One thing that bothers me. Well, one of a rotating few that pop up from time to time anyway! The romanticised element of your theory is that it lends itself to explain near death experiences and therfor predicts what happens to people that die in certain ways.
So, people that die in other ways; die in their sleep, get shot in the back of the head, ect ect you get the picture. Are you saying that the process you have described still occurs for them? I mean, realistically if it applies to one death it wil apply to all but am i silly for thinking that some deaths make it seem a lot more unlikely?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Hi HB,
From what I have gathered from ITLAD, Tony is offering a theory of what happen at the point of death. He uses anecdotal evidence from those who have survived and are able to report these experiences. What happens to a person who dies cannot , at the moment, be known as thay can't tell us.
I would theorize that once death has happened the experience of the deceased is similar to the experiences of those who have had NDE's. The being (some sort of communication), the light/tunnel, past life review.
However, if I have read the book correctly, Tony suggests that the difference may be that instead of an instantaneous past life review as in NDE the past life review of the person who dies actually becomes the new, next life? Tony, you need to correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here!
HB; I agree with what Johar has said, and yet I think I also know what you are driving at. It has been said that some types of dying are not a quantum event at all; for instance a very elderly person who has aged and has now gone into the dying phase has not really reached a bifurcation point in any sense. Or did you mean something else? My problem is that I tend to take the romantic and literary view of it all, and am weak on the physics and the science of it. . .
Absolutely. Visualy, certain deaths lend themselves to this theory such as car crashes. Johar i realise we can only talk to people in near death experiences rater than the people that actualy die!! What i'm pointing out is that not everyone has a near death experience despite almost dying, now is this a reflection of the way they almost died or merely that they weren't close enough to death to realise it.
Was that a bit clearler? My apologies!
HB; I think a question arises from the idea of the MWI and the branching. We can understand a person going through a red light and getting killed as a result in the observer's universe. In their own, they branch into a line where they do NOT get hit or killed. But the person who is languishing and slowly dying for months or years: when do they branch off? And if they do, they do so as a very old or infirm being. When I reflect on this, I begin to tell myself that there are indeed deaths which occur in the observer's universe and in the dying one's as well. (I think this occurred with my husband: He is dead in my universe and his own as well. In some romantic sense, I envision him in an "in between state" as told in Tony's book - and then somehow he and I will wind up back in 2002 again and avoid the whole tragedy. Or so I tell myself every day. Well, grieving is so awful I simply MUST cling to some hope or I will die myself.) Now is this a satisfactory answer to your thinking, Hurly???
Hi guys.
HB. Excellent question and one that has come up a few times during my lectures. It is a question that shows deep reflection on the logistics of the RDE (Real-Death Experience) as opposed to an NDE (Near-Death Experience). Yours is one of two, closely related points. The first is that if death takes place in an instant (such as a bullet to the head), how can the Daemon know this is about to happen? Well, I clearly do not have an answer but I suspect that as the Daemon is not only hyper-aware but also that it exists, in a very real sense, in a zone that has its own time then it will be aware that death is about to occur because in its perceptions timre is much slower in its duration. Indeed in a second or subsequent run of the Bohmian IMAX the Daemon may know simply by the fact that this is how it happened last time - although I would suspect that a Daemon that allows its Eidolon to end up in exactly the same mortal danger is not that effective!
Of course in eidolonic time-perception there is no way that the Eidolon will have any opportunity to react. This no leads to the second point and that is how can the glutamate flood bring about the slowing down of eidolinic time-perception (so that there is enough subjective time available for the Bohmian IMAX to run its course)?
I again suggest that the answer is similar to the first answer. Time is suddenly dilated and extremely subjectice with regard to the perceptions of the about-to-die person.
Indeed I suspect that another possible answer may lie, somewhat synchrondipitously in the subject mattere of an earlier posting today by Jaysi. If these experiments are correct then the brain is always monitoring its environment ahead of consciousness so in a very real sense the body will know that death is about to happen before consciousness is aware of anything. Indeed in a very real, but utterly bizarre interpretation of the implications of this experiment is that a subject may be already dead before they are aware of the fact!
This si, again, profoundly itladian in its implications.
According to neuroscientist Mario Beauregard there is some hard scientific evidence of near death experience. He cites a case in his recent book "The Spiritual Brain" of a woman named Pam Reynolds who was under medical observation and known to be clinically dead. She was able to recall verifiable facts about her surgery that she could not have known if she were not in some way conscious when the events were taking place. Her experience was that she popped outside of her body and saw the doctors working on her lifeless body. She was able to describe what the nurses in the operating room had said even though she was clinically dead. The major theme of his book is that some scientists are ignoring hard evidence supporting the idea of something spiritual outside of the brain.
Another good film - AWAKE - may lend itself to your post ra from ca.
Anthony as you say, we may be dead before we realise it. If the only 2things that are cartain in life are death and taxes, we are already dead now. If it is inevitable, we are definately dead at some point in our lives. When you start thinking in these terms, it makes it easy to believe we are neither dead nor alive but simply inbetween. For these reasons i believe a big hefty majority of what you say in your books to be true.
Susan, great elaboration on what i said, you did me justice!
Oh Ok HB I kinda missed your original point - DOH!! Sorry. What I think is interesting is that not everyone who clinically dies has an NDE. As Tony says in his book, if you take a purely clinical view of the body dying i.e synapses firing, enzymes and hormones flooding the body etc then EVERYONE should have the same experience. But as evidence shows only a percentage of those who 'die' for a short time have an NDE, suggesting that something else may be going on as HB has suggested. I wonder if the daemon knows that the Eidolon isn't going to die this time round so doesn't get 'caught out' playing a past life review?
Thank you HB for your kind assurance. And Johar, your last sentence poses a fascinating question. I think it must be so; had not thought of that before!
For an interesting discussion regarding the Pam Reynolds case, instigated on the James Randi site by and continued by Titus Rivas, an illustrious Dutch member of our own dear Blog here (Hi Titus, long time, no hear), follow the link:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7999&page=10&post=#386
I have no reason to disbelieve this case but as I responded to a letter in the IANDS Journal (who was in turn commenting on my article in the same journal) the problem I have is the mechanism by which somebody having an OOB (Out-of-Body) experience can see and hear when they have no ears or eyes. I guess that this has to do in some way with 'The Field' and distance viewing.
I agree with you wholeheartedly however in your point that science should not simply ignore evidence that does not fit in with the present paradigm. It is only by looking closely, and even-handedly, at events such as the Reynolds case can science advance.
Anthony:
I'm pretty agnostic on all these issues. I've not had an NDE but I read Beauregard's book and I also picked up a copy of Skeptic Magazine. Beauregard mentions in his book that so-called materialists use questionable science e.g. the God Helmet idea which has no scientific validity thus far, to argue against fairly strong evidence of something existing beyond materialism. I read skeptic magazine, and sure enough he was correct. Michael Shermer cited this questionable God Helmet to argue against the possibility of something beyond the brain. So it seems there is a bias, or simply a lack imagination?
HurlyBurly; you "beautiful british boy" *smile*
I discussed your very question with Tony a couple of months ago in a trendy pub in Liverpool (well, it was trendy before we entered, but I'm not overtly sure how our insertion into the mix affected the overall aesthetics, but anyway....ooooh Cause And Affect (HA HA!!!))
Now, admittedly AP had imbibed two or three rather substantial glasses of a particularly cheeky Sauvignon Blanc when I gave my own interpretation so his detail of the conversation may be somewhat blurred - therefore allow me to elucidate!!!
It's all a question of perspective. The person who, as you ask, "dies in their sleep" or "Gets shot in the back of the head" does indeed die in their sleep or get shot in the head in your phaneron, BUT (and again it's a J-Lo (a big BUT)), within their own subjective phaneron they do NOT.
The question is one of TIME. How can someone who is shot in the back of the head have time for the Glutamate flood to begin, allowing them to fall out of time before the bullet passes through the brain and into an unsuspecting seagull that just happened to be taking an unfortunate short cut to the beach *shrugs!!*
Well, the answer lies within the question (as is often the case). The answer is TIME.
Harping back to previous ramblings on "How Soon Is Now", the Eidolonic now is by definition different to the Daemonic now as one who exists in the now with an eye on the past (Eidolon) has a different timeline to one who exists in the now with an eye on the future (Daemon).
*speaking of time !!!!*
oh and ps;
Martin mate, thanks for the title of your post! It was the first thing I read after a very long day and it cheered me up no end.
*sarcasm*
Did we ever get around to finishing that list of everyone's choice of funeral song!!
Don't you start reading Sartre as well!!
*smile*
Yes, yes, I'll get to bed shortly........
Ra from Ca and Tony;
Also worth reading is some of the neurotheological research by Michael Persinger into magnetic field brain stimulation (specifically the parietal and temporal lobes) - I have a vague recollection of discussing Persinger with Tony a while ago but thought it relevant to repeat here given the comments on the "God Helmet"
Persinger's research reported around 80% of participants experiencing a "presence" behing them in the room.
This subjective perception is surely Daemonic???
Interesting that we are discussing Michael Persinger and his "God Helmet". In my next book I have a whole section on Persinger's work at the Laurentian University in Canada. In my opinion the 'helmet' has itladian implications in many ways. For example the helmet was able to stimulate Penfield-like memory effects without intrusive surgery. However what really fascinated me was what Penfield terms "The Sensed Presence". This is, yet again, evidence for the Daemon.(Indeed I read someting interesting last night that is related to this issue. I will post it later).
However I have been informed from a very good (and academically very famous) source that there has been great problems with Persinger's work and that his lab has been closed down. I heard about this at the annual conference of the Scientific & Medical Network last summer. I could find bnothing about this at the time. I will check this out later.
It is my understanding that there were "issues" regarding being unable to replicate the results under double-blind test conditions but I was unaware that his actual lab had been closed down. Interesting!
Yes Karl that is the point Beauregard's makes in The Spiritual Brain. A Swedish scientist tried to replicate Persinger's work and could not. Beauregard whom I suspect is very Catholic in his views is laughing at those who use shaky science such as the God Helmet to argue against the strictly materialist point of view. No peer reviewed scientific journal would accept Persinger's work according Beauregard but the "supposedly" strictly scientific bent types are using it as evidence against the more "spiritualist" or free-will or "there is more than your philosophy Horatio types" view that say Deepak Chopra presents. I read the Spiritual Brain and thought he was being very smart in his arguments. He, by the way, has studied the brains of Carmelite nuns, and found that there is no "god" spot in their brain.
I apologize to Hurly Burly for using his post to discuss this.
Not necessary i drift of topic lots apparently, luckily Karl is always there to correct my incredible rudeness... ;0)
Ra from Ca;
Thank you Ruth; it's interesting that you say Beauregard (who I admit I have not read) makes a similar point to mine within his book.
Interesting also, to hear your comments regarding the words of Deepak Chopra.
(Have you seen on youtube the fascinating improvised lecture on consciousness given by Deepak and the comedian Mike Myers? If not then I would certainly recommend doing so, it's wonderful stuff).
And lastly, I am aware that the experimental psychologist Susan Blackmore remains a firm believer in the validity of Persinger's research and a quote attributed to her goes as follows:
"When I went to Persinger's lab and underwent his procedures I had the most extraordinary experiences I've ever had....I'll be surprised if it turns out to be a placebo effect."
But very interesting to hear your position within the age-long materialism v idealism philosophical battle.
Thanks again.
HurlyBurly;
One does one's best dear boy!
*becoming Noel Coward for some reason!!*
From now on i'm going by my full name of
Beautiful British Boy
Sorry man, just givng the people what they want......... (a bucket)
Hey Karl
I don't think I really have a Position. I am just reading the stuff and trying to figure it out.
The only position I have thus far is that I am not sure about any of it. How terribly wishy-washy of me! Although I do think I have biases. Dawkins strikes me as a bit of a bore, and rather smug and a self-righteous one. I tried listening to him and got really turned off.
HurlyBurly;
*smile*
On reviewing the original descriptive comment made by my Dear Lady Susan Marie the full quotation was "Young and Beautiful British Boy" but I would be wary of adopting that name in its entirety for fear of it sounding like a card one might inadvertantly pick up in a soho phone box.
*sings*
"I woke up in a soho doorway, a policeman knew my name......."
Ra from Ca;
That, in itself, is a healthy position to have.
I'll talk to you off-blog re Richard Dawkins (for a few reasons that shall remain unspoken in public areas), but he does make several extremely valid points which require particular attention.
Post a Comment