i was rudely shaken back by my nurse

I would like to be able to say, "lucky guy". But I have had somewhat similar dreams. Not once but nightly...Not always about girlfriends "giggling" and "playfully" instructing me to do things (some are very strict and insistent), nor only involving past girlfriends...(some are current) and some are women I have never seen much less met. I may not sleep like a baby, but I fall asleep fast. (Just kidding honey! As Letterman used to say, these are just little jokes...harmless little jokes...Although he may have stolen that line from Sam Kinison. Doesn't matter, I'm in big trouble either way.)

The mind plays some incredible tricks depending on the circumstances, its all in the chemicals released

@exuexuexu Don't fight _what?_

@@exuexuexuWhat do you mean by "shaken back"?

Nice. :3 It's one of my favourites.

@@ReligionAndMaterialismDebunked something I thought was interesting is that it lines up SO WELL with my own theory of consciousness. At least I thought it was my own theory, lol. Especially with the whole analogy of the brain being like your cell phone, receiving a signal that gets interpreted by components within the device (or brain). I’ve always used a Radio Receiver analogy to describe it, but the concept is the same nonetheless. Perhaps we just all have an intuitive understanding of this deep down.

Did you eventually get to sleep?

@@SofaKingShit No. It's been 5 days, pls send help

Our brains act more like a transceiver, like a radio or a TV. Without the equipment you get nothing. The more sophisticated the equipment the better the experience is.

@Mia Li I mean when u r in a dream u know you r in a dream

I have had dreams so realistic that I woke up in terror. It’s weird to me it would be any different. My dream felt as realistic as being awake and it being reality.

Lucid dreaming is extremely trippy. Ever look into a mirror in a lucid dream? I saw me but it wasn't me. I can still see my face when I think about it. Distorted as fuck. Made Sloth from the Goonies look like George Clooney.

@Mia Li lol Mia li do tell how your brain is dreaming, cause of neural correlation?

@Mia Li that still doesn't explain how people got new information in this so called "dreams" which they didn't knew before. Did you even watch the Video , why should those people lie? They are scientists.

You said it was a 28 week scan and then you said it was a 20 week scan. Either way it sounds like your son's soul was watching from above. I believe our consciousness is far less limited when we are not in the body. Unless we are in a very high state of consciousness. Most persons don't remember, they don't retain the awareness that your son did. It is like waking up from a dream and quickly losing your memory of what happened.

Hi yes I made a mistake it was the 20 week gender scan. I have tried to debunk what he said but its impossible to use a rational explanation apart from that he was watching from a viewpoint outside of the womb.

rob scrivener I believe you Rob as my son recounted my labor!!! He was about 7 when he described it--we had never told him about it. Our rational minds don't like this untidy unmaterialistic explanation that consciousness is nonlocal.

Lynn Wilcox Thats great news because everyone's initial reaction is not to believe when strange things happen, but we both know it does not matter what other people think because you are the one who knows the truth!

Lynn Wilcox what do you mean nonlocal?

That was cool of you to make that. Thanks

@@Zoe-dr5ps Someone had to dude 😎

The whole thing is drivel without a clear definition of consciousness. if instead of consciousness that dolt used stuff i would come to exactly-the-same-thing Why bother to use consciousness when stuff or izzy-whizzy-let's-get-busy would give you*exactly-the-same-thing.* Buddhism does not say anything_remotely like "consciousness can sustain itself without a brain", that is a*flat-out-Lie*

ee hee it is hilarious how some liars wave the word " science" about as if it were a magician's magic wand with which to bamboozle the poor thick credulous Elsies. science-my arse! What would Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson know of science?

Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson knows nothing of Buddhism, which says*nothing* about either the brain or consciousness. Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson cannot even define or say what he means by consciousness.

" There are lies -damned lies- and statistics" -Lord Salisbury. "There are frauds, conmen, pathological liars, and Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson" - the world, his, wife, her dog, and all his friends.

Time holds the key.

These things happen during a self defense shooting. Are they spiritual events?

..... And then the victims start lying their heads off

Plugs in x box 360

Stunning and brave - caitlyn jenner

Would that be Alan Playing-with-words Watts? The very same eh?

Watts ever was the fool that bamboozled itself with words about words.

what n asininee question- typical of Watts during his loopy phases which he had from time time. you loons are trying to fit the ugly sister foot of lies into the glass slipper of truth, and suppose that if you grease the lie foot with more lies you can force it to fit. How ti get round the what-is-and-can't-be different that no body-brain complex no you? Can't be done, simple as that. Relion (which has fcuknothing to do with the god fsntsy ) is wishing thst facts or what- is -and- can't -be -different might somehow be different.

...and those who believe that consciousness requires the brain have been remarkably good at dismissing logic and reason ;)

*_"it depends from the meaning of the word consciousness. As a property of mind, a functioning brain is required."_* I am referring to subjective experience. For this, there is no reason to assume that a functioning brain is required.

*_"Experiences can either be conscious or not."_* Do you believe that a rock has subjective experience? Of course consciousness is required - without consciousness there is no subjective experience. You are full of it. *_"Without a brain you can have neither of those."_* This is pure unfounded assumption on your part.

*_"Again...irrelevant gibberish. What I believe about a rock is irrelevant to the fact that a human organism can experience things and for some of them it can direct its attention."_* You ran over the point. If you believe that a rock has no consciousness, then obviously it has no subjective experience. Consciousness and subjective experience cannot be separated. *_"A brain is needed for an organism to experience anything"_* There is no reason to believe that subjective experience requires biology. It is not an observation - it is an assumption. You cannot observe whether or not subjective experience requires biology.

*_"you are completely ignorant about the types of mind properties a brain displays."_* I am not the one who is ignorant here. There is not a shred of evidence that conscious experience requires biology, nor can there ever be evidence of such, because it is not possible to directly observe the presence or lack of subjective experience in anything outside of yourself. *_"Hiding behind your assumptions does not help your ideology."_* Your arguments have not changed. You either state your ridiculous assumptions as if they were fact, or you try to hijack words to define yourself to be correct by default and thus evade the argument entirely.

outstanding...

Fuiste al interior de un vídeo juego woooww San Andrés

what do you take that experience to mean? what was its fundamental reality?

So you just got a cardiac arrest, just like that? Had you had a recent shot of the em arr enn eh!?

One part of your brain is damaged and it seems you are now in the two world.

Good example of that impressive credentials can fool you...

​@@matswessling6600good example of your shi*ty grammar, and fake skepticism, due to your bu**hurt. XD

Astral Realms 👻🥱😴.

How did it go? Did she watch it?

Tesla knew this 100 years ago.

@@IkeReviews you mean Nikola Tesla

@@sushreemohanty5468 there's only 1 popular human with that name so obviously it's Nikola Tesla

At what point in the evolutionary process did our mind continue after the decay of the physical brain, did the Neanderthal brain continue, how about all of the other humanoid species that were before that ? Is it only our ancestors that have this ability, how about fish or dinasours? If you go back far enough we are all related, so to believe in the minds continuing after life ends , it must be that way for everything that had ever been alive.

@@beebop333 It's an easier thing to figure if one assumes that there are not discreet individual souls, but that the Univers forms from consciousness as such and has experiences in form. Maybe strong impressions carry forward in time, whatever that is, since physics tells us time doesn't really exist.

the sister and her rebirth brother, is pure invention and a complete lie; Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson made it up.. the whole video is lie after lie after lie. If you want to get to 28 I suggest you go on a How-not-to-be-a-credulous-halfwit course, as soon as posible and not you believe anyone whom you cannot yourself cross exmin or cannot verify for yourself, Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson is by no means the only lying scoundrel and confidence trickster in this world. There are no more any "near"(how"near" is " near"?)-death-experiences than there are any near-standing-on-your-own-shoulders experiences If it c-a-n-o-t be true it *is*..... *not* ..... true.

The* whole_thing* a pack-of-lies from beginning to end, many of hem real whoppers.

Hear-here! 😅🤝🔥

^_^ Person 1 - What the fuck are you doing jacking off in my room? Person 2 - Well, I'm horny, and I have nowhere else to go to. Person 1 - Yeah, but you're my dad? What The Fries 🍟?! Person 2 - Yeah, but your sister is playing in my room. I didn't want to bother her. You have a dick. You understand, son. Person 1- What The Flamingo 🦩, dad?! 😅💀 Random scenario in my head. XD

@@ReligionAndMaterialismDebunked😂 exactly very big announcement!

He isn’t open-minded, he is very much on the side of this being true and does not like evidence against it. Biased scientific research is bad for everyone, and quite the opposite of “open-minded” he’s “close-minded” and formed his opinion before the facts.

​​​@@_..-.._..-.._there is no evidence against it you wanted to say? All of the evidence from perceptual studies point to ontological distinction between consciousness and biological body, can you provide a single evidence against it? There is no bias here since leading NDE researchers make inferences from the data, they don't assume anything, but follow what data shows. If you've ever followed studies and steps Greyson, Van Lommel, Ring, Long, Fenwick and others made in order to provide some explanations of what NDE's entail, you would understand that their conclusions are valid and unbiased, since they provided powerful explanatory means in order to make sense of what is happening there. They don't presuppose materialism and that's why their explanations are natural and consistent, like it or not, we have a good reason to think that the research of NDE's are groundbreaking. Matter of fact, deniers that falsely present themselves as skeptics are the ones who are biased because they seek to explain away the phenomena in order to accommodate materialistic account which fails miserably. Your claim that Greyson made up his mind before the 'facts' is patently false. There is no certainty in empirical research which doesn't mean they are wrong at all, because following your standard(which is incoherent knowing the problem of induction that applies to all sciences no matter if natural or social or humanistic) we can claim the same for everything we know.

But there can only be one masterpiece. So is your experience merely second-hand?

I’ve seen atheist have NDEs and not change anything. Not believe in God or anything. Also with respect the matrix even though fiction deceived the mind. The mind is very easily deceived.

The Never Ending including yours

Why should a near death experience induce a belief in a supreme being ?

@@theneverending9319 name a few such Atheists with nde

Am hoping that you are willing to share more about this related experience. Why were you happy, considering you must have been in excruciating pain with no end in sight? Why do you describe it as being a "born-again genius"? I have been told that when people die, the soul sometimes "jumps" into another person's intact body and takes it over, but you are describing the opposite occurrence. Thank you.

@sarahallenhumboldt2638 As to the pain, I was probably medicated, though my life quickly became 4-hour cycles of ever increasing discomfort, culminating into extreme pain until I got the next pain pill. When I initially woke up, I felt no pain and had no memory of anything previous to that moment. I felt happy, was not the least bit upset that I was strapped to a bed, steel bolts protruding through one leg, in a room full of strangers. My mind was clear as a bell, and felt the situation I found myself in to be very funny. They were calling me Andrew, and Andy, but I wasn't sure why, nor did I care. It felt like day #1 to me. The older woman in the room seemed angry with me. The older man didn't say much, if anything. The younger guy was calmly explaining the situation to me, though I never asked. And the gorgeous babe in the room was quietly caressing my left arm with one finger. Me, I was just happy to be in this exciting, vibrantly colorful room.

@@damnhandy hi there,this is incredible to read.the way you talk makes me believe first off that you are indeed telling the truth and secondly your "mother" was right,you are a walk in.The way you describe this "colourful vibrant room" means where you somewhere dark before that. do you mind if i ask you - do you have any memories before you "walked in" ? thanks in advance,i hope i dont offend you by asking these questions.cheers and good luck.

@darrenmcdonald5373 No, at the moment of waking up, there was only now. To me, there was no before. I didn't remember the accident, or any of my experiences in the trauma unit where I was violently attacking anyone who came near me, nor anything about my or his previous life/lives. Gradually, over a period of years, I remembered much/most of my/his life, though I don't know what I didn't remember, and still have many blank years. I wrote an essay about the experience; two essays actually, for my girlfriend/wife's advanced writing class she was taking at Rutgers; one from my perspective, and one from her perspective; Andy1/Andy2, the Metamorphosis, and Memorial Day Weekend from her viewpoint. (I got hit during the first hour of Memorial Day, 1988). Her first assignment was to write about a story from someone else's perspective, and the other assignment was to write a story from her own perspective. I just flipped the topics around. (I wrote all her college papers, but she took (and passed) all the tests. We got A's mostly, though I just had a GED. I made a blackboard for the wall behind the couch and tutored her every evening after dinner. She was a psych major. From that event, I had various types of brain damage. It affected my senses of taste and smell dramatically, though that lasted only about 6 months. And of course learning to walk again was a challenge. Some common smells were drastically nauseating, some things I could not smell at all. Same with foods. During that phase I invented Whiteboy Chili, a can of Campbell's Pork&Beans, a can of corned beef hash, and a couple of dollups of Heinz Catsup. Yuck! Post Event, on about 80% of my skin, I could not tell the difference between getting poked with a pin and getting poked with a finger. The strangest thing that I still do periodically, is popout a completely wrong word during a conversation like instead of milk I would say "honey, we are almost out of umbrella" or airplane or New Zealand or pine-tree! My wife used to laugh when that happened. Addendum: I had a dream once which ended with me being killed, I think. It was so realistic I could swear it was real. It's dark. I'm laying on my back on a slope, my head is slightly downhill from my feet as I look up at the stars. I'm laying in thick wet grass about two feet high, trying not to move, incredibly afraid. A shadow obstructs the stars, and fingers start going through my chest pockets as I try to hold my breath. And I wake up gasping for breath and shocked by this experience. I've only dreamed this once.

Did you feel like you?

Also up until the age of 5 my daughter would day things like "her other mom and dad" or her "old gma and gpa", I joked at the time of her being reincarnated but blew it off because I felt it was wrong to believe since it's not in the bible. She remembers nine of it now but since my experience I've been learning about NDE and multiple lives amd the bible has a way of revealing things or bringing understanding and knowledge to those words when the time is write. Hints why it's called "The LIVING WORD". You just can't deny the obvious. ❤❤❤

The more I watch the more I'm blown away. My daughter is 6 but is a vegetarian. Will not touch meat. No one on either side of the family is vegetarian. Lately she's been asking me if this is a dream? She said it feels likes she's dreaming.

Has it occurred to you that it is important to tell us what he/she said to you?

@@sarahallenhumboldt2638 HE/GOD said "Hold on a little tighter, It's going to hurt alot. Just don't give up and know that it happens really fast and I'll be there at the end and the pain go's away instantly."

The truth of your existence wont be found in a fraudulent bible. Donna Douglass calls it....fan-fiction...oh she is so pissed off right now.......

Hi do you know if this group of scientists have ever focussed on those who experience the memories, feelings, drives and passions of the people whose organs were donated to them after death? I think that the many documented cases of this would add to this body of work. 😊

the dna can encode instincts so it could be able to encode memories from ancestors in certain conditions that enables them to fear dangerous situations

@@rotorblade9508 absolutely. It has to I think. Also the Ressler epigenetic experiments with footshock mice and cherry blossom odour prove that, I believe.

@@secretdiva9414 what an interesting idea! I’ve long worked in blood banks and a tissue bank for living otrthopaedic donors of femoral heads when patients have their artificial hip prosthetic inserted. However, we also issue cadaveric tendon, bone and other tissues to Orthopaedic Surgeons for repair of conditions for which no other alternative works as efficiently and no artificial product even exists.

....Visions you speak of....

"Real" meaning what? You have not the faintest idea? This you are about to demonstrate.

The whole thing is drivel without a clear definition of consciousness. if instead of consciousness that dolt used stuff i would come to exactly-the-same-thing Why bother to use consciousness when stuff or izzy-whizzy-let's-get-busy would give you*exactly-the-same-thing.* Buddhism does not say anything_remotely like "consciousness can sustain itself without a brain", that is a*flat-out-Lie*

sounds good, means..... absolutely...... nothing

Here's an idea instead of using a word with the meaning of which you are wholly in familiar and have absolutely no idea what you men by it namely consciousness why not do what you are in fact doing and use stuff instead, there is -plainly no stuffor anything when the experiencing apparatus ceass to experience anything that is what we grownups call" axiomatic. Can you*experience* not experiencing anything the answer to that is an example if the use of axiomatic.

​@@vhawk1951kl If anybody does not understand what I am referring to when I use the word consciousness, then that can be rectified with a single reply. I am using the word _'consciousness'_ as most philosophers do. I am categorically referring to the experiential activities of mind. I feel it is important to use consciousness in place of terms like subjective experience, because certain materialist philosophers have attempted to define consciousness in terms of brain activity, as opposed to defining the word in terms of mentality. You said: *_"there is -plainly no stuffor anything when the experiencing apparatus ceass to experience anything"_* That is not plainly the case. You have no way of knowing that there is no experience after the _"apparatus"_ (the brain) ceases to function, because absence of memory of experience does not demonstrate absence of experience. Ex, it's entirely possible that you had experience while under deep anesthesia, and you simply do not remember that experience. This is not far-fetched. In fact, anybody who has ever been drunk can attest that it's possible to have all kinds of experiences and remember none of them the following morning. The idea that consciousness ceases is tethered to the idea that subjective experience is a product of some temporary physical process, but as far as I can see there is no reason to default to such. As far as the science goes, idealism is just as compatible with what we have observed as physicalism is. Idealism also has the added advantage of being far more parsimonious than materialist positions. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, there is no reason to believe that experience ceases with the death of the brain.

​@@vhawk1951kl If anybody does not understand what I am referring to when I use the word consciousness, then that can be rectified with a single reply. I am using the word _'consciousness'_ as most philosophers do. I am categorically referring to the experiential activities of mind. I feel it is important to use consciousness in place of terms like subjective experience, because certain materialist philosophers have attempted to define consciousness in terms of brain activity, as opposed to defining the word in terms of mentality. You said: *_"there is -plainly no stuffor anything when the experiencing apparatus ceass to experience anything"_* That is not plainly the case. You have no way of knowing that there is no experience after the _"apparatus"_ (the brain) ceases to function, because absence of memory of experience does not demonstrate absence of experience. Ex, it's entirely possible that you had experience while under deep anesthesia, and you simply do not remember that experience. This is not far-fetched. In fact, anybody who has ever been drunk can attest that it's possible to have all kinds of experiences and remember none of them the following morning. The idea that consciousness ceases is tethered to the idea that subjective experience is a product of some temporary physical process, but as far as I can see there is no reason to default to such. Idealism is just as compatible with what science has observed as physicalism is. Idealism also has the added advantage of being far more parsimonious than materialist positions. By Occam's Razor, there is no reason to believe that subjective experience ceases with the death of the brain.

There is every reason to suppose that all rxperiencing ceases when the experiencing apparatus is destroyed mahed up tv sets play no programmes. It is demonstrable that certain experiences cannot take place of part of thr basin is switched off or disabled- You do the mats Einstein. You are going in for thst form of masturbation known as trying to convince yourself and plainly not makinh a very good fist(to coin a phrase of it.. Why* lie to yourself when you know*for-a-certainty* that *All* experience is contingent on an experiencing apparatus? The fool that does not or cannot fool himself is fool indeed. Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson plainly did not convince you titch, but you just click the heels of your ruby slippers and lie your head off. Won't work because you have a sense of truth.

​@@vhawk1951kl It's clear that you have little understanding of philosophy of mind, and likely don't even understand what you are debating against. Perhaps this is why you seem to believe that observed correlation between brain activity and reported experience is reason to believe that the brain gives rise to said experience. The idealist position that the brain exists within mind-at-large, as a process of mind, as opposed to the generator of mind is compatible with all such correlations. Alternatively, the dualist position that _"the brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness; and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual"_ is likewise compatible with all such correlations. One could even assert that such explanations better fit the facts, as they more easily accommodate acquired savant syndrome, terminal lucidity in cases of severe brain damage, extreme examples of hydrocephalus, etc... *_"You said: It is demonstrable that certain experiences cannot take place of part of thr basin is switched off or disabled"_* You are mistaken. Not only has it not been demonstrated that certain experiences cannot take place without the brain, but in fact, it can never be demonstrated that any kind of experience requires the brain. Nothing that neuroscience has observed requires your set of materialist assumptions to explain, and parsimonious positions like idealism actually require less metaphysical speculation than the position that you have taken.

what the flying fcuk is a " soul"? You have not the faintest idea? This you are about to demonstrate? Th boos told me about how you creatures imagine that you *are_born*with what-you-call " souls", which is such obvious nonsense that it is laughable.

What makes you imagine you have a soul? What the fcuk is a soul, and what makes you imadin that dreaming mchine could possibly have whatever a soul is. From where did you get the asinine idea of soul?Did you dream it up or invent it al by yourself oris it the idea/ fantasy of another? Soul my arse Do you just make these things up as you go along?

Your" friend", is a pathological liar.

It is a knowing.

It’s not always a pleasant happy butterflies in your stomach feeling, sometimes it can feel sickening, like a bunch of evil little butterflies, especially when you don’t know what to do or who to trust. If fear and doubt about something is involved and you stay in a constant state of confusion, dreams can occur to help your mind understand that action needs to be taken.

@@SuperGoofygranny I think this what was happening to my mum.7 weeks ago when I lost her

Consciousness is not in the object known as body/brain system, the body/brain system are in consciousness, as representations. Much like the images while you dream which appear to be "out there." You even have a body from first person perspective, beings that appear to be independent, as others. I certainly don't choose to create these dreamscapes and characters. There's solidity, color, I have even tasted (bad unpleasant taste), there's motion, space, causality, just a different state of awareness/consciousness.

@@Animalis_Mundana what does first person.perspective entail

Why can't the people in these so-called NDEs see the smiley face posters atop equipment in the room, which should be in full view for them, when studies test this?

How “ near” is near”? Ask that very simple question and the bubble lie of so-called- by liars near-death-experience bursts. Lies never bear close examination A liar is one that believes what he *wants* to believe.

@@vhawk1951kl Precisely! I read a study where I believe it was 50 people who claimed to have had a NDE, and yet not a single one of them was in serious condition, much less critical. Not one of them was ever in danger of dying, much less "near" death. The mind sees what people want to see.

​@@Vintage-Bob thanks for that, it comes as no surprise to meme because correctly or incorrectly I take the view that there can be no essential difference between so-called near-death-experiences and near-standing-on-your-own-shoulders-experiences, and of course the trick of that is that if you cannot do it you cannot "nearly" do it. If x is impossible"*nearly*" x is impossible, but that is of course subject to your better view The only words for those that purport to have " researched" such experiences are - in my view screamingly obviously, conmen and liars and one thing I have learned in a long life is that not only does misery loves company, so does mendacity Not only do men(human beings/dreaming machines) tend to believe what they*want* to believe (which is a form of lying), they also go in for what I call policeman syndrome: They seize on anything which tends to support their thesis and flatly ignore or simply discount anything tending to refute or contradict it. Either death is the complete cessation of all experience or it is not death and just as you cannot*experience not experiencing anything, you cannot"*nearly*"not experience anything. It must surely be axiomatic that if it*cannot* be true, it *Is* not true. If death is not an absolute like pregnant or unique, it is not death and what the near-death-experience loons have in mind must be something*other_than* death, or do they suppose that there are " nearly" unique or " "nearly" pregnant experiences.? " We live forever, only*other_people* die". I forget who coined that, but he seems to hit the nail on the head. If, as I submit, subject to your better view I cannot experience not experiencing anything no more can I imagine not anything -It is a conceptual impossibility(to go with definitional and experiential) impossibility. Is there a particular type/category of man that simply cannot entertain the possibility of *im*_possibilty? Just as one cannot possibly even imagine not experiencing anything, they cannot even imagine something being impossible -For them there is no *set* of impossibilities.(I'm a lawyer not a mathematician) "Dreams are true while they last, can more be said of life?" -Havelock Ellis" Seems to me that the near-death-experience construct is a group or collective construct or three legged table; take away the other loons and it falls over(or could not stand in the first place)

A pack of lies from beginning to end

Seems you have missed the meaning of atheism. No god proof from these studies

Beliefs are mainly held by those with religious faith, not atheists. ~Atheists take pride in acquiring and understanding empirically proven facts.

Not everything can or ever will be acquired by science or by anyone.Non-Atheists also take pride in acquiring and understanding empirically proven facts.But they are not blinded by their pride or egos. How do you explain the work of Dr. Greyson??

​@@joedanache7970science is everything

Science is everything.But only within what is known to be materialistic. The spiritual realm is beyond the reach of science. Or our 5 senses.

Doyou suppose that is not obviously a lie? There is a very simply test, if it*cannot be true it *is* not true as I said to a man who was standing on his own shoulders while I was standing on my own shoulders, the poorer the liar the les apparent to him it is that he is obviously lying. He really believes he can get away with an obvious lie ,because he does not know that the one thng then makes me not entirely worthless is their sense of truth or with_knowledge. *That* cannot be fooled. Your obvious lie is way *too* obvious sunshine One definition - an fallible one. of a liar is he who believes what he*wants* to believe.

The body is an avatar for consciousness to be in control of, my thoughts exactly. And there are a spectrum of avatars, all with the same "driver" - consciousness - driving them, be it a bird, fish, or blade of grass in my opinion.

It is a *pack-of-lies* from beginning to end, many of hem real whoppers.

You will connect with him again when the day comes. I really start to believe that our Soul/Consciousness never dies. It just changes states.

@@elJossu Where is you evidence that this soul thing exists?

How is that "dishonest"? Did she explain her choice of words? Certainly another lifetime could be viewed as too much work; stressful; seeming futile, etc., but "dishonest"? Hopefully she came to the understanding that we are on this plane to evolve and ready ourselves for the next, higher level of existence.

@@sarahallenhumboldt2638she got tricked into reincarnating

Sounds as if she has to do the same life like in a loop what a horrible thing to be aware off and i hope its not how life is

That is such an *screeeamingly_Obvious* lie that is embarrassing.Can you not come up with a better lie than that but I can certainly see what you andLying-in-his-teeth Greyson have in common.

Greyson is *Lying*, that whole load of drivel is full of lie after lie after lie, and he banks( and runs giggling to the bank)on no-on having the nerve to say that he is a *Liar and a Fraud*. He knows very well that one can tell any lie one pleases if one is *certain* that none can contradict one. The man is a lying scoundrel and *complete_fraud*. The whole thing is riddled with*lie* after* lie* after lie*.

The whole thing is drivel without a clear definition of consciousness. if instead of consciousness that dolt used stuff i would come to exactly-the-same-thing Why bother to use consciousness when stuff or izzy-whizzy-let's-get-busy would give you*exactly-the-same-thing.* Buddhism does not say anything_remotely like "consciousness can sustain itself without a brain", that is a*flat-out-Lie*

Reaaly, exxactly what proportion of several billion beings have you can vased? I can certainly see what you and Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson have in common

The* whole_thing* a pack-of-lies from beginning to end, many of hem real whoppers.

The whole thing is drivel without a clear definition of consciousness. if instead of consciousness that dolt used stuff i would come to exactly-the-same-thing Why bother to use consciousness when stuff or izzy-whizzy-let's-get-busy would give you*exactly-the-same-thing.* Buddhism does not say anything_remotely like "consciousness can sustain itself without a brain", that is a*flat-out-Lie*

what exactly are you calling thoughts? You have not the faintest idea? No surprises there. Are not Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson 's lies dreadful?

Very impressive, the lies in it are breath-taking- a pathological liar on full form.

Fond of lying conmen are you?

It is a pack of lies from beginning to end

*Whose*science *Of_what*? Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson does not *Know* anything he is a conman and a liar

yes, we are created in the image of our Creator but unless we won't be clear about the Image of Creator this statement is just repetition of holy texts... amongst many holy texts there are those who explain why/how we got in here, what will happen at death, what bodies to expect. SUch texts are Puranas, Upanishads, Vedanta sutra, etc... especially Bhagavad gita: at death only those who learn, practise in human life period spiritual knoweldge authorised by Creator, may move to original, loving existence - far beyond this mortal world... those who are NOT acquainted with spiritual practices will return to Earth in many forms, including plants, animals etc...and of course human forms. most modern humans are too attached to 'human paradigm '... all in term of body, so much talk about death: this lecture also, people are ''dying'' in ignorance , all talk is about he/she lived and boom...died,,, brain controversies , speculations - only because false identification of a person with ''body and it's parts' one verse from Krishna's teachings explains all: ''As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.'' Bg 2.13 as long as soul identifies with dying body that long he/she must take one body after another... only spiritual knowledge can open one's eyes such meetings discuss only bodily attachhments ... but aren't open to discuss spiritual approach as it was given by Creator are you familiar with Bhagavad gita?

We never weren't here

Greyson in that drivel tells lie after deliberate lie after lie He is a fraud and a conman- simply a serial liar. You can tell any lie you like if you are *certain* you cannot be contradicted and, knowing that, he lies, and he lies, and he lies.He lies about Buddhism and people appearing to function normally with no-brain-at=all, which are *Lies* He , lies and he lies, and he lies.

Greyson sis a lying conman and complete fraud and he lies, and he lies, and he lies.

It's a pack of lies from beginning to and. Greyson is a liar a conman and a *Complete_Fraud*

The* whole_thing* a pack-of-lies from beginning to end, many of hem real whoppers.

A pack of lies from a scoundrel and conman of the first water

No c doubt Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson is a very " professional liar. That much is obvious

@@sunnydayys4917 All laptops work without wi-fi.

If you hsd to boil"ou can cut a computer up in anyway you want, you still cannot see the program the way its written from looking at the cut-up parts. This is how we build complex machines, and its not a huge leap to think ourselves as a very complex machines that are also build the same way" down to mx six words, what would they be? What excactly are you trying to say?

Can you please share a bit about your NDE?

@elJossu sure...I was home alone, exhausted and stressed (in hindsight I'd been living with high levels of tension and depression for many years) my heart was pounding so headed up stairs for a rest. Had to stop as my heart was banging and slowing down. After a few seconds it stopped, I was holding on to life with all I could. As my breathing faded and tunnel vision crept in, the anguish forced me to let go. As that happened, the darkness changed to a kind of velvet and I became aware of essence. As I 'saw' the dark it expanded everywhere 360* but it was all me...nothing was there yet at the same time everything was there...no time, space, thought or feeling just being one 🙏

I wish everyday to return to that feeling. I know it so well, and I've never had an NDE. Whenever my mind thinks about what's beyond, it just calmly reassures me that whatever is next, its peaceful and blissful. @@philipthomason6571

That many times u should have it memorized. Hell two times would be enough for me 20 seems to be too much

@@rwm1980 I mostly do have it memorized, watched it with a few people. I was possibly exaggerating when I said 20 times, I haven't kept track. Needless to say it was more than a few times, and probably over longer time than 5 years.

That fond of lying conmen eh?

Hmmm, they do say there is another one born every minute and the prayer of lying-in-his-teeth Greyson is that that be true.

@@vhawk1951kl can you prove all these cases he's collected along with Ian Stevenson are all made up? Or are these just the baseless accusations of a narrow minded materialist?

Yes, good idea.

I'm sure these tests have been done exhaustively monitoring mathematicians brains while they work on math problems. This is known to science

If a non-existent brain can exhibit consciousness (as he describes), I doubt it matters what part of the brain survives - consciousness (soul in my view) is not a physical property

​@KyleTrimbach-ih5bx You have to remember that in most people these anomalies do not occur. In other words, a complete brain is needed for consciousness. But also I'm not persuaded that other unusual out of body consciousness experiences are not unconscious creations of the brain, which happens in dreams. Consciousness without a brain is humanity's most fervent hope, often postulated but has never been empirically verified in any systematically understood way. Hence, the continued skepticism despite the anomalies. Nonetheless it's important to keep an open mind.

It is proven today that brain size doesn't necessarely give any hints about its capacbilities.

Extreme Optimism #SamParnia #LorenzoCohen may be instrumental

Maybe they would benefit from a near death experience!

It's because they run from the wrong direction and do not understand the meaning ot life

Big pharma hasn't ANYTHING to do with health. It's one of the most corrupt entities on the planet. It is an industry ONLY concerned with making money. There is no money in researching NDEs. They have been known to sabotage any healing modality that threatened their supremacy in a field... and they NEVER admit fault (unless in a court of law... and even then!). Oh... and, at present, they're going after Homeopathy, trying to wipe it off the map. And you probably know all of this... Oh, hey... the last part of your comment was cut off! (i don't know why youtube does this, but it's really annoying. I like to read the COMPLETE comment!).

The key is in their name: pharma industry. They aren't going to forget about greed. They live to make money for shareholders who only care about money. So they can hire talent who want to work and are either fascinated with the mechanisms of drugs or just don't care or both.

I really hope there's a life after. I'm so afraid of eternal sleep :( I know that's how it was before I was born but I guess you can relate my sadness to a profound love for life that I have yet to fully appreciate. Not many years ago I was going through a depression that gave me a certain ideation. My sadness overcame my fear, without me understanding that I would fear the things that I fear now. Now I believe that my fear overcomes my sadness and I am no longer depressed, but I am scared.

@@SiikPros having been frequently suicidal myself and having read a lot about NDEs, its important to know that suicided NDE’s *never* have good experiences. 😢

@@KyleTrimbach-ih5bx we got this (:

even if there was an eternal sleep youd be sleeping and not worried about it funny part is "wasting the tiny amount of time we have to fear the time we wont have" ironic, turn it positive, if time is limited (or not, or we cannot choose) then lets make very precious the limited time we have. this help make good decision : place of no pity. some people that think that are immortal or eternal afterlife make tons of mistake thinking they have eternity to repair, fix, get forgiven, ect.. promish of eternity make people sometimes lazy and waste life health respect @@SiikPros

I disagree 100%. We have zero evidence that there is any conciousness outside of a biological brain.

Bruce said in his opening statement on how cold it was there.

I only count 4

Lol!!

Extreme cold

Perhaps have a grownup explain the meaning of epistemology to you; it is not as the Elsies or lower classes say, 'shirt related'.

What kind of evidence would convince you do you think?

As humans, we are made up of matter and energy. When we die, our "body suit" (matter...) will decompose. However, the energy within our body can not be destroyed, and will continue to exist. Death is simply an altered state of being.

@@danb7601 I can't speak for Luke but I would be totally convinced if my deceased father walked in the room right now and told me all about the afterlife.

@@tommy7fun indeed, and that happens all the time, you might be surprised to find that in some populations as much as 50 percent of people report contact with the deceased, though generally its between 10 and 30

It depends on what you want to believe. If you want to believe in God I can only say that it starts with Faith. Faith comes with trust, trust comes with knowing, knowing comes with having a relation. You don't need to think twice to know that there had to be a Creator who created this earth and all life on it and everything else in the universe instead of some kind of explosion (Big bang). God made it a bit easier for us to learn who He is, He gave us the Bible where we can learn everything about Him and His Son, our God and Savior Jesus Christ. This is one thing that you can't understand without being born again but it Certainly is true. I would suggest, start by having faith that God exist and start asking if He will come in your heart and have a relation with you. It all starts with small things, don't expect miracles or wishes come true, they might and can happen but it is not what a relation with Jesus is about. Just think about it, you can only win and got nothing to lose from it. I hope you'll find what you're looking for. May God bless you.

I'd like to hear what you experienced in the time before you were born

I'm very sorry, but you dropped me at 'imagineer'. I can't imagine how anyone in good conscience could permit that to be typed on a screen. Respect yourself more!

Break your paragraphs my God that was hard to read.

"soul" my arse! Did you get the soul bullshit from Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson? Hmm they do say that there is another one born evey minute

his video is a pack of lies from beginning to rend.

Very impressive the lies in it are breath-taking- a pathological liar on full form

The molybdinum in our makeup tends to lend to this conclusion also as it, like mercury dramatically increases reception & transmission power.

@@UNcommonSenseAUS it was a good hypothesis, 5 yrs ago..ha

I've had similar experiences. All people say its deja vu. I know its not because I have never been there or anywhere similar in this life. Greetings from Ireland.

You *Lie*

Greyson throughout that lying gibberish tells lie after lie after lie. the assertion that there have been people apparently able to function with no-brain-at-all? *All_lies* He lies and he lies and he lies knowing full well that you*want* to believe his lies many of which cannot be contradicted but are nonetheless lie after lie, after lie. Greyson is a*Confidence_trickster*, a serial*Liar and a*Complete_fraud*

Cheers to that!

Greyson throughout that lying gibberish tells lie after lie after lie. the assertion that there have been people apparently able to function with no-brain-at-all? *All_lies* He lies and he lies and he lies knowing full well that you*want* to believe his lies many of which cannot be contradicted but are nonetheless lie after lie, after lie. Greyson is a*Confidence_trickster*, a serial*Liar and a*Complete_fraud*

For some reason 😂😂😂

And these people were always saved in the verge of the hell by Jesus or Allah 😂 They are not worth creditable.

You need simply ask the question how " near" is near" to pop the near-death-experiences construct balloon. Grayson is a serial liar conman and complete_fraud.That whole thing is lie after lie after lie. Like all conment he plays on the stupid weakness of believing what you * want to believe and knows full well that you can make up and old lie you please if you are sure you cannot be contradicted, so that is*exactly* what the lying scoundrel does.

you believe? Reiki and mugwort tea are pathways to abilities some consider to be un-natural.

If only yo had some slight idea what you are calling consciousness or what the word means, but you do not, do you? Why not just say stuff, you would make far more sense. You do not have a degree or any kind of higher lersrning do you? And yrd, it*is* that obvious. A liar is one that believes what he *wants* to believe... As I sais the other day to a chap that was standing on his own shoulder while I was standing on my own shoulders:" If it*cannot* be true, it *is not true." And what do we call whist is advanced as true that cannot be and is not true? Yup you just shout it out when you know the answer A LIE. give thay an a ciigar.

Nah sunshine it suffices to say that you*believe* You"*believe"* what you *want* to believe and there is a four letter word beginning with L and ending with R, for that. Some-perhaps most, believe pasively mechanically(means they have no choice), and some *believe* as they lie.

Order of the British Empire eh? plenty of people withem about, perhaps some them also pathological liars like Ling-in-his-teeth Greyson. Consciousnes or with_knowledge may well not be no more than s function of the brain but it is n-absolute-and-incontrovertible -certainty*that there can be *no_ consciousness_ whatsoever* in an headless man(human being) and the reason for that is that with_ knowledge(experience) is entirely contingent on an experiencing apparatus. no brain, no experiences/consciousness simply as that and when Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson clamed or said that there had ever be anyone that function ed normally *without* a brain, he was what -we-lawyer-call*Lying, the whole video is a pack of lies frim beginning to end. Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson is a conman a *complete_fraud* He is l-y-i-n-g.

T.E.A Party - May I ask was your NDE similar to your psychedelic experiences OR were they different May I ask what did you experience Many thanks

@@mrsq117 My HDE was when I was 3 years of age so my experiences were extremely hard to identify. However, experiencing psychedelics I found DMT for the short term sessions to be summarized as relatable mentally but not for certain. For some reason when experiencing shrooms which I need a 6 hour window and good set and setting I found the experience of feelings that connect as well as visuals to be far enhanced and find it more connected to my death.

@@ti41magh41 would you say that NDEs are just DMT release or definitely a spiritual experience

Greyson throughout that lying gibberish tells lie after lie after lie. the assertion that there have been people apparently able to function with no-brain-at-all? *All_lies* He lies and he lies and he lies knowing full well that you*want* to believe his lies many of which cannot be contradicted but are nonetheless lie after lie, after lie. Greyson is a*Confidence_trickster*, a serial*Liar and a*Complete_fraud*

Well it's like the Bible verse in Matthew let the dead bury the dead that has to be bad influences people who are single minded for instance the social influence in gangster rap was terrible for the environment the skin head's who lured in young people and brainwashed them like American History X the kid was smart but the environments of 2 in kind were on opposite sides of the spectrum and they clash because each side is influenced by hate and militant in some degree to spot the enemy or extrude into each other's space like a challenge that is what consumes people is their fears and they're stronger in numbers because the environment the social influence can be demoralizing to people who would rather be involved in personal interests or interaction without feeling like they are taming a wild animal. The thing I realized is that I allowed the world to explain what is true and it feels demoralizing when you realize what a fool I am the news the movies the people in day to day interactions the music it's terrible what a fool believes and I'm to not sure what it's all about just that the people of God are not of this world that is for sure. The world might have begun with a bang after all because it would be explosive to think up of a language find a way to make paper and ink to draw out a blueprint of communication a thought is contagious as is life that makes sense I wonder 🙃

Where is the evidence of this disconnected mind? Your argument is a very poor one that can be explained in many ways.

@@Vintage-Bob please explain.

@@PureExistence1 Explain what? That you committed a logical fallacy there? What you are describing is called "paradoxical lucidity" or "terminal lucidity". We don't yet fully understand the mechanism(s) causing it, because there is much we still don't know about the brain. It's relatively rare, and in less than half the cases, people regain (temporarily) full lucidity, the other just over one half regain only a limited amount of lucidity. But you commit a logical fallacy by assuming this phenomena provides evidence of a mind or consciousness that is not tethered to brain activity. Since it's a logical fallacy, it renders your entire argument invalid. In order for what you're saying to be true, you would first have to provide evidence of the existence of a mind, consciousness, spirit, or soul that exists independent of the physical body. None of those things are possible given the laws of physics. If a mind or consciousness exists, in what form does that information exist? Memories, thoughts, etc? What particles or waves are they made of? What force or forces hold the mind or consciousness together as a distinct packet of awareness? How does it interact with matter? There is nothing in physics that can explain that. It is impossible for consciousness or thoughts or minds to exist without the physical producer of those things - the brain. It's all electrical and chemical activity. You would need to literally re-write not only all the laws of physics, but also all the laws of quantum field theory in order to account for "mind atoms" or "consciousness waves". Once you understand physics, you understand the absurdity of believing in extra-corporeal consciousness, souls, etc. So, the burden of proof is on you. Explain what particles or waves constitute disembodied minds or consciousness, and how that can be fit into the laws of physics, both standard and quantum.

@@Vintage-Bob thanks for taking the time to respond.. Ive never taken philosophy classes so i was unaware if the terms you referred to ..what im talking about is metaphysical in nature. The best info is coming out of places like UVDOPS University of Virginia, Department of Perceptual Studies. The studies coming out of there are bridging the gap of the false dichotomy of science and metaphysics. I cant parrot all the info back as memorization is not a strong suit of mine but as far as my personal stance is concerned, i do believe there is more than just this physical body and that we exist multidimensionally. Thats just where im at, but i do thank you again for taking the time to respond. Oh, last thing id like to add is Pure Existence is what i call the overarching "mind".

Hello Yoda

A* *pack-of-lies* from beginning to end

There is no reason to believe that consciousness emerges from brain activity, and I think the most logical position is that mind is fundamental. Mind causes our experience.

If anything the opposite is true - I suspect you are trying to convince yourself that consciousness will cease. For some reason survival of consciousness beyond death bothers you. You need to work that out, because logic and reason are with the idealist. There's no reason to believe that consciousness ceases with the death of the brain.

When did Anduin tell you how to do science? To begin with you are not doing science. You are spouting your ridiculous assumptions and pretending that they are science.

Our brain is the receiver of consciousness. Consciousness is outside of us.

​@@ingenuity168which could mean we are inside consciousness...

Cool!

i had the exact same thing wtf also i hve had a lucid dream where i visited hell and a being told me "ill show you but you cannot open eyes" it triggered extrem curiosity, but at what cost? i didnt open eyes i once experience extrem fear where ironicly there was nothing to fear anymore

Facts Amen 🙏🏻

Where do you have the proof?

@@piotrjasielski Four ways, one is by reading NDE researchers, Two, I have three close friends who have had near death experiences, Three I have two close friends who are real mediums (most mediums and psychics are fake) who contact the spirits regularly Fourth, some personal experiences I have had.

@@dinaldcurchod3296 Nothing of that is any proof. Subjective experiences are no proof. There are people who see angels, monsters, aliens. Some people believe they are someone else. People are hallucinating, believing in what they brain wants to believe. People have schizofrenia etc. NDE is a hallucination of the brain, similar to a dream or experience with some drugs. And sure, most of mediums are fake but your two fiends are the real ones... got it.

Same every night when I sleep. But when on shrooms 20 gram dry cubesis then more then just darkness

Exactly like Even if the brain does really create it, according to this we simply don't exist as individuals , just some hallucinations by the brain , this what seems like a dogmatic materialistic guy would say , irrational and illogical

@@juiceer3320 yes and i also feel most neuroscientists and brain surgeons whom are "materialists" wouldn't even admit they were open to the idea that consciousness is more than brain. they have the materialist theory drilled into them since their training and medical studies , and to think of anything else would be deemed "ridiculous"..i prefer open minded scientists like dr peter fenwick.ciousness is more than brain. they have the materialist theory drilled into them since their training and medical studies , and to think of anything else would be deemed "ridiculous"..i prefer open

@@Dion_Mustard i agree, assuming is what they do , not us ! They say science explains by observing and measuring , they neither measured or observed how consciousness actually works or what it is because it's not even possible to explain subjectivity , think about it like this " it's like proving that a baseball bat feels pain because it said so , you will never know why and how it felt pain but it did ! " We exist in a weird universe , existence is too fucking , weird + terrfying to say at least , we just tend to ignore death and life by our unlimitied phenomenal consciousness

Anyone who denies God is foolish!!!

When was the last time you were conscious when you were asleep?

Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic and one wonders who or what else the abuser is abusing? That remains to be seen or prosecuted.

@@vhawk1951kl HEYYYYYY ASS TAMBOURINE I GUESS IT NEVER OCCURES TO PARANOID PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY ALMOST COMPLETELY BLIND AND CAPS HELP US SEE BETTER I BET MAIL ADVERTISING MUST BE A BITCH AND GIVES YOU AN ANXIETY ATTACK DONT WORRY LETTERS CAN HURT YOU ONLY STRAIGHT UP STUPIDITY CAN GOOD LUCK 😉🤦‍♀️💯🖖🤙👍😉

Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic and one wonders who or what else the abuser is abusing? That remains to be seen or prosecuted. Greyson is a conman and a *serial liar*

Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted. Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson is a lying conman; the video is a pack of lies from beginning to end

@@vhawk1951kl YOU REALLY ARE A SPECTACULAR KIND OF STUPID ARENT YOU IM ALMOST COMPLETELY BLIND CAPS HELP I BET ADVERTISING REALLY FREAKS YOU OUT DOESN'T IT SNOWFLAKE ❄ 😉🤣🤦‍♀️💯

Greyson in that drivel tells lie after deliberate lie after lie He is a fraud and a conman- simply a serial liar. You can tell any lie you like if you are *certain* you cannot be contradicted and, knowing that, he lies, and he lies, and he lies.He lies about Buddhism and people appearing to function normally with no-brain-at=all, which are *Lies* He , lies and he lies, and he lies. In case I have not been sufficiently clear. Greyson is a serial liar. A ll those stories about children are Lies*; Greyson tells lie after lie after lie.

One's WILL is the key to the door of the SOUL. One's WILL is the POWER TO OVERCOME CONQUER AN OBSTACLE OR an ENEMY. AGREEMENT is the Fruit of WILLINGNESS. AGREEMENT occurs when two WILLS CONNECT.

Consciousness(which you clearly simply*cannot* define and LiarGreyson does not even try to define) beuse he cannot) may not be* produced bt the brain, but the plsin fact of the matter is no apprehending apparatus or brain, no experience an consciousness is a n experience of an experiencing apparatus, without which there can be no experience whatsoever. When Liar Greyson asserts that there are have been people who appeared to function normally without-any-brain-at-all, he was what we lawyers call*Lying..The scoundrel is a lying conman and a *Complete_Fraud*.

100% agree

Consciousness(which you clearly simply*cannot* define and LiarGreyson does not even try to define) beuse he cannot) may not be* produced bt the brain, but the plsin fact of the matter is no apprehending apparatus or brain, no experience an consciousness is a n experience of an experiencing apparatus, without which there can be no experience whatsoever. When Liar Greyson asserts that there are have been people who appeared to function normally without-any-brain-at-all, he was what we lawyers call*Lying..The scoundrel is a lying conman and a *Complete_Fraud*. Grayson is *L-y-i-n-g*.

I hardly ever remember my dreams... and when I do, they are usually awful. What does that mean?

Why won't you share with us what science really is?

Leibniz’s Monad? I believe he appropriated the concept from Neoplatonists.

​@@espositogregorycorrect.

Greyson is a lia and a fraud. The whole thing is drivel without a clear definition of consciousness. if instead of consciousness that dolt used stuff i would come to *exactly-the-same-thing* Why bother to use consciousness when stuff or izzy-whizzy-let's-get-busy would give you*exactly-the-same-thing.* Buddhism does not say *anything_remotely like* "consciousness can sustain itself without a brain", that is a*flat-out-Lie* Greyson chucks words like oparadim and scientific aroind like confetti to bammboxle halfwitee Beilirvers -of-what-they-*want*-to-believe to say that there can be (and he does not even bother to define ) consciousness is like say that a thre-legged-table can stand with only one leg. It is true that(you must define it before you use it) consciousness is not no more than brain activity but it is *equally_true* that there can be no consciousnes*without* brain activity. Itis a*Lie* to suggest that human beings can function or manifest as human without a brain Grey son has discovered that if you make any assertion boldly enough, no-one will dare contradict you. the whole of that drivel is as riddled with lies as a Swiss cheese is riddled with holes Greyson is a *Liar*.

Dr(?) Greyson? If Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson is any kind of doctor I am the lord chief justice

​@@vhawk1951kl[shrug] I had never heard of him, so I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I know how mendacious (and dumb) a person can be, and still have a doctorate.

​@@heliumcalcium396 ">>>> @heliumcalcium396 @heliumcalcium396 34 minutes ago ​ @vhawk1951kl [shrug] I had never heard of him, so I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I know how mendacious (and dumb) a person can be, and still have a doctorate. Broad grin, going by what I have encountered on me-me-me-me_tube, being a lying half-witted scoundrel is pretty much the minimum requirement in some parts at some times for a doctorate, the possessors of some of which are leading me to suppose that *very_few* things are impossible. I am rapidly coming to suppose very few of the kinderlander(Americans) have*not* got at the very least several PhDs which appear to be dispensed for the asking to any that can write their name or ;simultaneously walk an chew gum, particularly since lying-halfwitted scoundrel_ism is one of the many sins in the calendar of the religion modernism and right up there with sexism racism and the nuclear sin misogyny(may we not call it misogynism since all proper sins end with 'ism'?) I don't know about you but I find the mindless prejudice against lying-halfwitted scoundrels monstrous and worthy of the epithet sin and am inclined to demand that lying-halfwitted scoundrels should be raised to the status of protected sacred cow of the one true religion modernism, for the sacred cows of which one can barely move these days. You surely do not suppose that Lying-though-his-teeth Greyson is*any* kind of doctor do you? One can barely move for doctors on me-me-tube these days Why is there no he-she-it-or-wetube?

Lying-in-his-teeth Greyson is no doctor -He's a pathological liar.

+nickolasgaspar _"so pretending to know things that you don't and can't prove..is better?"_ If you take any view at all aside from total neutrality then you are making assumptions that you can't prove, because all views of reality are founded on unfalsifiable assumption. For example, the idea that consciousness is an emergent property that arises from complexity in the brain is a magical and metaphysical explanation for the hard problem of consciousness that can never be validated by science. So, unless you are advocating total disbelief, then my answer to your question is yes - we are following logic and reason to a 'better' default position than mainstream physicalism. Consciousness is fundamental.

nickolasgaspar _"First of all..when someone "assuming" that consciousness is an emergent property of our brain, he doesn't really have to invent something supernatural or invisible out side quantum and molecular biology and known energy fields."_ You are taking molecular components that have no subjective qualities, no inner life, and no conscious awareness and saying that when you arrange them in a certain way subjective experience magically emerges out of nothing. Suddenly there is inner life. Suddenly there is something it is like to be that clump of matter. There is a clear magical step involved. As an explanation "complexity did it" is little better than "god did it". _"You actually can see and test the brain. You can study injuries, malfunctions and unconsciousness when sleeping or drinking or when missing a part of a brain."_ These are mind/brain correlations. They are perfectly compatible with numerous branches of philosophy of mind. None of these correlations make a case for emergence. There is no scientific observation that validates emergence. It is pure assumption. _"You can Scan the brain and find out in real time...that all particles and molecule that flow in the brain are at absolute agreement with the laws of quantum mechanics and there is not any outside interference observed in their behavior."_ To say that the brain is in agreement with physics is something entirely different from saying that there is no outside influence in the brain's behavior. The former does not demonstrate the latter, and the view that the brain behaves like an evolved filter is perfectly compatible with the laws of physics. _"Your assumption is a classic argument from ignorance. I suggest you before declaring a scientific hypothesis a belief system, try and own all the scientific knowledge that neurosciences have to offer."_ I am not making an argument from ignorance, because I am claiming that idealism is true because idealism has not been proven false. What I am actually claiming is that the idealism is the most logical position to take. It is the simplest explanation for our experience of the world around us. The mainstream view is a belief. It is not something that has been validated, and can in fact never be validated. No amount of neuroscience will change this. _"Its a painstaking and time consuming procedure and it is called learning. Its an assault to human intelligence and integrity your effort to equate the scientific method with any other supernatural belief system. Falsification is in the core of the scientific method and its the most reliable criteria and always a possibility for every accepted scientific method in effect."_ This is a straw man. I did not equate the scientific method to magic. I equated a specific philosophic view of reality to magic - namely the outdated belief that subjective experience emerges from complexity. The current mainstream view is metaphysical and unfalsifiable.

nickolasgaspar _"This is again a typical "argument from ignorance""_ I am not saying that idealism is true because it has not been proven false, so I am not making an argument from ignorance. I am making an argument from parsimony. My assertion is that all views of reality are founded on assumptions that can never be verified, and that idealism is the simplest explanation for reality. I claim that it is more logical to default to idealism than it is to default to the "mainstream" material view of reality. _"Still I insist you need to have some online courses on neurosciences or listen to relevant talks before talking about specialized subjects. That will save me the trouble repeating arguments that support established knowledge."_ I know enough about science to understand that the idea that consciousness is a strongly emergent property is not established knowledge. There are numerous tenable views of reality that are just as compatible with scientific observation as the 'mainstream' material view. If you are under the impression that your position is established knowledge, then I think that you should brush up on philosophy of mind. My view falls under the category of "monistic idealism". _"Firstly I need you to explain me what is for you a "subjective quality" and what is for you an "inner life"( I will use them as I understand them)!"_ What I meant by 'inner life' is that there is something it is like to be me. I have experience. An atom, on the other hand has no experience. There is nothing it is like to be an atom. It has no inner life. Subjective qualities (qualia) such as the redness of red do not exist in the atom. _"Your brain connected to your hands, by numerous nerve endings, will not detect few molecules of water laying on your skin....but will easily identify the flow of million molecules of water by emerging the feelings of "wetness", "coldness", "hotness" etc in your thought. This wetness is a property that can not be recognized as a property of a single molecule but only when our outer nervous system comes in contact with a specific arrange of numerous water molecules (when liquid that is)."_ Your example does not even require water molecules. All that is necessary is to send the correct code. A sufficiently advanced machine could fulfill the exact same role. I know there are robotic eyes that can send information to the brain and restore some measure of vision in the blind, but this is not at all the same thing as to say that subjective experience itself arises from complexity. Your example is merely one of information transfer to an already conscious system where it is experienced. _"The brain has similarly... many many nerve cells (a lot of them!!!) and countless molecules are flowing "contacting them" everyday (not from a tap) through our blood! Ok a single progesterone, or a Glucocorticoid, or glucose molecule etc won't make a difference or even give us a hints of a "subjective property" but watching them under pet scans obeying well known quantum laws and flowing in identifiable patterns and correlating them with know mental behavior, we now understand that the flow of these molecules and particles emerge the feeling of consciousness that the organism experiences."_ That there are many nerve cells, molecules, chemicals, and electrical signals in the brain is not contested. We have directly observed this to be true. It is scientific fact. The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity on the other hand is not something that we have directly observed to be true. It is a philosophic interpretation of what we have observed, and it is absolutely a magical explanation. Unlike weak emergence, which comprises nearly all examples of emergence in physics, strong emergence does not require that the emergent phenomenon can be deduced from its components. Without the requirement for deducibility you can explain nearly anything as a result of strong emergence. The magical nature of strong emergence as an explanation for consciousness becomes obvious when it is used to explain other mysteries of science. Take for example dark matter. Dark matter was originally proposed to explain why galaxies held together when existing mathematics said that gravity should be insufficient - but what if instead of dark matter, somebody proposed that that the galaxies themselves and all of the processes therein gave rise to an emergent property that held them together. Do you think that physicists would be happy with such an explanation? I think not. It seems that physicists would even prefer to postulate new kinds of matter before resorting to such an explanation - and yet this is somehow seen as a reasonable “explanation” for the hard problem of consciousness. _"e.x. By inhaling oxytocin we manage to alter the interpretation of our brain. The flow of these particles raise feelings like trust, group dependence...and alter our conscious understanding of our world. Alcohol molecules do that also....dopamine...epinephrine etc. If your brain cells are in good conditions... there solely job is to interpret stimuli carried by particles from all our body network of nerves. Colors are also the way that our brain has evolved to interpret the energy of the light absorbed from a colored object. This energy flows through our optical nerve....transformed to electron particles and flow toward the optical processing center of our brain."_ These are examples of mind/brain correlations. They are just as compatible with other branches of philosophy of mind as they are with your view. None of these specifically point towards your view. _"You are using a mutated version of the good old "The god of the gap argument" and it just a stopper for us to understand the human brain."_ No I am not. I am making an argument from parsimony. My argument is not dependent on the incompleteness of neuroscience, so it not a "god of the gaps" kind of argument. Idealism is not incompatible with science and would not stop us from understanding the human brain. _"It is better to know the literature really well before accusing science for magical thinking man."_ I am not accusing science of anything. I am drawing a clear line of separation between what science has directly observed to be true, and the philosophic interpretation of what science has directly observed that some people erroneously conflate with established fact. _"There are many things that we don't know....but an invisible cause from the supernatural roam....wont help us a bit in this quest."_ From my perspective it is the proponents of material explanations that are postulating the flying spaghetti monster here. The view that I favor is founded on fewer unknowable assumptions.

nickolasgaspar _"Actually your argument is far away from a parsimonious one. You create a bigger metaphysical mystery to explain a biological one."_ You are wrong. For conscious processes to generate our experience of the universe requires no extra complexity than to say that metaphysical material processes underlie our perception of the universe. Consciousness is our starting point. It is what we absolutely know to exist. The material is an inference of consciousness. If we can explain reality in terms of our starting point, than this inference is unnecessary. Additionally, idealism has no hard problem of consciousness. It avoids the magic of strong emergence. _" ..and without feeling any need to present to us any evidence on this metaphysics source of consciousness."_ According to your philosophy, we acquire information from the world around us, and from this information our brains fabricate our experience of reality. Under this view the universe that we experience and do science on is not the real material universe, it is just our brain's interpretation of a material universe that is outside of experience. Your view implies that all subjective qualities that we attribute to the objects around us such as color, shape, and size are not qualities of the outside world. They are qualia, which supposedly happen only in our brains. The real material universe that exists outside of experience has no such subjective qualities and does not need to be anything like what you experience it to be. How do you acquire evidence for a material reality outside of experience when scientists can only work through their own experience? You can't. Your view is a metaphysics. It can never be observed to be true. I do not attempt to present 'evidence' for idealism because I understand that all views of reality are founded on assumptions that can never be validated. The only question worth asking is which view requires the _least_ of such assumption. That is the most logical default position. _"Your only arguments in all your posts are based in creating doubt in every scientific interpretation (similar to tobacco and meat industry tactic to raise doubts about health issues concerning their products) and placing the possibility of an outside explanation in the gaps of our understanding...that's exactly the god of the gap argument in action."_ Again, my argument from parsimony does not depend on the incompleteness of science. Even if we perfectly mapped out the brain, my arguments would still be valid. There is no god of the gaps here. _""Monistic idealism" is a philosophy that fails to adopt empirical evidence suggested by methodological naturalism (scientific facts or interpretations ) in an effort to keep its ideology alive. Secondly the core "dogma" of this pseudo philosophic world view is based on a demeaning characterization of its main rival(material) to make space to an UNFALSIFIABLE hypothesis. You are right...of course idealism can not be hold as truth....in reality it is a hypothesis that has no way to be falsified. So by definition when an idea(hypothesis) is ignoring empirical facts, sucks life from gaps of scientific understanding and its untestable ....that renders it as s Pseudo philosophic idea."_ All views of reality including your own are founded on UNFALSIFIABLE assumption. How do you go about falsifying the idea that a metaphysical material universe underlies our perception? You can't, it is untestable, and yet you seem to hold this up as truth. Idealism does not ignore empirical facts. It is just as compatible with scientific observation as your view. If you disagree with this, then I challenge you to present one single scientific observation that is not compatible with idealism. _"Now what I noticed on your arguments, you are mixing our understanding of what life is with consciousness. You are trying to argue that life comes from consciousness but in reality we have many examples in nature that life can be observed with out the presence of consciousness on the subject organism. So saying "It has no inner life" that's nonsensical."_ This is a semantics. You are merely stating that the definition of life extends to things that have no experience. This does not render my statement "nonsensical". This does not even challenge my statements. It does not change the fact that there are entities that do have conscious experience. It does not change the fact that your explanation of this conscious experience requires a magical step in which the non-experiential becomes experiential through "complexity". _"Also we use this word (consciousness) to describe an emerging property in biological structures...basically it is observed only when a complex organ like a biological brain is in good shape and working, but you are trying to use the same word for a metaphysical unproven claim..in an effort to create similarities and magical correlations."_ You have no high ground here. Your claim is also founded on unfalsifiable metaphysical assumption, and parsimony sides with my view. I am taking a more skeptical position than you are. _"This claim of yours is well predicted and described in Sheldon Solomon's Terror Management Theory based on Ernest Becker's hypothesis on our denial of death. In your subconscious effort to convince your self about your "probable immortal existence" you are willing to adapt any cultural explanation even if it demands the use of twisted logic and irrational interpretations, to a degree that allows these ideas to have explanatory power on our assumption on immortality."_ I have arrived at this position through logic, reason, and experience not some desire to attain immortality. This attempt to assign motivation to me is as silly as if I were to say that you just hate life and want to believe that consciousness ends, and will shut out any ideas that challenge the nihilistic idea that consciousness ceases. These are totally baseless and diversionary statements. The only thing that matters here is what you can demonstrate through logic. _"So what is wrong with your ideology? Firstly is its fueled by the gaps in our knowledge on the brain function"_ No it is not. My argument is not dependent on the incompleteness of neuroscience. You seem to be asserting a kind of positivism. This utterly fails because we are dealing views that are founded on unfalsifiable assumptions that are outside of the limits of scientific observation. _"Secondly it is sustained from your personal ignorance and twisting of the existing scientific interpretations."_ It is actually your view that is sustained through ignorance. Idealism is perfectly compatible with scientific observation and has the logical high ground. Parsimony sides with me. _"Thirdly by claiming that our views of reality are founded on assumptions that can never be verified. Your gps device is working quite good by using these "assumption" of Einstein's view on the relativity of the forces of our cosmos...so you are using just one more Pseudo claim to protect your world view man."_ Once again you are attempting to combine direct scientific observation with your interpretation of scientific observation. None of what you have posted requires your materialistic world view. Idealism does not deny the patterns and regularities that we have observed in the universe. It does not deny the fact that Einstein's relativity describes the behavior of our experience universe. The bulk of your arguments against idealism seem to be based on your own lack of understanding of idealism and what idealism implies. I would highly recommend that you take the time to try to understand modern idealism before you continue. It will save us both a great deal of time. The work of Bernardo Kastrup is a good start. _"(he could be wrong I guess! So could be Newton and Galileo on Gravity! Do you have any ideas falsifying them? Does your window at your second floor looks tempting for disproving gravity ...by jumping? I think not! )"_ I find statements like these comical, because all they do is demonstrate your own lack of knowledge on this subject. What we call the laws of physics is accepted and accommodated by nearly all branches of philosophy of mind. Nobody is contesting what we can directly observe to be true. What is being contested is your interpretation of what we can observe. _"Fourthly your pseudo hypothesis has no interdisciplinary verification like a scientific hypothesis enjoys.(quantum physics, biology, social science, medicinal science, etc)"_ My view is just as compatible with the observed patterns and regularities of the universe as yours is, and is thus just as compatible with collaboration of different branches of science. Of course, it cannot be _verified_, but neither can yours. _"So pls don't present interpretations as a drawback. Its a basic tool that needs the proper use of the rules of LOGIC. Because of the twisting of these rules and the denial of empirical facts Science had to depart from the academic philosophy and set a much more strict environment to test philosophical ideas about nature."_ I am denying no facts. Your view is not factual, and there is no way to test the unfalsifiable assumptions that your view of reality is founded on. _"TO put this in a perspective...the interpretation of :"consciousness is a product of our brain" is a prevailing scientific interpretation based on our current knowledge that still is been enriched and wont stop soon(not a Theory!)."_ It is an assumption, and trying to pass it off as more than an assumption only demonstrates an inability to understand the fact that your view is founded on pure unfalsifiable assumption. _"On the the other hand God and the idea of a immortal external consciousness is a pseudo philosophical argument that ignores methodological evidence and both lack a falsification test."_ I am ignoring no evidence. There is nothing in science that conflicts with idealism. Your view is founded on unfalsifiable assumption. _"So to have a serious conversation you must present me the evidence of a "mechanism" outside of a biological brain, capable to produce logic and consciousness"_ That is an absurd request, given my whole argument is that consciousness is NOT a function of the material. Idealism holds that consciousness is not produced by anything, it is fundamental. _"We can test them and we need no parsimonious explanations to do so."_ We can test the brain, and show mind/brain correlations. These are direct observations that nobody contests. You are going beyond what we can directly observe to be true and making all kinds of assumptions that are outside of the scope of observation, and attempting to elevate these assumptions to the level of established fact. _"Sorry but your pseudo philosophical view is wrong and it will be pushed to the fringes of our understanding until there is no space to occupy..and it will fade away like bronze age god myths."_ You have it backwards. In the future your outdated philosophy will be viewed in much the same way as we view the flat earth.

+nickolasgaspar You are still trying to conflate science with your view. This is not an assault on science, so your defense of science is irrelevant. I recognize the value of science. I am challenging only your view, not science itself. The great achievements of science came about as a result of testing and understanding the world around us. They are the achievements of science, not materialist philosophy. Many great scientists do not share your world view and have contributed greatly to the pool of scientific knowledge. Idealism has not been discredited. It remains perfectly tenable, and from my perspective it is you who is engaging in magical thinking. I am taking the most skeptical view of reality that there is. You are taking an unnecessarily complicated position that _creates_ problems like the hard problem of consciousness, which must then be answered with magical explanations like strong emergence.

Because the mechanisms you're proposing are highly speculative and lack empirical support, but more importantly, because neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, are well understood to be irreversible. That's why such cases as described by Greyson are anomalous.

Con_sciousness, from rhe Latin con meaning with plus the larion sciomeaning I_know, c gives you with_I_know, or simply with_knowledge(knowledge being direct immediate personal experience), not possible without an experiencing apparatus for which the ere is (Mr. Lying-through-his-teeth Greyson) a word, which is brain. It is *very_simple*No functioning experiencing apparatusno experience thus no with_knowledge. There is nothing magic or mysterious about conscious ness known_experience, and it can be demonstrated the consciousness or with_experienceis contingent on the brain because it can be switched_off by doing something to the bgrain like sousing it in alcohol or giving it a general ansethic. You can prove that A is dependent on B, by removing B and seeing if you still get A as you would if you want to know which of abcdef is blowing your fuse whereafter you switch them all off and turn them on it turn to see which one blows the fuse is the culprit. Queerly enough there are remarkably few near-general-anesthetic-experiences. Will the brain/mind generate semingly real experiences al-by-itself? Sure it will and we call them dreams or near -death experiences. Disable bits of the brain and you stop having certain experiences, and some people - silly foolsfools that they are suppose that if you disable bit of the brain whereafter the experiencer does not experiences various that the*p-r-o-b-a-b-l-y has something to do with the brain, and, surprise surprise if you put a bullet through Fred’s brain Fred goes all still and silent and his conversation dwindles to nothing. but a certain Mr.Lying-through-his-teeth Greyson will sure you that Fred is actually having a cream tea after a day’s surfing in Cornwall and the fact that Fred has no head at all is neither her here nor there and that he, Fred , is simply having a near-stone-cold-dead-experience and that is why he doesn’t seem to mind when you put him in a wooden box and set fire to it.