, Gees said:

You don't know what consciousness is, but you know where it comes from? Does that seem rational to you?

Entirely rational. We may have trouble defining exactly what it is (or whether it exists) but all the evidence shows it arises in the brain and no evidence is consistent with it existing independently of the brain. And, no, the beliefs of religious adherents is not evidence.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Gees said:

So you think his definition of death is "pure bollocks"? Why is that? Do you have some special medical knowledge that I am unaware of, as I saw nothing in your profile that suggested you are expert or even trained in this subject.

Anyone can spot bollocks. It doesn't take any training at all. Actually it's believing it that takes years of very intense training. 

[Prometheus]

8 hours ago, Gees said:

So you think his definition of death is "pure bollocks"? Why is that? Do you have some special medical knowledge that I am unaware of, as I saw nothing in your profile that suggested you are expert or even trained in this subject.

He makes the claim that death is not an unpleasant experience, even if it was a painful or traumatic experience, except for those who committed suicide. He knows this how? Sounds like religious (specifically Christian) judgement on the sin of suicide.

And then he's quite disingenuous about how he describes the time of death of a patient: often the cessation of a heart beat. The reality is usually half an hour after the nurse has bleeped some lazy doctor for the 3rd time, but now i'm ranting. But it is used for expected deaths. In unexpected deaths you commence CPR immediately because there's a chance the lights are still on i.e. they are still alive even though their hearts have stopped - a state of affairs that won't last long. Otherwise we'd have to say everyone who has had major heart surgery has died as the heart is deliberately stopped for some time (and put on a bypass machine). That's why no where uses the cessation of cardiac activity as the marker of death, but the cessation of neurological activity (apart from Japan i understand).

Also find it quite funny when he says people can describe in some detail what doctors and nurses were doing. First those details are quite generic; 'someone put a cannula in my arm'. No shit.  Second, the patient was there, even if in a moribund condition, so i'm not surprised if something slipped into their consciousness. Especially if CPR is being done effectively, getting blood to the brain, as the technique aims to. You may have experienced something similar while dreaming and music or a conversation slips into your dreams.

Finally this type of research often asks patients about the experience up to days, even weeks, after the event. Plenty of time for the experience to be mentally repeated and unconsciously altered, as we all do with our memories. 

So yes, it appears this doctor is using the thin veneer of medical science to spout rubbish.

[mistermack]

And then there are liars. Plenty of that going on. How do they "select" the people for the so-called study? 

Southampton Uni should be embarrassed to be connected to this rubbish. All he's doing is playing with words, and calling it a study. "Cardiac Arrest" as stated above, is not death. "no detectable brain activity" is not death. Death is when life can no longer continue in any form. When the brain is so degraded that it can never function again under any circumstances. People remembering stuff from operations can be lies, imagination, dreaming when passing out or coming to, or self delusion. Plus probably lots of other stuff I haven't thought of. It's not dead people having consciousness, because they aren't dead. Never were dead. No bucket was kicked. They were still on this mortal coil. Non-deceased. Have not ceased to be. They were not ex parrotts ! 

 

 

[jfoldbar]

On 22/10/2018 at 3:10 AM, Gees said:

I know that consciousness works through chemistry, emotion

we are nothing but chemistry.

 

 

 

i have spent a fair amount of time reading about nde's over the years. ive watched many of sam parnias videos, and some guy in england though have forgotten his name.  these 2 are fairly regarded as doing the 2 largest studies into nde's.

as they are both trauma doctors, "cardio resuscitation", they can get first hand experience of people that are near death. im sure they have probably had experience with people that are actually dead as well. i.e., they go from the trauma ward to the morgue.

however, while im sure they have great knowledge in their own field, there is more going on then just what their field teaches them.

sam, in one of his videos expressed that once the heart has stopped they are for all intents and purposes dead. however the brain can function for 6 minutes (mayby more) after the heart stops beating. he considers this irrelevant. he chooses to ignore the concept that the brain is still doing 'something' for those 6 minutes.

 

 

the brain can do many wonderfull and crazy stuff while we're asleep, who knows what other stuff it can come up with when its sent into 'emergency stress mode'.

as far as nde's being able to see or know things they couldnt possibly see/know, well people that are asleep can do that too. its called , the brain putting together pieces that we are not consciously aware of.  nothing spooky, just the brain working behind the scenes.

people "seeing" something in those 6 minutes while the heart has stopped but the brain is still functioning doesnt prove anything apart from HES NOT DEAD YET.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

When the brain is so degraded that it can never function again under any circumstances.

Actually the question of death is quite complex. After all, much of the brain can be destroyed but still allow some basic functions. And theoretically by providing artificial respiration and circulation we can stop further damage to quite an extent. In many ways it is similar to the concept of "life", it is seemingly trivial in an intuitive way, but trying to apply rigorous definitions is quite difficult. While there are practical medical guidelines (after all, some decisions have to be made at some point), the theoretical dispute about  when to consider someone irreversibly dead is still ongoing.

[quiet]

One night the fatigue overcame me while driving the car. I was awakened by the horn of a truck that was advancing in front of me and was a few meters from the car. I tried an emergency maneuver. The car spun like a spin several times and ended up climbing by rear on an esplanade, about 18 cm higher than the street, where there was a police station. It was a time of state of siege throughout the country, with the streets occupied by armed forces full of fear, firing at anything unusual. The spinning spins led me to believe that I would die and the police weapons, pointing to me, reinforced that thought.

That experience taught nothing about subsistence after death. But he taught a lot about what the brain can do. In a very brief moment, perhaps less than one hundredth of a second, all the visual, olfactory, tactile, flavors, sounds, conceptual data, plus everything that is perceived and thought of in life, appeared in my consciousness. It was not presented sequentially, as when one develops life. It was presented all together, in an instant. A computer enthusiast would say that in the development of life we accumulate data in series. And at that critical moment memory provided in parallel all the data that had accumulated.

That totality practically ran from the uterus to the moment of the emergency maneuver, with an astonishingly complete record, amazingly accurate, astonishingly detailed. For example the image of the skin, own or of another person, appeared registered with the hundreds of thousands of pores and microdetails of the epithelial texture. And in that way everything. This indicates that the memory stores an overflowing data number, which probably no current technological system is capable of supporting. As if that were not enough, the memory can, in an infinitesimal moment, deliver the total to the module we call consciousness, capable of receiving, decoding and understanding that total at the same minute instant.

That is why I do not believe that brain functions are comparable with the functions of computer technology. I do not believe that human memory operates in digital form. I can only believe in an analog operation. The Fourier Series allows us to understand that. Think of two oscillators, A and B, very perfect both, capable of maintaining without error the waveform present in each one.

The waveform, developed in the Fourier Series, corresponds to the sum of many harmonic components. Each component encodes a data. Suppose that the waveform present is in oscillator A. Now enter a new data. An adder adds that data to the waveform that is in A. The sum gives a new waveform, which B is responsible for maintaining. Enter another data, add to the content of B and the result is maintained by A. The operation is repeated every time you enter a data.

With two oscillators and an adder, the simplest version of harmonic memory can be implemented. I do not think the brain has the simplest version. I just wanted to expose the basic scheme. If the oscillators and the adder were perfect, the harmonic memory would have the capacity to accumulate an unlimited number of data, without ever reaching the square waveform, which has an infinite number of components.

The only thing that can oscillate with the necessary rapidity and perfection is an electromagnetic field in a vacuum or in the air, not in a cellular plasma or in the chemical mediating fluid that intercommunicates neurons. I suppose that by disassembling brain matter, scientists will never find the phenomenon responsible for maintaining memory. Probably the oscillating field is established outside the head, because the material inside is a medium that hinders the operation in perfect conditions.

The near death experience has taught me nothing about subsisting after dying. That does not diminish the value of what it teaches about human memory and its connection to consciousness.

Edited October 23, 2018 by quiet

[mistermack]

People who die of Alzheimer's are often described as dying a little every day by their loved ones who are living with them. I think they tell us a lot about death. In their case it's an extremely slow process, little by little, day by day. We still say they died on such-and-such a date, but in reality, that was when the last bit of them died.

The consciousness you have today isn't the same one as yesterday. Or the day before. It's usually so very similar, that it gives the illusion of being the same, but it's not. You often hear it said of people that they were "never the same person" after some traumatic experience or other. What's happened to that original person? They no longer exist, and have been replaced with a new one.  in most cases very nearly identical, day by day, but now and then, after a huge trauma, substantially different. 

That's why it's so ludicrous to pretend that there's some sort of separate consciousness. It relies entirely on brain activity, and changes as the brain changes. Damage the brain, either emotionally or physically, and you can change the person drastically. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

[kozalak]

I have two problems with this.

1.After life is a product of belief and religion. The question is invalid to begin with, let alone the idea of trying to provide scientific proof for a product of belief. 

Human species have created gods, myths, legends and so religions to survive. Almost all of these belief systems are based on the idea that they are special life forms, because their level of consciousness differ from all other species on the planet. So there must be something seperate, special and above everything about their consciousness. Which is defined as a 'soul'  in general and the belief that it must be immortal. Simply put, 'I ache, I feel pain, I get sick and I die. I refuse that I will perish without anything left, there must be something precious and unique in me that is going to live forever.' This invention has lots of 'benefits' for the individual and the society from a primitive point of understanding.  It's about control and also serves as a coping mechanism with death and pain; being mortal, if you will. 

So the understanding of 'consciousness' here not the consciousness but the most ancient concept of soul. It's just not fashionable any more to name this way I guess. Because then it doesn't sound  'scientific'? LOL Not to mention, if you use the word 'soul' the target audience is going to change. It's 'out' you see.  

2. When we say 'near death experience', we are talking about an organism facing its absolute fear.  All of our fears are based on fear of death. This is so strong, it can actually kill the organism by shock. I don't get how people actually think anything felt, percieved in an extreme circumstance can count as reliable experiences, let alone proof. When we are drunk, lol even tipsy we should question what we feel. 

I am sure you guys are familiar with the phrase 'what the dog sees'.  When we are extremely scared, the panick and shock we experience turns us into the most dumb animal, trying to get out that situation at all cost, not some sensitive, highly aware and conscious agent recording his emotions and thoughts.

Looking for proof for after life, requires the belief in soul, and it is looking for the soul. And it makes good money, that's all. 

       

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by kozalak

[Endercreeper01]

It is certainly evidence to any reasonable person. There is no denying that many people have had these experiences and that they mean something.