- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:47 am
I have been watching this video, and it is quite interesting, but like many TV shows it is just scratching lightly at the surface. At the end their conclusion was reached in the same way as in a boxing match. The winner got so many points.
Of course death is final for my body, but nothing is so clear about my soul.
As long as scientists are limiting themselves to materiality they will remain stuck with materiality.
Just an example of how educated people sometimes fall into belief systems that go against their natural feelings, because science seemingly discovered something and this was transmitted to young doctors.
"When I was about 19, I was reading in a parents magazine about a young mother, who brought her baby to the pediatrician for examination. He pricked the child in the foot to get some blood, and of course the baby started screeming. Then he told the mother that it didn't cause pain to the child, that it was just a reflexive response and that the child could not really feel pain.
And the mother asked the doctor of the magazine if this was correct, which he confirmed.
Well that was the moment that opened my eyes and I really lost confidence in certain allegations of science. Because I was sure that the child felt the pain and reacted to the pain. (Actually I thought that I would like to prick him somewhere (that you can imagine) and see if he would also get a reflexive response.)
Later I learned that at that time doctors were told at their university that children could not really feel pain because their nerve system seemingly was not yet completely developed. Apparently a med. professor had found this out and it was so propagated. The yound doctors believed this because it was stated as scientific knowledge.
In the meantime we know very well that this is not the case. That babies feel pain very well.
This was a real good lesson for me not to accept something only because a scientist claims it to be the truth.
That I have to be thinking by myself.
- Registered Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:07 pm
You make good points. You are right! Science often arrogantly proclaims about things it has little knowledge of. After learning about the reality of NDEs, I've started to look at science in a new way. They have overestimated their sphere of knowledge and they think they have a monopoly on truth.
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:47 am
Hi Jem,Jem7 wrote:They have overestimated their sphere of knowledge and they think they have a monopoly on truth.
You are right there. In the same video there is a neurologist claiming that NDE's cannot exist without a functioning brain, as he claims that the brain is making consciousness, and if the brain is not functioning (dead) there cannot be consciousness.
Well I had some thoughts about this.
Hereafter the result of this.
Would like to know your comments about it.
Questions and some logical ideas about consciousness.
- What is consciousness?
Difficult to reply, but for us it is basically the kind of knowledge, that tells us that we are existing. This is a profound knowledge, it's just there. Nobody has to tell us that we exist, we know it.
But it is much more.
It deals with the exchange and storage of information and the interpretation of it (giving it a meaning, a sense). Actually the whole life process is a permanent exchange and storage of information, and the whole Universe is built upon the exchange of information. Atoms exchange electrons with other atoms in order to build molecules and so on. Each cell in our body is exchanging information with its neighboring cells. It needs at least a certain type of consciousness when it gets information, that it got it, and how and when to execute the necessary changes. If it is not communicating anymore and keeps living without adapting to the surrounding cells, well then we have a cancer cell.
Each light ray is carrying information of the past of the Universe. The sunrays that we see now, left the Sun 8 minutes ago etc... Our consciousness allows us to be aware of this and to tap into this information. Actually exchange of information is one of the main issues of the Universe. But information without any consciousness that can deal with, is nonsense ( has no sense).
In our life we know that consciousness is needed in order to:
- cope with the world
We know that our consciousness is related to our brain, as the brain is dealing with all above. It makes seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting, thinking available. Actually the brain is building everybodies own world.
Does this imply that our brain is making consciousness???
How is this going when we know today that consciousness in return also shapes the brain? Who's the master? Who's the slave?
Why would a Universe without consciousness, create a brain producing consciousness?
Unless information needs to be processed and that whenever the Universe has the occasion it will create the necessary tools to process this information.
We give Nobel prizes (meritedly) to people as a reward for their intelligence in discovering how the Universe is functioning. They need consciousness to do this. Thinking this thoroughly through to the end, it came to me, that in fact what we/they are doing, is following in depth a path ( in reverse), of what the Universe/Nature actually invented long before we were there to be aware of.
The question here is:
How comes that we need consciousness in order to understand this, but Nature/the Universe (as per science) did/does not need consciousness to invent (create) it?
If at the beginning (big bang?) all the ingredients to make this Universe were present, wouldn´t it be logical to assume that consciousness was also included as an ingredient. And if we do this, where was consciousness then, as there was no brain?
So a logical conclusion would be that consciousness does´nt really need a brain to exist, but that we need (some kind of interface) a brain, to make consciousness available to us.
If I, with the knowledge that we have at this time, would have time enough and the power, to create a functioning Universe, how would I set the rules and boundaries to create it? And my reply is: Exactly as it was done.
Same assumption, if I would like to create life on a planet, and having as much time as I wanted, how would I create life? Well I probably would have put all the ingredients already in the beginning of my Universe, as it would be very difficult to adjust it later on, and then I would just wait and let every suitable planet bring forth the life that would best suit its conditions.
That would imply, that I would give my creation the possibility to take decisions within the overall necessary rules, meaning I would have to give it some liberty. Having liberty of decision also means that it would need at least some kind of consciousness to be able to act accordingly, otherwise there is no liberty.
In fact this means I would have to put consciousness into my Universe right at the creation, starting with the basic energy. If the basic energy contains (or is a kind of) consciousness, then everything that exists would be (kind of contaminated with) consciousness.
Then and only then it would make sense to have a Universe built on exchange of information.
- Registered Member
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:32 am
- Location: England
The brain is the organ of the human body which is the interface between our true spiritual selves and the physical vehicle we use to function in a physical world.