If

[Little Rik]

People think that it´s all about "the last hallucinations of the brain before the light goes out for good" and about "drugs".
I can´t influence people who haven´t had their own NDE, because they are sceptics. Human beings don´t believe in anything before they´ve experienced it themselves. I wouldn´t believe in anything either before I´d been through it myself. So I understand their scepticism. But they are WRONG!!!!

From Maria (ex atheist)

http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experienc...7s_nde.htm

If you did not have an NDE, yet believe that they are more than just a function of the brain, you have proven Maria wrong. Or did you not understand what she is saying? And need I even point out that Maria has essentially invalidated any opinion she has on things she has not experienced by claiming that one cannot believe without having direct experience?

Need I go on, or is that sufficiently embarrassing for your case?

1) You are twisting the words in such a manner that it is impossible to understand what the hell you are saying.
I refuse to twist myself in order to try to understand your NON-logic.
2) Maria may well think that anyone will not believe until he-she experience something by themselves but what this has to do with me?

---

I have no reason to disbelieve Maria, but what she 'saw' was random thoughts that were interpreted by the brain to create the 'story' she remembers. No more real than a dream.

1) Oh, did Maria said that her experience was all about RANDOM thoughts or you think that they were random thoughts?
2) If the NDEs are hallucinations how come that most people if not all after such an experience they now believe in God, they now have compassion for animals and become vegetarian, and how come that they are now not anymore afraid of dying and now believe in spirituality?
Get real iatia.

---

"I" am an illusion; an emergent property of my brain. Every single night, my brain has to shut down for cleaning (literally cleaning. The glymphatic system flushes toxins from your brain as you sleep). During most of that time, "I" cease to exist. Only during the relatively brief periods of REM sleep is their brain activity which is interpreted as "me" doing things - this is called "dreaming," and none of the things that "I" do during that time are even real. All of us, every single human being, gets a daily reminder that, without the brain, the "self" does not exist.

Let me see.
Are you saying that when your vehicle is stopped YOU are also stopped?
Where is the evidence that the consciousness is idle too?

1)Talking, talking but you haven't demonstrated that the matter is able to start any action by itself...

I don't have to. The Universe demonstrates the connection between matter and consciousness on a continual basis. All you need to do is look.

I don't dispute that the matter has got some sort of consciousness but this consciousness unlike in humans is in a dormant stage therefore totally unable to do much at all especially to run the universe so again your believe doesn't make any sense at all.

2) Talking talking about the marvels and wonders of the mind as if the mind could start any action by itself or without YOU that decided to start the action.

I don't need to demonstrate anything at all here. I'm merely observing reality, and reporting on what I see. You are the one making an unsupportable claim

Wrong again.
It is YOU that in the previous post make claims about the brains so it is YOU that should come up with evidence.

it's up to you to demonstrate that this mysterious thing you call "me" and claim exists separate from the brain. The burden of proof is on you.
I see physical reality and emergent properties. I can show them to you.
You claim magical meta-physical woo. Prove it.

NDEs experiences have already demonstrated that the consciousness can exist separate from the brain and so the Hindus festivals in which people don't feel pain and the holes close by itself as soon as the knife is taken away.

You appear to be the one with no clue as to what consciousness is. You're operating on nothing more than objective emotional information. There is no basis to your position whatsoever. You're clinging to an unfalsifiable belief.

If my information are emotional how come that those who experience an NDE come to the same conclusion.
Hallucination on the other hand lead to different conclusion.
Wrong again Davka.

All these activities do not explain how a blind person can see things perfectly during the NDE.

They don't. Their brains tell them that they are "seeing." Their brains translate all the available sensory input into images - kind of like the way your brain can "retro-fit" the sound of your alarm clock into a dream. It's an illusion, a hallucination of sorts.

It is essential to note that these instances of "the blind seeing" during NDEs happen only to those individuals who were once sighted, and then lost their sight. This particular illusion has never been observed in an individual who is blind from birth. Why not? Because the brain has no idea what "seeing" is, and therefore cannot create that particular illusion.

What a load of garbage Davka.
The consciousness knows what is real and what is not.
It all depend on the individual.
Some are more connected to the reality than other so under normal circumstances we only see what our consciousness allow us to perceive but when the consciousness is not connected to the brain anymore like in a NDE case then it is possible to see the reality in a broader picture again according to our degree of consciousness.
So it is quite irrelevant whether someone was blind from birth or not.

Science has never explained how a real guru can send someone into samadhi just by touching his-her head

Of course it has. It's the same phenomenon that Benny Hinn relies on for his 'slain in the spirit' sessions. You, sir, are plainly ignorant of the science.
"I am ignorant of the science" does not equal "science has not explained." Get thee to a University and learn.

Ok. considering that you are an expert in samadhis can you please explain to me what a samadhi is.

or how someone can insert a knife into his flesh without feeling any pain

Sure it has. Again, your ignorance does not constitute an argument.

and how the hole close as soon as the knife is taken out.

That part is simply parlor-tricks. It's more a matter for James Randi than for Stephen Hawking.

So if they are all tricks would you mind if i insert a knife in your cheeks?