What is Death

General Index

DEATH

PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS

Some of the world's greatest writers and thinkers, on death "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive." - Ernest Becker, American cultural anthropologist, 1925-1974 "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." - Isaac Asimov, Russian-born author and scientist, 1920-1992 "Dying is a very dull, dreary affair. And my advice to you is to have nothing whatever to do with it." - William Somerset Maugham, English playwright and novelist, 1874-1965
"Death? Why this fuss about death? Use your imagination; try to visualize a world without death! ... Death is the essential condition of life, not an evil." - Charlotte Perkins Gilman, American poet, writer and lecturer, 1860-1935 "One can survive everything nowadays, except death, and live down everything, except a good reputation." - Oscar Wilde, Irish playwright, novelist and poet, 1854-1900 "After your death you will be what you were before your birth." - Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, 1788-1860 "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." - Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political and spiritual leader, 1869-1948 "Death is terrifying because it is so ordinary. It happens all the time." - Susan Cheever, American author, 1943- "Somebody should tell us, right at the start of our lives that we are dying. Then we might live life to the limit, every minute of every day. Do it! I say. Whatever you want to do, do it now! There are only so many tomorrows." - Pope Paul VI, Italian pope, 1897-1978 "Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist." - Epicurus, ancient Greek philosopher, BC 341-270 "The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead." - Albert Einstein, German-born theoretical physicist, 1879-1955 "While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die." - Leonardo da Vinci, Italian painter and inventor, 1452-1519 "The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time." - Mark Twain, American writer, 1835-1910 "The idea is to die young as late as possible." - Ashley Montagu, British anthropologist, 1905-1999 "If man were immortal he could be perfectly sure of seeing the day when everything in which he had trusted should betray his trust, and, in short, of coming eventually to hopeless misery. He would break down, at last, as every good fortune, as every dynasty, as every civilization does. In place of this we have death." - Charles Sanders Peirce, American mathematician, 1839-1914 "Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." - Susan Ertz, British novelist, 1894-1985 "I'm not afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Woody Allen, American playwright, 1935- "Death was Nature's way of telling you to slow down." - Terry Pratchett, English science fiction author, 1948- "It's funny the way most people love the dead. Once you're dead, you're made for life." - Jimi Hendrix, American musician, 1942-1970 Death - Delve deeper into the riddle of human mortality in our special report.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing.

What Happens When We Die?
By M.J. Stephey

A fellow at New York City's Weill Cornell Medical Center, Dr. Sam Parnia is one of the world's leading experts on the scientific study of death. Last week Parnia and his colleagues at the Human Consciousness Project announced their first major undertaking: a 3-year exploration of the biology behind "out-of-body" experiences. The study, known as AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation), involves the collaboration of 25 major medical centers through Europe, Canada and the U.S. and will examine some 1,500 survivors of cardiac arrest. TIME spoke with Parnia about the project's origins, its skeptics and the difference between the mind and the brain.

What sort of methods will this project use to try and verify people's claims of "near-death" experience?

When your heart stops beating, there is no blood getting to your brain. And so what happens is that within about 10 sec., brain activity ceases —as you would imagine. Yet paradoxically, 10% or 20% of people who are then brought back to life from that period, which may be a few minutes or over an hour, will report having consciousness. So the key thing here is, Are these real, or is it some sort of illusion? So the only way to tell is to have pictures only visible from the ceiling and nowhere else, because they claim they can see everything from the ceiling. So if we then get a series of 200 or 300 people who all were clinically dead, and yet they're able to come back and tell us what we were doing and were able see those pictures, that confirms consciousness really was continuing even though the brain wasn't functioning.

How does this project relate to society's perception of death?

People commonly perceive death as being a moment — you're either dead or you're alive. And that's a social definition we have. But the clinical definition we use is when the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working, and as a consequence the brain itself stops working. When doctors shine a light into someone's pupil, it's to demonstrate that there is no reflex present. The eye reflex is mediated by the brain stem, and that's the area that keeps us alive; if that doesn't work, then that means that the brain itself isn't working. At that point, I'll call a nurse into the room so I can certify that this patient is dead. Fifty years ago, people couldn't survive after that.

How is technology challenging the perception that death is a moment?

Nowadays, we have technology that's improved so that we can bring people back to life. In fact, there are drugs being developed right now — who knows if they'll ever make it to the market — that may actually slow down the process of brain-cell injury and death. Imagine you fast-forward to 10 years down the line; and you've given a patient, whose heart has just stopped, this amazing drug; and actually what it does is, it slows everything down so that the things that would've happened over an hour, now happen over two days. As medicine progresses, we will end up with lots and lots of ethical questions.

But what is happening to the individual at that time? What's really going on? Because there is a lack of blood flow, the cells go into a kind of a frenzy to keep themselves alive. And within about 5 min. or so they start to damage or change. After an hour or so the damage is so great that even if we restart the heart again and pump blood, the person can no longer be viable, because the cells have just been changed too much. And then the cells continue to change so that within a couple of days the body actually decomposes. So it's not a moment; it's a process that actually begins when the heart stops and culminates in the complete loss of the body, the decompositions of all the cells. However, ultimately what matters is, What's going on to a person's mind? What happens to the human mind and consciousness during death? Does that cease immediately as soon as the heart stops? Does it cease activity within the first 2 sec., the first 2 min.? Because we know that cells are continuously changing at that time. Does it stop after 10 min., after half an hour, after an hour? And at this point we don't know.

What was your first interview like with someone who had reported an out-of-body experience?

Eye-opening and very humbling. Because what you see is that, first of all, they are completely genuine people who are not looking for any kind of fame or attention. In many cases they haven't even told anybody else about it because they're afraid of what people will think of them. I have about 500 or so cases of people that I've interviewed since I first started out more than 10 years ago. It's the consistency of the experiences, the reality of what they were describing. I managed to speak to doctors and nurses who had been present who said these patients had told them exactly what had happened, and they couldn't explain it. I actually documented a few of those in my book What Happens When We Die because I wanted people to get both angles —not just the patients' side but also the doctors' side — and see how it feels for the doctors to have a patient come back and tell them what was going on. There was a cardiologist that I spoke with who said he hasn't told anyone else about it because he has no explanation for how this patient could have been able to describe in detail what he had said and done. He was so freaked out by it that he just decided not to think about it anymore.

Why do you think there is such resistance to studies like yours?

Because we're pushing through the boundaries of science, working against assumptions and perceptions that have been fixed. A lot of people hold this idea that, well, when you die, you die; that's it. Death is a moment — you know you're either dead or alive. All these things are not scientifically valid, but they're social perceptions. If you look back at the end of the 19th century, physicists at that time had been working with Newtonian laws of motion, and they really felt they had all the answers to everything that was out there in the universe. When we look at the world around us, Newtonian physics is perfectly sufficient. It explains most things that we deal with. But then it was discovered that actually when you look at motion at really small levels — beyond the level of the atoms — Newton's laws no longer apply. A new physics was needed, hence, we eventually ended up with quantum physics. It caused a lot of controversy — even Einstein himself didn't believe in it.

Now, if you look at the mind, consciousness, and the brain, the assumption that the mind and brain are the same thing is fine for most circumstances, because in 99% of circumstances we can't separate the mind and brain; they work at the exactly the same time. But then there are certain extreme examples, like when the brain shuts down, that we see that this assumption may no longer seem to hold true. So a new science is needed in the same way that we had to have a new quantum physics. The CERN particle accelerator may take us back to our roots. It may take us back to the first moments after the Big Bang, the very beginning. With our study, for the first time, we have the technology and the means to be able to investigate this. To see what happens at the end for us. Does something continue?

ESSAY

To be “philosophical” about something, in common parlance, is to face it calmly, without irrational anxiety. And the paradigm of a thing to be philosophical about is death. Here Socrates is held to be the model. Sentenced to die by an Athenian court on the charge of impiety, he serenely drank the fatal cup of hemlock. Death, he told his friends, might be annihilation, in which case it is like a long, dreamless slumber; or it might be a migration of the soul from one place to another. Either way, it is nothing to be feared.

Enlarge This Image

From "The Book of Dead Philosophers" Related
First Chapter: ‘The Book of Dead Philosophers’ (January 30, 2009)
'The Book of Dead Philosophers,' by Simon Critchley: Dying and Death: When You Sort It Out, What’s It All About, Diogenes? (January 30, 2009)

Cicero said that to philosophize is to learn how to die — a pithy statement, but a misleading one. There is more to philosophizing than that. Broadly speaking, philosophy has three concerns: how the world hangs together, how our beliefs can be justified, and how to live. Arguably, learning how to die fits under the third of these. If you wanted to get rhetorically elastic about it, you might even say that by learning how to die we learn how to live.

That thought is more or less the inspiration behind Simon Critchley’s Book of Dead Philosophers (Vintage, paper, $15.95). What defines bourgeois life in the West today is our pervasive dread of death — so claims Critchley, a philosophy professor at the New School in New York. (He wrote this book, he tells us more than once, on a hill overlooking Los Angeles — which, because of “its peculiar terror of annihilation,” is “surely a candidate city for the world capital of death.”) As long as we are afraid of death, Critchley thinks, we cannot really be happy. And one way to overcome this fear is by looking to the example of philosophers. “I want to defend the ideal of the philosophical death,” Critchley writes.

So he takes us on a breezy and often entertaining tour through the history of philosophy, looking at how 190 or so philosophers from ancient times to the present lived and died. Not all of the deaths recounted are as edifying as Socrates’. Plato, for example, may have died of a lice infestation. The Enlightenment thinker La Mettrie seemed to have expired after eating a quantity of truffle pâté. Several deaths are precipitated by collisions: Montaigne’s brother was killed by a tennis ball; Rousseau died of cerebral bleeding, possibly as a result of being knocked down by a galloping Great Dane; and Roland Barthes was blindsided by a dry-cleaning truck. The American pragmatist John Dewey, who lived into his 90s, came to the most banal end of all: he broke his hip and then succumbed to pneumonia.

Critchley has a mischievous sense of humor, and he certainly does not shrink from the embodied nature of his subjects. There is arch merrymaking over beans (Pythagoras and Empedocles proscribed them) and flatulence (Metrocles became suicidally distraught over a bean-related gaseous indiscretion during a lecture rehearsal). We are told of Marx’s genital carbuncles, Nietzsche’s syphilitic coprophagy and Freud’s cancerous cheek growth, so malodorous that it repelled his favorite dog, a chow. There are Woody Allenish moments, as when the moribund Democritus “ordered many hot loaves of bread to be brought to his house. By applying these to his nostrils he somehow managed to postpone his death.” And there are last words, the best of which belong to Hein¬rich Heine: “God will pardon me. It’s his métier.”

How are we to cultivate the wisdom necessary to confront death? It’s hard to find a consistent message here. Montaigne trained for the end by keeping death “continually present, not merely in my imagination, but in my mouth.” Spinoza went to the contrary extreme, declaring, “A free man thinks least of all of death.” Dying philosophically means dying cheerfully — that is what one would presume from the examples cited in this book. The beau ideal is David Hume, who, when asked whether the thought of annihilation terrified him, calmly replied, “Not the least.”

The idea that death is not such a bad thing may be liberating, but is it true? Ancient philosophers tended to think so, and Critchley (along with Hume) finds their attitude congenial. He writes, “The philosopher looks death in the face and has the strength to say that it is nothing.”

There are three classic arguments, all derived from Epicurus and his follower Lucretius, that it is irrational to fear death. If death is annihilation, the first one goes, then there are no nasty post-death experiences to worry about. As Epicurus put it, where death is, I am not; where I am, death is not. The second says it does not matter whether you die young or old, for in either case you’ll be dead for an eternity. The third points out that your nonexistence after your death is merely the mirror image of your nonexistence before your birth. Why should you be any more disturbed by the one than by the other? These arguments are invoked in Critchley’s book, but their logic goes unexamined. Unfortunately, all three are pretty lousy. The American philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his 1970 essay “Death,” showed what was wrong with the first. Just because you don’t experience something as nasty, or indeed experience it at all, doesn’t mean it’s not bad for you. Suppose, Nagel says, an intelligent person has a brain injury that reduces him to the mental condition of a contented baby. Certainly this would be a grave misfortune for the person. Then is not the same true for death, where the loss is still more severe?

The second argument is just as poor. It implies that John Keats’s demise at 25 was no more unfortunate than Tolstoy’s at 82, since both will be dead for an eternity anyway. The odd thing about this argument, as the (dead) English philosopher Bernard Williams noticed, is that it contradicts the first one. True, the amount of time you’re around to enjoy the goods of life doesn’t mathematically reduce the eternity of your death. But the amount of time you’re dead matters only if there’s something undesirable about being dead.

The third argument, that your posthumous nonexistence is no more to be feared than your prenatal nonexistence, also fails. As Nagel observed, there is an important asymmetry between the two abysses that temporally flank your life. The time after you die is time of which your death deprives you. You might have lived longer. But you could not possibly have existed in the time before your birth. Had you been conceived earlier than you actually were, you would have had a different genetic identity. In other words, you would not be you.

Cultivating indifference to death is not only philosophically unsound. It can be morally dangerous. If my own death is nothing, then why get worked up over the deaths of others? The barrenness of the Epicurean attitude — enjoy life from moment to moment and don’t worry about death — is epitomized by George Santayana, one of Critchley’s exemplary dead philosophers. After resigning from Harvard, Santayana lived in Rome, where he was discovered by American soldiers after the liberation of Italy in 1944. Asked his opinion of the war by a journalist from Life magazine, Santayana fatuously replied, “I know nothing; I live in the Eternal.”

Contrast the example of Miguel de Unamuno, a 20th-century Spaniard inexplicably omitted by Critchley. No one had a greater terror of death than Unamuno, who wrote that “as a child, I remained unmoved when shown the most moving pictures of hell, for even then nothing appeared to me quite so horrible as nothingness itself.” In 1936, at the risk of being lynched by a Falangist mob, Unamuno publicly faced down the pro-Franco thug Millán Astray. Placed under house arrest, Unamuno died 10 weeks later. Aptly, the Falangist battle cry Unamuno found most repellent was “Viva la Muerte!” — long live death.

Jim Holt is the author of “Stop Me if You’ve Heard This: A History and Philosophy of Jokes.” He is working on a book about the puzzle of existence.

Marcus Aurelius, 'Meditations' Quotations

The Universe is change, life is an opinion. (Marcus Aurelius)
Everything harmonises with me which is harmonious to thee, O Universe. Nothing for me is too early or too late, which is in due time for thee. Everything is fruit to me which thy seasons bring, O Nature: from thee are all things, in thee are all things, to thee all things return.’ (Marcus Aurelius) (Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy)

‘Frequently consider the connection of all things in the universe.’ (Marcus Aurelius) (Russell)

‘We should not say ‘I am an Athenian’ or ‘I am a Roman’ but ‘I am a citizen of the Universe.’’ (Marcus Aurelius) (Russell)

Constantly think of the Universe as one living creature, embracing one being and one soul; how all is absorbed into the one consciousness of this living creature; how it compasses all things with a single purpose, and how all things work together to cause all that comes to pass, and their wonderful web and texture. (Marcus Aurelius)

Men look for retreats for themselves, the country, the seashore, the hills; and you yourself, too, are peculiarly accustomed to feel the same want. Yet all this is very unlike a philosopher, when you may at any hour you please retreat into yourself. For nowhere does a man retreat into more quiet or more privacy than into his own mind, especially one who has within such things that he has only to look into, and become at once in perfect ease; and by ease I mean nothing else but good behaviour. Continually therefore grant yourself this retreat and repair yourself. But let them be brief and fundamental truths, which will suffice at once by their presence to wash away all sorrow, and to send you back without repugnance to the life to which you return. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, p18)

Death is like birth, a mystery of Nature; a coming together out of identical elements and a dissolution into the same. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, p19)

What happens after we die?

Overview:

What happens after we die? This is one of the questions found so often in the field of religion in which different faiths teach a variety of incompatible, mutually exclusive beliefs, while most people are convinced that they know the answer precisely.

Many mental health professionals and religious historians believe that believe that religion was created millennia ago as an attempt to explain how the universe works and what happens to people after death. Religions were originally developed so that people could have a sense of power over their life and environment. Knowing that they may be wiped out at any time by starvation, animal attacks, drought, floods, foreign army attack, illnesses, accidents, etc., ancient people sought security in an insecure world. Religion filled that need.

There are few if any fears more serious than the fear of death. Religions answered these fears with a belief that somehow a person's personality, memories, talents, and consciousness survived death in a new form.

There is general agreement among persons of all religions that a person's eventual destiny after death will be one of the following:
Heaven: Eternity is spent in Heaven or Paradise with God, in a state that is beautiful beyond our ability to conceive.

Hell: Eternity is spent in Hell with Satan and his demons. All are tormented and tortured, in isolation from God, without any hope of mercy or relief.

Annihilation: The body rots. One's soul, spirit, memory, personality, awareness, body, and mind disappear and are no more.

Transmigration of the soul: Our soul and spirit are reborn into a human fetus or newborn child.

Reincarnation: Our soul and spirit are reborn into another living entity - not necessarily human.

Most people believe that up to three of the above destinations and states exist. For example, some faith groups teach that people who are saved go to Heaven; those who are unsaved go to Hell and are eventually annihilated. They regard the other options as religious fantasy which do not exist in reality. But, of course, there is no general agreement about which are the true states and which are the fantasies.

There is close agreement within most faith groups, but little agreement between religions, about what criteria is used to determine whether, for example, a person eventually resides in Heaven or Hell. There is little agreement about the processes, locations, and states that a person will go through between death and their final destiny.

Roman Catholic beliefs:

The church teaches that when a person dies, their body starts its process of decomposition. Meanwhile, the soul leaves the body and is immediately evaluated in a Particular Judgment. 1This belief is partly based on Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (KJV).

There are three possible destinations immediately after the judgment:

Heaven: Those few people whose "love for God has been perfected in this life" have their bodies "glorified" and taken immediately to their eternal reward in Heaven. Perhaps the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, the saints and a some others will qualify for this path.

Hell: If they have committed a mortal sin which has not been forgiven, or have rejected God, then they are taken immediately to Hell where they will be tortured forever without any hope of relief or mercy.

Purgatory: If the person dies in a state of grace, but loves God "imperfectly," then their souls immediately enter Purgatory. Here, they suffer for a time in order to cleanse themselves of their accumulated imperfections, venial sins and faults. Any mortal sins that they have committed, and for which they have been forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance, may have some residual temporal punishment still remaining; this has to be discharged as well.

The inhabitants in Purgatory are systematically tortured with fire. The dead remain in purgatory until they have become sufficiently purified to enter heaven. However, if their friends and family offer Masses, prayers and other acts of piety and devotion, then their stay in Purgatory will be shortened. Purgatory is very similar to Hell; the main difference is that one will eventually be released, perhaps after millennia of torture.

Although most Catholic believers have regarded Heaven, Hell and Purgatory as actual places, the church's teaching is that they are both a place and a state of existence.

Later, when Jesus returns to earth in the "second coming", he will conduct the General Judgment (a.k.a. Final Judgment):

Those who have previously died have already faced the Particular Judgment; that decision will continue in force. Those in Heaven or Hell will continue to spend eternity there. However, those who are in Purgatory at the time of Jesus' second coming will be released and moved to heaven immediately. At the second coming, the bodies of the dead will be reconstituted; this produces a bodily resurrection. At that time, they will be permanently reunited with their souls. This second judgment is needed so that the entire human race can learn about every person's life and comprehend the "justice, wisdom, and mercy of God."

All people who are alive on earth at the time of the second coming will be assembled together (Matthew 25:31-32). "Those who have rejected the Lord in this life, who have sinned mortally, who have no remorse for sin and do not seek forgiveness, will have condemned themselves to hell for all eternity." The others will go either to Purgatory or Heaven, depending upon the perfection of their love for God. The same evaluation criteria will be used in the General Judgment as for the Particular Judgment.

Every "deliberate thought, word, deed and omission" of every individual that has ever lived, would be reviewed at the Final Judgment. The only exception would be thoughts and acts of Jesus of Nazareth, who lived without sin. This would presumably be a very time consuming process. It would be necessary to include the life histories of each of the billions of humans that have lived on earth for the past many hundreds of thousands of years that the human race has been in existence.

Eastern Orthodox beliefs:

The beliefs of these churches very closely parallel those of the Roman Catholic church. However, they have no formal belief about the existence of Purgatory.

Conservative Protestant beliefs:

They hold to a variety of ideas about the fate of the deceased:

Many conservative Christians believe that when a person dies, they enter into complete oblivion - a state of non-existence. They remain unconscious; they have no self-awareness. Their body decays. At the time of the second coming of Jesus, the dead are called from their graves; they will be resurrected and judged. Those who had been saved while on earth will be given special bodies and go to Heaven; the unsaved will go to Hell for eternal punishment.

Thus, all of the Patriarchs and ordinary Israelites in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Apostles, the Christians who have died over the past 2 millennia, and in fact every human who has ever lived, are currently held in a temporary state of non-existence.

Others believe that the soul separates from the body and is taken to a type of holding place - referred to as Sheol in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Hades in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). At the time of Jesus' second coming, they will be reunited with their reconstituted bodies and judged. Many will have been there for thousands of years before they are resurrected.
Thus, every human who has ever lived, are in a type of holding place, awaiting resurrection.

Others believe, in practice, in some form of instantaneous transfer of the soul to heaven or hell immediately after death. Christians often talk about their loved ones who have recently died as if they are already with God.

Some important passages from the Bible that appear to refer to the deceased waiting for their call to resurrection are:

Job 14:14-15: "If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands." (KJV)

Daniel 12:2: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

John 3:12-13: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven..."

John 5:28-29: "...for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Acts 2:29-34: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried...For David is not ascended into the heavens..."

Christadelphian beliefs:

The Christadelphian movement is a conservative Protestant denomination founded by physician John Thomas (1805-1871). After his death, a schism developed over beliefs about life after death.

Some followers in the U.S., referred to as the Unamended group, believe that only the deceased who are "in Christ" will be raised from the dead and have eternal life; the vast bulk of humanity will simply remain dead, without conscious existence.

Other American followers, and believers elsewhere in the world, called the Amended group, believe that all who who have been exposed to the Gospel will be raised from the dead at the time of the Final Judgment. The righteous among the responsible ones will be judged according to their works, rewarded appropriately, and live forever. Those who have been exposed to the Gospel and judged wicked will be annihilated, and cease to exist. Those who have not been exposed to the Gospel will remain dead, without conscious existence.

Progressive Christian beliefs:

Progressive Christians generally do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. In their religious studies they realize that the beliefs of the ancient Israelites about Sheol were derived from surrounding Middle Eastern Pagan cultures. Later Jewish religious beliefs concerning heaven and hell incorporated ideas from Zoroastrianism and Greek Pagan culture. Liberals do not interpret the Bible literally. Many feel that it contains little detailed, specific information about life after death.

Religious liberals generally anticipate some form of life after death. Most reject the concept of Hell as a permanent place of punishment and torture for anyone. Some might accept the belief that some form of correction and purification is needed before a person arrives in heaven. But generally, they do not hold exact beliefs concerning the timing, processes involved, or the nature of heaven. They "find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty; in the questions than in the answers." 3 They tend to be more concerned about the present life than the future. They believe that if they lead an ethical, caring life, that matters will sort themselves out after death.

Skeptical religious belief:

Many religious skeptics, including some progressive Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. note that almost every religion teaches specific beliefs about life after death. But religions seem in almost total conflict with each other. The Sadducees, one of about 24 Jewish religious groups, during the 1st century CE taught that there was no resurrection. Some contemporary faith groups talk about a heaven, but they have very different views on its nature. Others talk about a Hell, but differ greatly on the details. Still others talk about the soul being transported after death into a newborn human or other animal.

Most skeptics conclude that nobody really knows what happens to us after death. However, almost every faith group pretends to know. They look to medical research to help them understand the process of death. They note:

Some people actually die for many seconds, or very few minutes, but return to life quickly. They sometimes report an out-of-body experience in which they are traveling through a tube towards a light and have a profound feeling of peace and acceptance. There have been suggestions that these may be hallucinations that are naturally created by a brain starved of oxygen. One of the members of the OCRT, the agency that sponsors this website, died briefly during an operation to save her life. An entopic pregnancy had ruptured, and caused a hemorrhage. She felt that she rose through the air and looked down on her body on the operating table.

Some people die for a few minutes; their brain is starved of oxygen; they return to life, but suffer minor irreparable brain damage.

Others die for a longer time. Portions of their brain die. They may return to "life" but are largely incapable of intelligent thought. They remain in a vegetated state, perhaps in a coma.

Others that die and are not resuscitated remain dead.

From these observations on real people who have died for various periods of time, a picture can be assembled about the process of dying. It is probable that when a person finally dies, they may first go through a very comforting hallucination. A little while later, their brain functions start to seriously degrade. Their ability to think and sense their surroundings degrades until they sink into unconsciousness. The electrical processes in the brain discharge; the chemical processes rot. Since there are no other processes active in the brain, the person's memory, personality, talents, preferences, consciousness, etc. no longer exist. There is no Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Reincarnation, or Transmigration of the Soul. There is only a state of non-existence, as the human body rots.

This is obviously not a belief that most people can accept.

References:

1. W.G. Most, "Particular Judgment," at: http://www.ewtn.com/
2. "What happens when we die?," at: http://www.angelfire.com/
3. "The annotated eight points by which we define Progressive Christianity," at: http://www.tcpc.org/

Harinder S. Sandhu

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I was born into a Sikh family and received my primary level education at public Christian schools in the United Kingdom and remaining education in secular public schools in Canada including a Bachelor of Applied Science in Chemical Engineering and a Master of Engineering in Environmental Engineering. I currently reside in Vancouver, Canada.
What led me to undertake putting together this site? As a small child I was secure through religious teachings that we are all ultimately 'taken care' of by God (from a very early age, my mother would regularly take me to the local Sikh Gurdwara (temple)). At the age of five, one evening after watching a TV program showing a fictional account of dead people lying in open coffins in a large room compounded with the anxiety of having to take a train the next morning to a town I had never been to before, I became quite distressed while lying in bed trying to fall asleep with the thought of death. After what was about a half hour, I was able to put my mind at ease (as it was only the thought of dying and not wanting myself or my loved ones to die too early and wanting long lives for us prior to joining God again). But the thought that we might not possess something like a soul that is eternal and survives physical death and that we might not continue to exist after did not enter my brain until the age of nine.
In 1993 I came to the realization (actually going back probably from about a decade earlier I had thoughts of writing in this area from a wide and a diverse perspective as I was capable) that I had a duty to compile this information with my interpretations and any insights I might have for the benefit of others (as well as myself). I was planning on writing a book at the time but with the subsequent reach of the internet, I wanted this information available free to as many people as possible.
This website had it's origins in 1994 (though I had wrote some points in 1990) when I started writing down my various thoughts and ideas about life after death on memos and then filing them away. By the end of 2001, I had accumulated much of what now makes up this website and thereafter started organizing and rewriting it into a more structured and cohesive format. I would like to thank my mother for all her support and encouragement for my pursuing academic studies in the sciences. This website was first put on the internet on October 16, 2003.


Opening Statement
I. Philosophical
II. Scientific - Origin of the Universe, Order in the Universe, Limitations, Origin of Life, Consciousness, Other, Evolution
III. Paranormal - General, Near Death Experience, Entities, Reincarnation, Communications With The Dead, Other
IV. Religious
V. Additional Comments - General, Life After Death Top 11, Probability of Life After Death
Final Thoughts



PREFACE
In this website, an attempt has been made to provide analysis and ideas that may not be readily found elsewhere whilst at the same time trying to present the most significant and diverse evidence that is known about this subject in an objective manner while taking a scientific rational approach as best I can without bringing faith into the equation.
. And I am only guiding the reader by presenting the information with analysis but my intention is not to try to convince anyone of anything (though at times it might appear otherwise).

OPENING STATEMENT
There is nothing more important to us as living beings than that we have something we can describe as a soul that continues to exist after physical death and is everlasting. For without this, it is all for naught and there was no point in existing at all for ultimately it does not matter if we live for a year or a trillion years if we do not have immortality. And in fact not having such would really be the ultimate cruelty.
PHILOSOPHICAL
∙ Why life? There is no scientific reason for the existence of life. The universe doesn't care if there is life in it - it does not benefit from it. Yet life, and especially more advanced life with consciousness like us humans, came about. A 'driving force' in the universe behind it that made it all happen would make some sense of it all. Many would call such a driving force, God.
Why are we not aware of where we came from and where we are going when we die? Why do we exist at all? What is the purpose of our existence and our life in this world? If we are reincarnated so that we may improve our souls, then should we not know this? If, as taught by Christianity this is our only life on earth, then why do we not have direct knowledge of this? Why is God not in direct contact with us? Maybe not knowing is a better 'test' for us. Going into this life on earth maybe we know the answers to the preceding questions, but once here this knowledge is 'taken' from us and we only can speculate - we therefore live our lives differently possibly and are not motivated by some selfish reward for a good life lived and the suffering we endure is of greater benefit to us. In other words, having direct knowledge of the afterlife would mean we would be motivated by reward (spiritual improvement) in our actions and would not suffer as much and therefore would not improve as much spiritually.
I don't think it was the intent of God or the 'universal consciousness' (assuming there is such) to reveal all to the satisfaction of everyone of us. For if it had, then surely we would all be believers. It all seems to be part of a greater plan to have it all this way.
.


∙ We probably need to endure a minimal amount of suffering while here on earth or otherwise we would regress spiritually (due to becoming more smug and taking more of a 'blame the victim' attitude when others suffer and therefore we would become less empathetic when not enduring any suffering ourselves).


∙ Many of us automatically make the assumption that if life was created or designed intelligently, then there must be an afterlife.
® To account for the possibility of creating living organisms from scratch (if this is even ever possible) sometime in the future, if there is life after death then the following would have to also occur spiritually: the Creator would have to take responsibility for these life forms and place souls in them (this would have already applied to cloning). Because of this, it may be harder for some to accept that living things have something such as a soul that gives them life. If artificial intelligence is created, consciousness (some of the universal consciousness) could enter it (it may want to 'experience' it) thereby giving it life.
Much like energy, I don't think its likely consciousness could come out of nothing. And I doubt (but cannot rule out), that it could be artificially created or induced or simply be some byproduct of sufficient neural or brain activity.

∙ If we ask the questions, who or what created our Creator if there is such? When did time start? Where did matter and energy come from? Most likely there is no start point and our Creator has always existed as have matter and energy. Contemplating the preceding, I am more inclined to believe that a Designer is ultimately responsible for the existence of our universe.

® It is possible that there is no start point to the original creation of consciousness (God or the universal consciousness has always existed). Maybe our consciousness has always existed and we simply travel along a closed circle and are free to go to any point in time backwards or forwards. At different points along the circle we have different levels of soul progression. While on earth we planned prior to incarnation for a certain time here and cannot do this but can back in the spirit realm. I don't think this is how it all works and most likely is all wrong but I just wanted to put it forth more to show there could be many possibilities and some we may not even be able to comprehend in our limiting present states. Also, as others have theorized, the past, present, and future may be simultaneously occurring.


∙ A common argument against an afterlife is all the suffering and injustice in the world and God is nowhere to be seen to prevent it. Neither is the connection to an afterlife fully revealed (or not or hardly at all according to some) and we are left with so many unanswered questions regarding the nature of our existence.
At birth (or conception or somewhere in between), the soul/mind (similar to software with related files) is downloaded onto the body/brain (similar to a computer hard drive). The soul lives through this body just like software does through a computers operating system, hard drive, CPU, etc. (which we can equate to the brain). The mind which is part of the soul works using the bodies brain. Memories of previous lives and the heavens is not known because the 'software' is not able to be fully deciphered by the 'computer' (the brain) and/or all the software isn't sent. This is analogous to a new computer software program not working fully on an old computer operating system or if not enough RAM is available or the CPU is too slow (eg. the latest software doesn't run fully on Windows 98 or less than 128 MB of RAM or Pentium III).
At death, the soul is 'uploaded' back to the heavens (internet server) along with modifications to its 'software' code (what transformations happened to the soul during its life on earth) as well as additions to its files (life experiences and memories).
Origin of the Universe

The questions we need to ask but cannot answer are ones such as: What was before the Big Bang? Why did it occur? What is beyond our universe or is it infinite? Are there more dimensions than the 3 we see plus time? Are there parallel universes? Is our universe but a speck of dust in another much bigger universe and so on? How was matter and energy created or where did it come from? When did time start? Was it an infinite time ago - it never started and has always been 'ticking'?
∙ Maybe time as we understand it does not exist beyond our universe. Beyond it, perhaps one could go backwards or forwards in time? This could possibly mean that matter and life (and God) have always existed and there is no beginning to it all.

This Big Bang origin made many people who were against a religious explanation to the origins of the universe, uncomfortable as it does add credence to an act of creation as the start of the universe. In fact, every question posed above indirectly infers a Creator.
Recently, physicists have practically come to the conclusion that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely.
® Just as the universe as we know it (and anything beyond it if that is the case) could be infinite in size, matter could be infinitely small. So that theoretically, a universe with life in it that is as complex and diverse as our own, could exist in a single atom or even smaller quantum particle, and so on. In other words, a speck inside of our universe may hold a universe of its own and a speck inside of that universe may in turn hold its own universe, and so on, without limit. Likewise, our universe may be nothing more than a speck inside another universe and that universe in turn may be just another speck inside another universe and so on.


.

® Is it possible that the unconditional love possessed by God or the universal consciousness is the source of energy or power that allowed the universe's creation and the life in it and also sustains it?

.

∙ Energy/matter is never created or destroyed, only transformed (1st Law of Thermodynamics). It would seem to be consciousness is a form of or analogous to a type of energy and therefore it is reasonable to think it cannot be destroyed and at most, only change form. The immortality of the soul may be the spiritual equivalent of the conservation of energy.

If there many universes (even an infinite number), then we would expect the conditions favourable for creatures like us to flourish in some of them and we just happen to exist in one such universe.

Order in the Universe

Limitations
Often, our belief system clouds our ability to rationalize and be objective. Our belief system is something that is formed through the knowledge we acquire, our experiences, and from what we are taught by people who help shape us. New information we receive is first 'filtered' through this belief system and this is how we decide whether or not to accept this information as true or not. Unfortunately, many hold their beliefs as absolute and as a result are overly biased and simply just reject information they receive that contradicts their belief system.
Science only believes what it can measure, replicate, and understand the physical mechanism of (if it cannot do all of these, it simply dismisses the data). It is only one way of seeking answers, and by no means a be all and end all. It is not all encompassing. There are many questions it cannot and will never be able to answer. For example, we do not call on it to explain art, history, morality, ethics, human nature, philosophy, etc.. Thus if we attempt to employ present day science to explain spirituality and the existence of an immortal soul, we are bound to fail and I believe rationalization is the superior approach. [Note: I do regularly read the atheist materialistic publications, "Skeptical Inquirer" (website: http://www.csicop.org) and sometimes "The Skeptic" in order to make sure I get the best arguments from that viewpoint].
If we truly wish to follow science, then emotions do not exist because there is no way of physically measuring them (measuring something like seratonin levels in the brain does not do this as we cannot differentiate what it actually indicates - it's levels are influenced by various factors other than emotions). So according to science, love, hate, and jealousy do not exist. Science has it's limitations but somehow this fact seems to be going over the heads of some of the narrow-minded (but otherwise intelligent) scientists. It requires faith in it to believe it has all the answers just like it requires faith to be a truly devout Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, etc.. Without realizing it, science becomes a religion for some.
But science does moves forward and come to our aid on different things. This is because science is always evolving and expanding its scope. Newton's Laws of Physics were found to fall apart for matter moving near the speed of light by Einstein and he replaced them with the General Theory of Relativity. Now at the quantum (sub-atomic) level, Relativity does not hold and some other physical explanation(s) is needed. At one time, phenomena such as electromagnetism (it was also once thought incorrectly that electricity and magnetism were separate forces) and radio waves were unknown. This did not mean they did not exist. Later, they were understood and became part of science. Science simply has to progress to the stage where it can measure and quantify the phenomena. This is likely what will happen with some of the psychic phenomena one day and we may be in the initial stages of this in the near future with our improving understanding of quantum mechanics.

Origin of Life
Nearly everyone will agree that complex non-living things, such as a car, could not possibly form on their own randomly (not to mention sustaining themselves by fueling, performing maintenance, repairing, and reproducing new models of itself). But some of these same people choose to believe that the first living organism (a single cell) on earth could have or did all this by random chance. Actually, we will make the probability more likely by allowing for the construction of just a RNA molecule from a simulated primordial soup in the laboratory (this is known as the RNA World hypothesis). This is the most basic self-replicating molecule known (from which DNA could have 'evolved') and 'one step' less complex than DNA which makes it. RNA forming by random chance is so much more probable than a cell coming about in whole randomly. Even so, no one has been able to do this no matter how favourably they tweak the conditions and even though the incentive to succeed is great. To be fair though, in actual fact random chance had in its favour perhaps a billion or so years for this to happen and so much of the earth's area to utilize for such a chance event to take place. On a side note, we should be careful not to give organic matter any special treatment. For there is nothing especially different between organic and inorganic molecules other than that the former are carbon based and able to form long chained molecules (polymers).
Prior to the origin of life, carbon (most likely in the form of carbon dioxide or methane) would have to somehow react with amino and carboxylic acid groups to form nucleotides which are the building blocks of RNA. To the best of my knowledge, we still do not see nucleotides occurring naturally anywhere except where associated with living systems (plant and animal life). Of course in the natural world, there is a bias (due to free energy considerations) towards the formation of molecules made up of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms and this is the problem for the formation of nucleotides. So if nucleotides are not to be found today on their own, there is really nothing to suggest they would have formed before life began on earth (even if there may have been more favourable conditions for there synthesis which is debatable), and then arranged themselves in order to start something so incredibly complex as RNA, then DNA, and then a living cell. Are we then left to thinking someone or something synthesized the nucleotides necessary and arranged them into the RNA and DNA so that life could start? Additionally, amino acids would have to be synthesized into the necessary proteins to construct a cell. In cells, this is done in ribosomes. Outside of a cell it might be possible (though it has not really been demonstrated) that ribozymes (catalytic RNA), though relatively rare, could have taken this role that ended up resulting in the first cell.
There are extra-terrestrial theories for the origin of life also (for example, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe's theory that life on earth was 'seeded' from space).
® We are so advanced in terms of science and technology, yet why is it that we cannot make a living cell? Put another way, if the first living cell could have just come about by random chance as some believe, and even if we cannot replicate the randomness of such an event, then it would really not be that miraculous if we were to create a living cell from scratch in a laboratory (if it were only a chance event, surely we should be able to replicate it if we take the chance element out?). Not only can we not do this, but we cannot even create a dead cell! This being the case, it just makes it harder to believe something so complicated and complex could have appeared through random chance.
A simple analogy is the formation of a plastic bag or pouch (like the type that is used to hold frozen vegetables in the grocery store). If we compare this to a cell membrane, we will see both are made of organic compounds. Since it is a relatively simple structure formed from petroleum, why does it not arise by chance? No matter what temperature, pressure, and atmospheric conditions petroleum is subjected to, we do not get a plastic pouch. It has to be intentionally created.

Consciousness
Science does not understand how the mind works (contrary to how the well known psychologist, Steven Pinker, misleads us). There is no mechanism for how the brain can generate thoughts let alone how consciousness could come about. Brain cells have not been shown to give us thoughts and consciousness. Having a soul would explain all this if we choose to or deem it necessary to invoke the soul.
® We are conscious of our existence but also are capable of being conscious of our mortality or immortality, and coming to the realization that it is all for naught if we do not have eternal life – one could kind of think of this as the next level beyond consciousness. Considering we have such a high level of consciousness, I think we all have (to varying extents just like other traits) some part of our brain (coded for genetically which was probably designed for although it could have evolved also) which somehow stops us from thinking about the possibility we could cease to exist. Because the anxiety would be too great and would be such a detriment to us. For there is no evolutionary benefit to having such a level of consciousness if this anxiety comes with it and in fact would be a really harmful trait to have for any species with this accompanying burden. To later evolve a compensating trait (this ‘filter’ to stop us from thinking about ceasing to exist) would not make sense in terms of evolution – it would have to come about at the same time as the jump in consciousness and this is so highly improbable (much like an irreducible complexity scenario). Otherwise, this level of consciousness would be filled with such anxiety that it would be too much of an impediment for survival and would not be passed on – it would be a very negative mutation indeed.
The other possibility is that to keep us from being too anxious of our own mortality, our consciousness would have to be held back and evolve to this higher level we now possess in a series of steps. In between somewhere along the way to this advancement in mans consciousness, before it got to the point we were aware of our mortality/immortality implications and the state of hopelessness we would have been put in, this limitation on such thoughts would have to have evolved. Of course this would mean evolution is planning ahead and this is not what it does and we should not have to put it down to evolution being very lucky. Nor does the evidence showing the evolution of our consciousness show it occurred in a series of steps and instead the evidence shows a one time big jump in consciousness.
One can try to think about ceasing to exist or an afterlife but I have noticed (even though I can contemplate this more freely than most), that even with myself I feel the thoughts are to a certain extent usually 'blocked' (and its always been like this with little change since over time, and only a bit less 'blocking' of these thoughts when working on this subject) and the brain doesn't always 'allow it'.
Even with so called learned people who take interest in all kinds of subject areas, including many that would be considered by most to be obscure ones, if this topic of life after death comes up, they can't even bring themselves to think about it let alone discuss it (though I personally hardly ever really try to engage with others in this area and more so indirectly the very limited times I do).

® From birth to say the age of 5 there is such a jump in our cognitive abilities and consciousness and thereafter at a much slower rate. It seems as if the brain develops just enough to allow some of our consciousness through (otherwise the ‘reducing valve’ is too strong – for example, prior to the age of 2). Consciousness is what likely gives us this “jump” to our brains. It hardly seems it can all just be attributable to some extra neural connections and accounted for by the brain alone. Thus, it looks like we start with a blank state for memories (along with life experiences) but not for consciousness. As we develop (and get older), further neural connections formed in the brain, allow us to utilize our consciousness better.

® Consciousness likely has to ‘latch on’ to the brain in order for the soul to inhabit a body and the ‘better’ the brain (even if it is a reducing valve), the better the consciousness can express itself (ie. consciousness or aspects to the soul likely need the brain to allow them to be expressed and even then the expression is not full and only a partial one). A deficient brain may not allow consciousness to be well expressed.

® The soul (consciousness) probably interacts with the brain through an intermediary which, if this is the case, would most likely have to be the subconscious. Direct 'leakage' is likely limited or non-existent and is at least 'filtered'.

® The latest research on human DNA (Journal Nature of 23Nov2006 – Volume 444, pages 444-454; Links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6174510.stm?ls or http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Info/Press/2006/061122.shtml or http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/nature05329.html ) shows we humans do not share 99.9% of the same DNA with each other as was previously thought. Instead there are chunks of DNA coding for genes missing in different individuals (as well as parts of the DNA having variable multiple copies that is different across the population).
Possibly (if one assumes we possess a soul), some of the genetic material for the brain which codes for ‘filtering’ of consciousness or a ‘reducing valve’ for consciousness is missing (thereby lessening the effect) and results in greater amounts of consciousness coming through in these individuals. Some of this missing DNA may be what codes for the limiting of our thoughts on life after death and mortality/immortality implications.
Something similar may explain past lives coming through (although interestingly we never seem to get cases where a person has conscious memories of an existence in a spiritual dimension prior to incarnation on earth), various psychic abilities, the ability to recall NDEs if experienced, etc.. Each of these would likely have their own individual filters.
Alternatively, It could be that the default genetic outcome is that there are no filters and the ‘reducing valve’ effect of the brain limits us and only if either part of it is developed more genetically or is missing do we get to realize one of these abilities.
This may also be the case with people who have the interest and take the time to read a website such as this (not to patronize anyone of course).
I think we may have genetic coding for this awareness and it could be in the form of how much of a filter on “awareness” of something beyond this life that is part of the brain. In people where this filter is absent or hardly there, they would ‘just know’ there is something beyond this life. People pre-disposed to not having any beliefs (eg. atheists) may have a very strong filter. Of course, as one acquires information and thinks about things like this, one may over-ride this awareness to varying extents with other deductions and end up with lesser belief in an afterlife or to the extreme of even atheism.
This ‘extra’ consciousness coming through possibly may have other benefits and manifest itself in other ways also such as giving one more insight, better able to see the ‘bigger picture’ and make connections better between things that may normally appear to be unrelated, more introspection (better self evaluation which is usually but not always a positive) and knowing oneself better and at an earlier age than others, better rationalizing ability (an additional 'second tier' or higher rationalizing ability), and even possibly a more deeper level of wisdom. But I have to give this whole idea more thought.
In fact, an alternative model in psychology may better explain personality and other behaviours. A third component of pre-existing consciousness (brought into the body around or before birth) would be added in this model to the existing ones of genetics and environment. In this model, consciousness may to a certain degree ‘over-ride’ our genetics and conditioning.
Some of to do with what we observe with the mind/brain can be explained better by dualism but scientists are only taught in terms of reductionist materialism during their education and unfortunately that is their confined referencing system and the core understanding they rely upon.

® There may be self-regulation of awareness of a spiritual realm beyond our own (awareness of an afterlife). This awareness of an afterlife is possibly controlled by the brain and genetically coded for. Further, it may in fact be a self-regulating type of loop with anxiety and awareness as the parameters that are balanced for in it. So for example, if ones anxiety of ceasing to exist at physical death is increased for whatever reason (eg. say from reading some atheist material and being swayed by it) and becomes too great, then some additional awareness is allowed for to compensate and the persons thoughts are brought to a state of ‘normal’ functioning. This type of anxiety can be controlled in the brain by increasing awareness and/or putting limits on these type of thoughts. Physiologically, one or both should be possible. Some kind of ‘processor’ may distribute the relative influence upon awareness and thought limitations.
Anxiety can go up from new thoughts generated due to new beliefs, influences, changes to accepting evidence for an afterlife or against one, death of a loved one, serious illness, etc.. It is brought back to a tolerable level through this self-regulating mechanism in the brain.
I think there would be four factors that regulate this loop. If one of them knocks the system out of equilibrium, then one or more of the others are adjusted to bring back the system to an equilibrium state. The four factors would be: 1) Awareness; 2) Anxiety; 3) Limits on thinking about mortality/immortality and the implications; and 4) Thoughts we generate which can increase (or decrease - but this might not need to come into the equation) anxiety on ceasing to exist. These thoughts would come about from what we learn, are taught, perceive, experience, etc..
In looking at the flowchart below one can better see how increased awareness as a response (allowing more consciousness through) by the brain would a) effect the type of thoughts (more positive) and b) reduce anxiety directly. A response by the brain of limiting these types of thoughts (labelled as "Limitations" in the flowchart) would indirectly reduce anxiety by decreasing (but not changing) these types of thoughts. A "Processor" would determine the relative influence to be put on "Awareness" and "Limitations".

I think the more one is engaged in the material world, the more this awareness may be reduced which is not a problem unless thinking about mortality/immortality implications is done. Then increased awareness and/or greater limits on these types of thoughts would likely be the brains response when needed. Something like meditation could have the effect of increasing awareness and limitations put on these types of thoughts could be reduced. The brains parietal lobes give us our sense of time and space and may as a first order guess regulate for “awareness”.
Atheists (as well as some others who hardly give an afterlife a passing thought) would have brains with tightly controlled thoughts on this and would hardly think about the implications of if one were to cease to exist. This is why they are so comfortable with their position but many religious/spiritual people could never be if they were atheists.
Since atheists likely possess near or total limiting on these types of thoughts as well as lesser awareness, they typically see no need for an afterlife. Thus, they may often feel empowered to not care about an afterlife and usually in conjunction with their own distaste for organized religion, may adopt a strict atheistic position where an agnostic position is more rational and warranted. This may explain why some people have varying degrees of belief in an afterlife for which personality traits along with environmental conditioning do not seem to fully account for.
Even with a very high IQ (like many academics possess), with this low or non-existent "awareness", which I think probably helps with ones rationalizing ability, and if one additionally possesses a poor or mediocre rationalizing ability anyway due to their brain, one can end up being predisposed to an atheist belief system. Insight will probably be lacking as a result of the lack of "awareness" as this is likely where some or all of it originates. I haven't stated this in the preceding to demean or insult anyone but I think there is a good probability this could be a relevant factor in why some irrationally come to this position of an atheist (I'm not referring to an agnostic one) belief system.
Further, it seems atheism and religious fundamentalism usually have two things in common more than the norm: 1) a bit of irrationality and 2) a degree of narrow-mindedness. What might account for an individual ending up on one extreme or the other could be the block on "awareness" (how much "awareness" comes through for that individual), all other considerations being equal (eg. religious influences, upbringing, etc.).

® When a person is forced to come to terms with their death (when they know they will soon die of disease, injury, or poor physical health), the excessive fear or anxiety about ones own mortality might trigger the 'barrier' to this "awareness" to somehow be lowered. Thus, a sufficient amount of additional awareness comes through to enable one to come to terms with their imminent death without too much anxiety. And this is what seems to be all too commonly observed and people in this situation normally die peacefully (which incidentally can be argued is against what evolution would predict).

® The block on this spiritual "awareness" it seems increases as the brain develops (during infancy into childhood) and less of it is allowed through.

® Our consciousness (soul) may bring with it some ‘software’ which determines to an extent how the brain and body are to develop and thereby this become an additional influence on us as people (along with genes, environment, and also highly likely, our souls). This software may act on the ‘junk DNA’ and this may be one of junk DNA's purposes. This may be the case with awareness and limitations of thoughts of ceasing to exist also.

® Maybe the brain stores working memories for a period as well as long term memories and thoughts. Then whatever is deemed important enough to be remembered is passed on to the consciousness of that person. But it has to first go through the persons filter in the brain to do this and also again to reaccess from the consciousness. Thus, something like an NDE with OBE or OBE only (if they are as claimed by their proponents) is only filtered once (not twice like the brain filtered experiences of the physical being are). The NDE with OBE or OBE by itself is only filtered when retrieved back to the brain but not when first registered in the consciousness. This is why the NDE is often described as being 'more vivid than life itself'.
It could even be that the people who recall their NDEs may be the ones who have less of a block on their "awareness". Of course I am only speculating here.
The NDE with OBE (and OBEs by themselves) may not be recalled always because the memory of the soul when out of body has to be 'downloaded' to the brain upon re-entry. Or more likely, a certain specific pathway is needed to be created in the brain that allows access to the memory of the experience upon re-entry to the body or it is inaccessible from the soul.

® A certain amount of our spiritual/religious predisposition is probably genetic (resulting from consciousness acting on the junk DNA). The other determinants being influences from others, what we are exposed to and learn, how we reason, etc..

® The most recent research on testing the hypothesis that there is a specific area in the brain or a ‘God spot’ responsible for or a receiver for mystical and religious experiences shows there is none (Beauregard, M.; Paquette, V.; Neuroscience Letters, Vol.405, Issue3, 1Sept2006, pages 186-190). The one flaw possible (and acknowledged as a limitation of the research by the authors) in the study however is that it was based upon subjects reliving their past experiences from memory and were not actually experiencing the event while their brains were being scanned. The study was done this way because the researchers were informed prior by the subjects that are not capable of reaching a mystical state at will.
Nevertheless, transcendental and mystical experiences can be brought about easier with stimulations to the brain by electric charges (typically to the right frontal lobe), certain drugs (such as dimethyltryptamine or DMT), seizures, and even brain injury. This is probably due to the resulting lesser ‘filter’ of the brain on ones consciousness.
Instead of a ‘God gene’ (or even ‘God spot’), I think it is as least as plausible that we have some kind of ‘block’ which keeps us from thinking about life after death – our level of consciousness is so high and yet, we as a species are not relatively speaking, preoccupied with life after death. This ‘block’ allows us to function without this great debilitating anxiety hanging over us constantly and may have been designed for.
Neither do I think it is likely this "awareness" is simply explainable as some genetic component that somehow pre-disposes one to some sort of belief in something 'greater' (analogous to the 'God gene/spot'). One reason I tend to think this is because there are other what would seem to be probably unintended and beneficial enhancing traits that seem to come with this. Such as improved rationalizing ability, greater insightfulness, a deeper wisdom, seeing the bigger picture better, and maybe more introspection (though this could be a negative trait if there is too much of it for some and if there is far too much it, then I think it might even be negative for all due to the influence of the brain on thoughts).

® If the mind and brain are one and the same, then it should be theoretically possible (though not technically possible at the present time) to fully 'download' its contents (personality traits are analogous to programs or software and memories to data) to that of another brain (real or artificial). But if the two are separate (consciousness survives physical death of the brain), then only a partial 'download' would be a possibility (memories and learning experiences experienced in the current brain).

® Consciousness existing as something separate from the brain (and therefore not part of it) could be said to be analogous to dark energy (as compared to known energy). Dark energy has never been directly measured but scientists believe it most likely exists and is used to explain the state of the universe, as we know it.

∙ Attempts have been made by some in recent years to try to understand consciousness through quantum mechanics. It may be possible that consciousness behaves the same way as the non-locality of quantum particles in that once connected with other consciousness, will always stay connected and influence one another, no matter how far apart. It is all still relatively new (really only at the hypothesis level) and I think it is too early to make any definite determinations from the current state of knowledge that has been advanced so far.


Other
∙ If we have a soul, it may be of a form of energy (not yet known to physics) that cannot be created or destroyed by nature. This energy might be the same as or similar to the energy associated with ghosts (if they indeed exist). Somewhat similarly, Einstein did refer to matter as 'frozen energy'.

® If a person or animal does not have a soul, then it should be possible to have it die (not just near death; and with no physical damage) and then immediately freeze it. Then after sometime (say a month later), unfreeze it and have it come back to life. Just like we restart a car or machine after having it shut down for a while. Maybe this should be tried with an insect as there probably is a greater theoretical chance of success. But being able to successfully do this revival would not rule out the existence of a soul - the soul could come back or may never have left in the first place. Can do this with viruses already but it is not quite established if they are 'alive'. But maybe they do not have any consciousness? Or is it because they do but the consciousness does not leave during this 'temporary' death?

∙ Science may want to try to assess if the soul has any mass (assuming living things have souls). This has been attempted before by weighing a body just prior to and just after death and mass was lost but there were flaws in the experiment that may have accounted for the results. Of course even if there are souls, it would be highly unlikely that they would have mass since it is expected that they are a form of energy only which does not consist of matter.

∙ The molecules of our body are continually being replaced and our emotions, thoughts, and memories outlast them. The memories are still there even after all the cells in the brain that were in place at the time the memory was formed have died off and been replaced. Thus, this is a very indirect form of evidence showing how our consciousness transcends the body.


Previous: Philosophical Home Next: Scientific-Evolution
Harinder S. Sandhu
Copyright © 2003-2010. All Rights Reserved.
PARANORMAL
General
We all should be reasonably open-minded skeptics and for psychic phenomena indicative of life after death, only accept the theory that there is survival of consciousness after physical death when theories along normal lines and/or ESP (psi) fail to account for all of the evidence.
∙ There is no doubt that in a relatively short period of time, science has made great strides in understanding the physical world. Because of this, many people believe that if presently there is not a scientific explanation for something, it is not a question of if it will be explained by science but a matter of when. Applying this to the various paranormal phenomena, these people believe science will either have a complete explanation in the future or it is just a deception of some sort. Generally speaking, there is strong evidence for some of the psychic phenomena but not to the point where it can be accepted as fact.
The extreme skeptics of the paranormal have a tendency to refute the least credible of paranormal examples; they seldom try to take on the best evidence and if they do they do not give very credible alternative explanations. To do the former, is easy, the latter, generally quite difficult. They also unfairly (and unscientifically I might add) tend to group all of the paranormal together and reject it all. Its not all or nothing and the same applies to the various evidence types for life after death. For instance, mediums communicating with the dead could be true but this has no relation with astrology being true or not - the two are independent of one another but this gets lost on some of the extreme skeptics in their overall outlook.
In fact, with the paranormal as it relates to life after death, there clearly are many cases of both deliberate deception (as we would expect due to the nature of the subject) and where there are alternative explanations. But these are not the cases we need to be scrutinizing to determine if they constitute evidence for life after death - although this is unfortunately what some skeptics do to present their conclusions against the paranormal. The cases that have no other plausible conventional explanation are the ones that need to be held to the test.
We also have to be careful with paranormal phenomena in that, even if the particular phenomena or, more commonly the case, elements of it can be induced, it does not necessarily mean or follow that this is the cause of the paranormal phenomena and the explanation for it. A non-paranormal analogy being, for example, certain drugs can induce euphoria in a person but when one normally is experiencing euphoria, it is real and occurs naturally without the effect of any drugs. Therefore, drug intake is not the explanation for euphoria normally experienced even though drugs can induce it.
It should be noted that the various aspects to the best paranormal phenomena cases have thus far been very difficult to account for collectively using natural scientific models.

∙ Some people will believe paranormal activity at face value with even the weakest of evidence. On the other hand, there are skeptics who are very closed-minded and biased and will not even allow for the possibility, no matter how convincing the evidence (and thus, maybe to an extent, possess irrational mindsets). A good example showing the mindset of a certain group of ultra-skeptical individuals who refuse to accept any paranormal explanation is the following quote from an August 27, 2001 article in the online magazine Salon.com interview with Michael Shermer editor-in-chief of Skeptic Magazine:
"If we asked, what would it take for me to believe in ESP? Would it take a single experiment? How about 10 statistically significant experiments in which the guy picked the right playing card? That still wouldn't quite do it because there's no way to understand how this could possibly happen in the brain. We understand how neurons and brain centers work but we don't know how something would transmit through space out of your skull into somebody else's skull. So those guys need to come up with some mechanism to explain it."
So even if the best explanation is a paranormal one, ultra-skeptics will not accept it because they do not understand the underlying mechanism for it.

∙ Most psychic occurrences are spontaneous and therefore hard to test under laboratory conditions. Ultra-skeptical scientists start with the assumption that something which contravenes the laws of science (as they are currently understood), cannot occur. They are not open to the possibility of non-material mechanisms explaining the data. Their lack of belief is a form of belief in itself.
In science, a new scientific statement is only accepted if it either agrees with established scientific laws or replaces rival statements with superior evidence and theory. Psychic phenomena clearly don't fit the first and haven't succeeded so far in the second. Not to make excuses for it, but due to it's nature, what is needed is a new framework to examine the claims for the various psychic phenomena rather than the existing limiting experimental science we have. Of course, ultra-skeptical scientists would rather not do anything that might accommodate anything to do with the paranormal and would therefore reject any such suggestions.
The logic of scientific inquiry must always allow for the possibility that the existing scientific laws are incomplete or even wrong.
Science is what we always need to use as the basis to start with, and if it fails to explain the phenomena, only then should we go outside of mainstream science and look at the possibility of paranormal explanations.

∙ William James was interested in the possibility of psychic phenomena. He believed it is sufficient to find one indisputable example of psychic occurrence to demonstrate that violations of natural law as we understand it is possible. He summed it up with the well known quotation from his book: "In order to disprove the law that all crows are black, it is enough to find one white crow." Thus, psychic researchers are always trying to find a "white crow".

® Much of the paranormal evidence types for survival of consciousness can be explained by normal means, some of it is not possible to determine, and some is very likely to be evidence for survival. It is as if, on the surface at least, one can interpret however one wants - almost as if it is supposed to be this way.

Near Death Experience
Since I have not written nearly enough to date on this very important evidence type, the reader may also wish to look at the most comprehensive website on this subject which is http://www.near-death.com. Also, an excellent overview of the NDE is given by one of the worlds leading researchers on NDEs, neuropsychiatrist Dr. Peter Fenwick (Link: http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/dr._peter_fenwick:_science_and_spirituality.html).
To start, I will say that medical and psychological explanations for the near death experience (NDE) have been given but they are speculative and fall short of explaining the entire phenomenon.
∙ The temporal lobe in the brain is the area where NDEs are experienced. If one doesn't believe we have a soul, then you are stuck trying to explain why we have an area of our brain which allows us to experience an NDE. Some will say it is there from an evolutionary standpoint to ease a person through the dying process. But this cannot be so because there is no survival advantage to thinking that you are leaving your body at the point of death. Possibly it is an advantage to people witnessing the death since the dying person will not appear to be struggling, although just prior to experiencing the NDE, the person is for visible practical purposes, already dead. Still this is not a trait that could be passed on in any preferential way.

® In fact the NDE is actually against evolutionary survival - it is a state which is highly pleasurable (in most cases) from which one would not necessarily want to escape from. If there were no NDE for the dying person, then they would fight death as much as possible instead of succumbing to it. And in fighting it, would be more likely to survive.

∙ Interestingly, the cause of near death or clinical death (heart attack, head injury, etc.) nor other factors such as drugs in the system or oxygen and/or carbon dioxide levels in the blood does not seem to impact the NDE experienced. This makes the case for the NDE being real as experienced stronger.

∙ If one is aware under anesthesia, the experience is fragmented and frightful with paralysis. But the NDEs reported for people under anesthesia are not at all like that and are pleasant with no pain felt as well as 'crystal clear' consciousness, when in fact there should be no conscious recall.

∙ In the reported NDEs, when the NDEr may have been in great pain prior to leaving the body, leaves the body there is no pain sensed whatsoever. Upon re-entering the body, they are immediately in pain again.

∙ The longer the clinical death, the more expansive and prolonged the NDE. Again, this gives more strength to the argument it is in fact consciousness separating from the body. If it were just in the brain, then the opposite would be expected.

® After accounting for the length or extent of the NDE, if the NDE were simply a hallucination or concoction of the brain, would we not have varying degrees of vividness and memory of the NDE, unlike the 'all or nothing' that is reported?

∙ NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring in his work on NDEs found that the congenitally blind (blind from birth) do not have sight in their dreams, yet if they experience a NDE, they have an ability to see for the very first time. If this is correct, then this is strongly suggestive of consciousness separating from the brain during the NDE. This would also seem to indicate that dreams are in fact products of the brain.

∙ In the NDE going through a dark tunnel may be explained by the cut-off of blood to the occipital lobes at the back of the brain. Entering a world of darkness makes sense for a dying brain to which sensory input has been stopped. But what explains the brilliant light and emotions filled with such bliss after the darkness? Hardly what you would expect a dying brain to produce.
The dying brain hypothesis breaks down when the brain is clinically dead. Since there is no break in consciousness and it is continuous, then the dying brain hypothesis cannot account for the NDE as occurring just around death and/or resuscitation.

∙ It could be possible that God may have made our brains so that they allow us to experience the NDE so that we can make a smoother transition from this life to the next.

∙ One explanation given by scientists is that the NDE is a universal recall of the birth experience - travel down the birth canal (dark tunnel) and ending up in bright light at the moment of delivery. The problems with this theory are patients born of caesarian section are reported to have this NDE and the bright light upon entering the world is hardly a wonderful experience (that's why the baby cries so much). Also, a babies eyes are closed during birth and it is not known what the baby experiences. And why would humans undergo a repeat of the experience when dying?

∙ The NDEs reported are essentially the same throughout the world. Though existing religious knowledge or beliefs seem to influence any religious figure one may encounter on the other side. Nevertheless, the experience could be real and tailored such that the transition to the other side is easier.

∙ The NDEs of very young children are in all essence the same as that of older children and adults. The influences of culture, religion, and concepts of death would be very limited on these very young children. Therefore, this goes against arguments that there is influence and conditioning from prior knowledge on what is experienced and makes it less plausible that the NDE is a concoction of the brain.

® Not all people who reach clinical death recall a NDE (the reported range is only 10-18%). The possible explanations are: (1) Everyone does have an NDE at this stage but the brain 'filters' the NDE memory out for some people when revived or the NDE is not always 'recorded' onto the brain (ie. 'access' is either given to the memory or its not), and/or (2) There is a lag time before many of us would experience consciousness again after physical death (even after consciousness has left the body), and/or (3) Consciousness does not always separate from the body right away, or (4) Only some of us survive physical death but this would be completely irrational as we would expect all to do so or none. My guess is that the most likely explanations are one or more of (1), (2), and (3).
Expanding on (3) further, people who experience NDEs and OBEs are more likely to leave the body quickly at or near death or even possibly under other circumstances. Thus NDErs stay trapped in the body for lesser time after it has stopped functioning and this is probably determined by a biological predisposition somehow (at least to a certain extent). For the rest, they had not been dead long enough and an insufficient amount of time had elapsed for them to have an NDE.

∙ The explanation of particular chemicals being in the brain at death as being the reason for the positive NDE doesn't explain why some people experience a hellish (or negative) NDE (the range for reported NDE cases is 1-2% as the lower estimate and 10-15% as the upper estimate; but truly hellish is 1-2%). If the NDE were 'hard-wired' into our brains, we would expect them all (except for the odd anomaly) to be of the same type.
When elements of the NDE are induced in people in experiments (note: all aspects of the NDE have never been induced collectively to the best of my knowledge), the resulting experiences are not well remembered. The actual NDE is of great clarity and vividly recalled well into the future which is the opposite of what one would expect if it were just a dying or impaired brain.
There is commonly a spiritual transformation in the person who has experienced the NDE which has not been explained in any other way nor repeated in laboratory experiments. This profound transformation simply cannot be replicated in a drug-induced state and this suggests it is likely more than just brain chemistry at work.

∙ For someone experiencing an NDE, the whole universe typically opens up more to them - which is the opposite of what one would expect considering the brain is closing down or has closed down. The NDE in fact seems to be more real than life itself - one has 'crystal clear' consciousness. It is life changing and the most profound and 'real' event of life for most NDErs. During a NDE, an 'ocean' of knowledge is sometimes a descriptive term used to report what becomes available to the NDEr, but it is hard to retain new found greater knowledge when NDErs comes back. Our brains may in fact be limiters of our consciousness. Not all what are labelled as NDEs are necessarily consciousness separating from the body. Some might be hallucinations triggered by drug induced states, some could be vivid dreams (but NDE experiencers overwhelmingly deny this to be the case) triggered by a trauma, and some may be non-NDE transcendental experiences.

∙ The explanation that the NDE is caused by carbon dioxide overload or oxygen starvation in the blood steam, even if it were possible, is inadequate because many NDEs occur without either of these conditions present. But the latest research on a small sample size for carbon dioxide and NDEs is suggestive of slightly higher carbon dioxide levels may be leading to a greater probability the NDE will be recalled, though this contradicts the limited previous research. Perhaps a slightly higher carbon dioxide level indicates these subjects had gone further in the death process and that is why they had a NDE? Higher carbon dioxide levels in the blood normally indicate a better cardiac output and thus probably have better brain recovery and less amnesic effects due to a greater quality of resuscitation, and hence a better chance of recalling the NDE if had underwent one.

∙ When initially crossing over, there seems to be a 'transition zone' where one sees the other side in what may be a predetermined way (including 'hellish' experiences which some souls may have chosen as a temporary state prior to their life on earth and even those are sometimes taken as positive afterwards by the experiencers and can have benefits such as no longer fear death) or that they may expect due to the life lived (and also religious beliefs). This temporary transition zone to the spiritual dimension might be there so the soul that has just went through a physical death can better 'adjust' for what lies ahead and not be as confused or experience too much of a shock at once.

® It may even be that the hellish NDE is experienced only because the person is to return to this life and may need this experience for the remaining life to be lived here. It could even be that hellish experiences do not happen or are relatively rare if the soul is not to return (actual death takes place and the soul is not to return back to the physical body but to move onto the spiritual realm and not just have a NDE). Or maybe, if the soul is not to return, the hellish NDE state is only a temporary one to endure in the transitional zone before moving on to the next realm. Interestingly, in the reported hellish NDEs, the experiencer is observing but is not part of the 'hell' and this would seem to be indicative of this being only a temporary or transitional experience.

∙ NDErs experience the actual negative and positive feelings they inflicted upon or gave others throughout their lives (later confirmed to be correct) during the 'perfect playback' of the life review in a 'full' NDE and as its happens. The life review is often reported as being panoramic. There seems to be an accelerated thought as the life review is covering life in detail. There are no unrealistic life reviews reported - all correct ones only. All this is truly amazing and I hardly can see any biological reason or explanation for this; and only a spiritual one is (by far) what would make sense.

∙ There has not been a plausible alternative explanation for the out of body experience (OBE) that often occurs with NDEs. This is probably the single most convincing component of the NDE to suggest the NDE is exactly what people who experience it claim it to be - a round trip to the 'other side'. Though the weakest NDE with OBE cases, which do not have the clarity or the narrative quality about them and are paranoid in nature, are likely just hallucinations and thus probably not NDEs.
A sensation that one is leaving or has left ones body has been induced under laboratory conditions without such actually taking place (without undergoing an OBE) - as have certain other elements of the OBE but never collectively to replicate an OBE anywhere even close to the full expansiveness of it. In fact, some OBEs (the weakest cases) are probably just a form of disorientation of spatial self. The latest research from two separate sets of experiments published in the August 24, 2007 magazine/journal Science showed that by using virtual reality technology, researchers were able to trick the subjects sensory system by creating a very convincing illusion so that they were perceiving their bodies from a new perspective which was outside of their actual physical bodies. The experiments only provided subjects with an image of disembodiment which was believable to them. Only a touch sensation (not an OBE) was induced which fooled the subjects. The subjects understood it to be just an illusion whereas people who have an OBE consider it to be a real experience. Something like this type of illusionary experience could account for some or even all of the OBEs some people occasionally report when experiencing sleep paralysis and even in certain medical conditions.
Having an OBE and obtaining information otherwise not attainable (eg. from another room) has not been replicated under laboratory inducement. And there is no reason to believe it can be without it actually taking place as a real OBE. Further rationale for the OBE that occurs with the NDE being real as experienced is that the NDEr often is looking back at their body they have just left behind and not just 'floating up'. The OBE that occurs with the NDE is typically accurate in all details.
Some NDErs while having an OBE with the NDE report having a 360 degree spherical vision and say they were able to take in everything at once.
With OBEs, some do occur when the person is not near death. Persons have reported leaving their bodies and going to some other place (sometimes distant) that is out of range of their normal senses and observed and later reported on events (such as a conversation between two people) that they could not have learned about by normal means. In a small number of cases, the person experiencing the OBE may be 'seen' by another person at the place where the experiencer had claimed they had been (these cases are referred to as "reciprocal"). However, I am inclined to think that many of these OBEs (but not all) are not real and are only concoctions of the mind/brain.
Even better evidence for life after death is the veridical NDE in which the person undergoing it acquires information not known to them prior that could not have been obtained by normal means and is later verified to be correct. The experiencer may see events at some other location (for example, another room in the hospital they are in). Or the person might meet a deceased loved one who communicates information unknown previously to the person undergoing the NDE which is later verified to be correct. A more common example being they report encountering people whom they did not know were dead but who were later confirmed to have been at the time they had the NDE.
There is still a remote possibility that the OBE and/or NDE may be dependent upon a physical body being alive or revivable (though this would probably be highly unlikely and especially for a NDE and OBE occurring together). In other words, we cannot rule out that consciousness, even if detached from the physical body, may still be dependent upon it for its continued existence.

® Experiments to test NDEs with OBEs to determine if consciousness really does leave the physical body have been done on a very limited basis with no results to present. Typical experiments are putting cards or displays with words or numbers or images only viewable from well above eyelevel if one were to leave their body and not known to staff or even the experimenter and sometimes periodically changing in hospital cardiac care units. Future studies are planned and what I expect is the results should be positive but inconclusive and skeptics will find flaws in the studies and alternative explanations. This is what I expect because to me it looks like this is the way its supposed to be (ie. the natural order in the bigger scheme of things is that whether or not we survive physical death is not to have a conclusive answer that all will agree on while here on earth and instead has to be interpreted). Unless of course it is the spiritual order for great evidence or even proof to be revealed in the near future through such. There is currently a very comprehensive study underway that should yield some results led by Dr. Sam Parnia involving 25 European and American hospitals in which 1,500 cardiac arrest survivors are to be examined (Link: http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/press-articles.html).

® A) The evidence is showing that the NDE is occurring during 'flat line' (no brain activity which happens within 11 seconds of the heart stopping) since (1) The NDE is continuous and there are no blackouts or cutoffs; (2) Cannot happen only while brain activity dying out or coming back periods only due to continuity issue; and (3) Aside from the continuity problem, the NDE would not make sense to be happening in the dying or recovery periods due to insufficient oxygen in the blood in and to the brain and lack of brain activity for such a vivid experience for a materialistic explanation. If consciousness is solely a product of the brain, then I do not see how the NDE could occur during either of these periods. But if consciousness is separate from or can exist outside of the brain, then the NDE can occur during these periods.
B) If the NDE is occurring only before brain function ceases, there would after this be no consciousness and would hit a blank state and then when resuscitated would regain consciousness. The cases reported would be that a NDE occurred, followed by death and ceasing to exist, and then life again. In other words, if one had ceased to exist, then one would remember the NDE, then no recall, and then would awake to find oneself in their body and would have had a discontinuity of consciousness which is not found in the reported NDEs. Unless this abrupt change shows up as the 'snap back' into the body (and as expected the blank state will not be recalled). But our understanding of the brain shows if consciousness is part of the brain, then consciousness slowly comes back when a person is resuscitated and not all of a sudden. And the 'snap back' cannot be explained like this as it is too abrupt and sudden.
C) If the NDE is occurring after the person is resuscitated, then the NDEr would say it occurred after recovery as they know they have recovered (and the discontinuity of consciousness would still be there also).
With B) and C) (but not A)), would have periods of firstly decreasing and secondly increasing consciousness (as well as a discontinuity in between) which is not what we find to be the case.

∙ I wanted to outline some thoughts on a study by Dr. K. Nelson published in April 2006 (Nelson, K., et al, Neurology, 66, 1003-1009) which tried to establish a link between NDEs and REM intrusion (rapid eye movement dreams while the person is typically actively dreaming while half awake and just falling asleep or waking up). It received a lot of sensationalistic mainstream media coverage at the time from ‘journalists’ who did not really understand the study. Many of the worlds leading NDE researchers were not happy with the misinformation in the media that resulted (nor with the poor quality and what appears to be a study setup to try to get, or come close as possible, to a predetermined outcome) and pointed out the flaws in it and why REM intrusion is not an explanation for the NDE as follows (much of this is from Dr. Jeffrey Long and Dr. Janice Holden’s lecture at the International Association for Near-Death Studies annual Conference in 2006 and an excellent and very thorough analysis in their article in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, 25(3), Spring 2007; comments from P.M.H. Atwater, Dr. Alan L. Botkin, and Dr. Bruce Greyson, along with some of my own comments):

[Note: If you are not familiar with this study, then my recommendation is to waste little or none of your valuable time on this, at best, mediocre ‘research’ as the only things possibly learned are that REM intrusion could only be an explanation for the weakest NDEs (which really are not NDEs at all) and after experiencing an NDE a person may be more predisposed to REM intrusion]

- The control group was made of 55 people ‘recruited’ from the medical staff and associates (friends and colleagues of Nelson) and these type of people are less likely than the general population to admit to undergoing REM intrusion (for reasons such as career related - not wanting to come across as day dreamers and therefore unprofessional). The NDE group already had demonstrated they want to share such experiences and are of the type to be more aware or interested in their paranormal or altered states, etc. and wanting to be part of a study like this and that is why they responded (64 responded out of 464 invited and 55 were chosen). So even without having an NDE, they would be more likely the type to have, be aware of, and admit to having REM intrusion.
- Not all people who experience NDEs will report them (say half as a first order estimate) and the same (but probably higher proportions would report I would guess) would hold true for REM intrusion. Therefore, it is expected that up to the same proportion of the control group would not either for REM intrusion. This would be ok but here the NDE group was the type to report at or close to 100% and this distorted the results in this study as this was not taken into account.
- The control group only had a REM intrusion experience reporting of 7% which is lower than the general adult populations of 10-15%. Only 13% of the control group reported having experienced sleep paralysis which is much lower than the 40-50% of the general adult population. Therefore, the control group was not a properly selected one and thus is a big flaw in the study and this could by itself fully account for the data.
- The study was only a retrospective (not a prospective) study which was only based on correlations.
- NDEs occur in various circumstances and sometimes in conjunction with REM intrusion but the two are fundamentally different.
- 40% of NDErs do not report to have experienced any aspect of REM intrusion. Therefore, REM intrusion by itself could not explain all NDEs and at best only some.
- NDErs are more likely to notice and remember REM intrusion as a result of becoming sensitized to such experience since their NDE. In other words, the NDE is more likely to give one a predisposition to REM intrusion rather than the other way around. It was already known by NDE researchers prior to this study that there are changes to sleep and dream states for the majority of people who have had a NDE and this in itself could explain the data in this study. To do the research properly, one would have to do before and after NDE investigations for REM intrusion in order to establish baselines. Also, it may be that NDErs in this study are not necessarily experiencing REM intrusion more often but are more sensitized (possibly as a result of having an NDE) to noticing and remembering REM intrusion.
- People who have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to have waking dreams (REM intrusion). But dreams are obviously not the explanation for PTSD. It is the experience of the PTSD that predisposes one to this greater REM intrusion. Similarly, the NDE predisposes a person to having REM intrusion and this is likely what is happening. It is also known that PTSD symptoms are increased following an NDE (and thus REM intrusion might be also).
- It appears that the researchers thought they were getting some responses about REM intrusion which were not actually REM intrusion and this is more so with the NDE group and therefore skewed the results in favour of a correlation between NDEs and REM intrusion.
- It is quite possible that anyone who survives a life threatening event, even without an NDE, is likely to report higher unusual fall asleep and waking up experiences. If this is true, then there would be no support for the hypothesis that REM intrusion could account for NDEs.
- The NDE is very different from REM intrusion in that there are unknown aspects to it that may have meaning later and is experienced as being real, coherent, of great clarity, meaningful, and remembered in detail for life. Unlike REM intrusion, the NDE has a consistent fundamental structure that is basically the same across differing age and cultural groups. REM intrusion is based on a known environment, one realizes it is hallucinatory and not reality, and it is unrealistic typically. The NDE has profound life changing effects while REM intrusion never does. The NDE is specific and not at all like the random dreams of REM intrusion which are about anything. The NDE is almost always pleasant while REM intrusion is not and may be frightening. Since some of the ‘hellish’ NDEs reported tend to be disjointed, REM intrusion could be an explanation for a greater proportion of these (than for positive NDEs). But this would mean either they are in fact not NDEs or that they are 'lower level' NDEs and REM intrusion in combination.
- Nelson, et al. talked about the fight-or-flight response due to the nerve pathways in the brain which are also associated with REM intrusion. He then suggested that there could be a possible association between NDEs and REM intrusion. But this could never account for REM intrusion underlying the NDE occurring where there is no chance beforehand to assess danger such as an unanticipated blow to the head resulting in immediate unconsciousness leading to an NDE. Or in cases where the person was not aware they were in an immediate life threatening danger such as surgery or illness from which an NDE resulted. The hypothesized link between NDEs and REM intrusion does not seem plausible.
- NDEs commonly occur eventhough the person undergoing the NDE is under the influence of medication known to suppress REM.
- People born blind from birth who have never seen anything (not even blackness) have reported NDEs. Their dreams have no sense of sight and have been shown to have no REM while they dream. Moreover, NDEs experienced by these people often include sight.
- People have reported NDEs while under general anesthesia for which the brain functioning necessary for REM intrusion to occur would not be expected.
- In REM intrusion, the person often feels terrifyingly trapped in ones body whereas with NDEs people do not and it is commonly reported by NDErs that their consciousness was no longer associated with their physical body. NDE researchers do not report of anyone feeling frantically trapped in ones body while undergoing an NDE.
- REM intrusion experiences do fit the profile of hallucinations based upon the visual and auditory data whereas the vast majority of NDEs do not. NDErs rarely report anything (other than a subsequent NDE) reproducing any part of their NDE and this further suggests that NDEs and REM intrusion are different experiences.
- Only about 10-18% of people who clinically die report NDEs but maybe all experience them but not all remember them. This may be due to the fact the NDErs brain allowing them to do so. Thus possibly some peoples brains allow them to experience REM intrusion. The NDE alters the brain and may sometimes reduce the ‘filter’ on consciousness. This may partly explain reported greater psychic abilities after an NDE and/or REM intrusion being more likely to occur. People who remember their NDE are more likely to recall REM intrusion as happening to them.
- It is quite possible that some of the weak or quasi-NDEs are just REM intrusion. However, REM intrusion could not account for most NDEs and certainly not the best ones. REM intrusion could never account for veridical perception.
- These same authors have since done some more work with OBEs that was published this year which didn’t generate much interest. I haven’t read the study but did look at the press release and it looks like the same problems exist as the same control group was used. In it they showed that NDErs are more likely to have an OBE when in sleep paralysis. These findings are along the lines of theirs for REM intrusion and NDEs but the fundamental difference is that the OBE is a common part of the NDE while REM is not. The likely reasons for this are they are more likely to remember their OBE and/or the NDE may have altered their brain such that they are more likely to experience sleep paralysis and resulting OBEs and/or people susceptible to sleep paralysis and NDEs are probably biologically predisposed to leaving their bodies more easily.
- Even though the research has been of dubious quality, we can probably extract from it that there is some correlation between the ability to recall or experience an NDE and the same ability for other transcendental or altered states of consciousness.

∙ NDErs have reported being revealed past lives they have lived while undergoing an NDE. This could either be collaborative of past lives or that NDEs and past lives have a similar and linked natural materialistic explanation. The former is more likely I would think.

∙ For the strongest NDE cases, a skeptic would have a lot to try to explain away which cannot in all likelihood be done without invoking the paranormal. Aspects of the best NDEs which I think an alternative explanation is very hard to see forthcoming include: (1) No measurable brain activity while the NDE occurred and the person was clinically dead, (2) No discontinuity of consciousness of the experiencer (even though they were clinically dead and had no measured brain activity), (3) OBE with a 'birds eye' perspective looking back at ones own body, (4) A life review often with feeling the effects one had on others at specific times in their lives, (5) Coming across beings one knows who have pre-deceased them who are likely in their 'prime' in terms of the earthly existence they had, (6) A reluctance to return (and there seems to be a point of no return which if crossed the soul could not come back into the body) which is also against what evolution would predict. (7) Encountering a 'Being of Light' with whom there is a communication by direct exchange of thoughts, (8) Life changing, and (9) Veridical nature.
All of these would have to be explained by some mechanism or model which could account for all the components of the NDE collectively - I do not see any indications or possibilities of this to date and do not see any on the horizon nor really expect to (though one can never rule it out).

∙ Dr. Raymond Moody has seen very good evidence for a relatively more recently reported phenomena now known as the ‘shared death experience’. In it people present at the death bed of a loved one have in significant numbers reported seeing the same experience as that of the person who is undergoing the physical death. Elements of the NDE or death experience are shared. The bystanders report seeing a bright light, a tunnel, deceased loved ones, other spiritual beings, and a ‘holographic’ panoramic life review of the person undergoing the physical death. They report co-living the death experience in an empathetic way with the person dying. It really is compelling evidence for survival of consciousness and there is nothing at all similar to this seen at other times or under other circumstances.
An alternative explanation might be that of telepathy or hallucination due to expectations and/or wishful thinking as knowledge of NDEs is commonplace. But it would have to be telepathy only or both when more than 1 bystander has the same experience. It may even be that the experience is not being shared with the person dying and it is only the bystander(s) having the experience. Though with more cases reported in the future we may possibly (if that is the spiritual order to allow this) get cases of the person having the death experience not actually dying but having a NDE. Then we should be able to ascertain whether or not at least the NDEr also consistently collaborates and confirms what the bystander(s) reports.

Entities (ghosts, poltergeists, spirits, angels, etc.)
∙ Entities are reported in all cultures and parts of the world and have been throughout the ages independently (for the most part) of the knowledge that they have been observed elsewhere. This makes their existence, that much more probable.

∙ A ghost may be the leftover energy ('extra energy') of consciousness or a physical body that is no longer alive - it is like an echo that dissipates over time. It appears a traumatic death increases the probability a soul would leave a 'stamp' of this 'surplus energy'. These types of apparitions do not exhibit the full characteristics and dimension we would expect from a soul or entity. They are only mere 'shadows' of them. But there is some survival of energy still manifesting itself - therefore it has also survived physical death but appears to have been 'left behind'.

∙ Entities could be just mortal life forms that exist on a different physical plane. Or they could be apparitions (when physical conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind, etc. are just right, the entity 'appears' because the physical factors reproduce a 'recording'). It is possible, as hypothesized by some, that a magnetic field in the rock or stone at the haunting site could act much like videotape does in saving and replaying a previous history there. Though ghosts do seem to be connected to an individual who previously died in the same physical location. Also, sensing smell and touch as well as sight and sound from entities is very strong evidence that these are not just apparitions. And many do appear differently in space and form under varying conditions. Thus, this natural explanation could only account for some (the weaker) cases of what appear to be entities.

® Magnetic fields might only 'record' the ghost that is leftover energy as we do not also see the surroundings of that moment captured in time being left behind as part of the apparition. Thus, magnetic fields would not be the generator of apparitions and only the recording medium for them. It seems then to result in an apparition, would need this leftover energy (say released and left behind from a traumatic death that took place) in order to leave this imprint onto a magnetic field.
If in fact magnetic fields were the generators, then we would expect to see many more apparitions with the electrics in buildings of more recent times producing electromagnetic fields (unless of course there is some inherent difference between the magnetic fields generated from electromagnetism vs. geomagnetism which should be not the case). And in industrial settings where we have large magnetic fields generated from things such as electric motors, transformers, industrial magnets, and various machinery we should see apparitions as a result, which we do not.

∙ Some ghost sightings can be explained away as being hallucinations. However, many cannot. For example, where there has been more than one person seeing the ghost at the same time or when someone else reports a similar or exactly the same sighting at a later time (especially when they have no prior knowledge of the previous sighting so there is no expectation that one will experience such and therefore they are not simply hallucinating what someone else has already seen). The same applies to paranormal activity in general. It seems that more than one explanation would have to account for the observations. What is most likely is that in the vast majority of cases, hauntings can be explained by normal (natural) means, some cases are probably this 'extra energy' left over or behind, and very few cases are probably the spirits of the deceased that may be trapped and have not moved on permanently to the spirit dimension or have but occasionally return for some unknown reason(s) .

∙ There could be a 5th or another dimension (beyond the 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time; note that string theory predicts 10 or 11 dimensions depending on the version) or other dimensions that could contain the spirit world. Entities may be able to travel back and forth from the other side (or this other dimension). They may not be trapped here as is often assumed about ghosts and only 'visit' us in order to convey a message(s) - the major theme possibly being that there is a continuation of the spirit after physical death.
It is conceivable that entities could be partially in our dimension and partially in some other dimension simultaneously.

∙ If we could somehow physically measure the presence of entities, that would be evidence for their existence in this world. Though one could argue that since they are not part of this world this would not be possible. They may have an energy field unknown to physics as we currently understand it and which is similar to or the same as would be for a soul. Because we haven't yet discovered it or understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This energy form could be analogous to say electromagnetic radiation.

∙ Though it is a very remote possibility, time travel, has not yet been dismissed as being theoretically impossible by physicists. Thus, it has been suggested that ghosts could be time travellers from the future (and probably not from earth) who have travelled back in time. Of course this is very far fetched and the fact ghosts 'haunt' places often for centuries and mischief by poltergeists would not make sense either.
Though if it is theoretically possible for us to travel backwards or forwards in time, I think would require us to have consciousness which can separate from the physical body.

∙ Poltergeist activity may be the result of psychokinesis. This is the influencing of matter by the mind(s) of people in the environment (this is done unconsciously). The paranormal activity results from the minds of the people moving objects, etc. without knowing they are. Though very unlikely, it is still an alternate explanation to that of an entity known as a poltergeist being responsible.

∙ There are many cases of people reporting to have seen a life like apparition of a relative or friend right before, when, or just after they die in cases where the living person does not receive news of the death (or even have any prior knowledge the person is in poor health or danger) until sometime after the sighting. This is known as a crisis apparition. This appears to be more common when the two persons (the one seeing the apparition and the just deceased) are physically far apart (eg. on different continents) - as if it is more imperative to let the loved one know that they have passed on otherwise they may not find out until too much time has elapsed.

∙ People have reported contact with angels who have come to guide them.

∙ It seems exorcisms have 'removed' ghosts, poltergeists, and evil spirits. Although we cannot be certain as to the nature of the entity removed nor are all so called exorcisms in fact possessions by entities (the overwhelming majority of cases would be psychological in origin and not in fact possession but some may in fact be possession by an external entity). These entities could in fact even be aliens or some type of inter-dimensional beings. If some of these possessions are actually due to evil spirits, then this is evidence for a spirit world and therefore indirect evidence for life after death.

∙ The following table summarizes some of the senses that are affected and changes in the environment in the presence of entities. What we need to ask is (1) Have more than one of these been observed simultaneously? and (2) Has the sensing or activity been repeated with variations (eg. in type of sound, location, etc.)? If the answers are yes, then this would probably be sufficient evidence for the existence of entities which are not merely apparitions.
SENSE/ACTIVITY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION COMMENTS

Sight Apparition Not likely the only explanation since not all are static, can vary, and appear under different conditions. Most often (almost always when can be validated historically) like that of a deceased person connected to the location
Smell None? Typically of a short duration unlike normal smells which linger
Sound Apparition Not likely explanation since not always the same in type, intensity, duration, or location
Poltergeist Activity Some life form or type of energy (but not that of a deceased person or animal) not known to us Alternative explanation cannot be ruled out. Psychokinesis also a possibility
Touch See Poltergeist Activity Alternative explanation cannot be ruled out
Temperature Drop " " " Alternative explanation cannot be ruled out
Orb Activity " " " Alternative explanation cannot be ruled out

Exorcism is usually effective against all of the above and psychic mediums seem to validate the existence of the spirit of a deceased person connected to that location. This person is typically confirmed through the historical record. The alternate explanations would be that the medium is providing this additional information (including the spirits name commonly) by either (1) engaging in fraud by obtaining this information beforehand, (2) 'picking up' thoughts or memories or tapping into a 'pool of consciousness' for the universe if such a thing exists, or (3) external manipulation by alien beings or demons (negative entities). The explanation that ghosts are the spirits of deceased persons might be the only plausible one. Especially considering the fact that more than one (or even all) of the above senses affected have been known to occur simultaneously.
Most likely, some ghost sightings are apparitions or hallucinations or even fraud; some may be the result of some type of natural phenomena; and some may indeed be the spirits of people who once lived there and occasionally return/still reside there.

Reincarnation
An excellent thorough overview (about 14 pages) of this subject is given on Victor Zammit's website (Link: http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter24.html). In this field, research into past lives and its analysis done by the recently departed Dr. Ian Stevenson was of the highest standard and thoroughness. I am currently working on my own study of reincarnation and will have my comments on this site up in the near future. Until then I recommend the above link. However, I do have some of my own thoughts on reincarnation as follows:
∙ Telepathy would not seem a plausible explanation for recall of past lives because the people recalling them do not have any extraordinary powers that are otherwise known about (ie. have not demonstrated such in any other ways). Reincarnation is a much better explanation than telepathy since the past lives are remembered as actually being lived through the eyes of the person remembering them. Another telepathic way in which a person could get this information is by 'picking up' memories after the person from who the memories originate had died by way of these memories still 'floating around' to be picked up by someone. But unless young children are somehow better able to 'pick up' these memories, it wouldn't account for the fact that young children are more likely to have past life memories. It should be expected that all age groups are equally as likely to have them.
More often than not, children who do consciously recall their previous life tend to have had a traumatic death and have reincarnated very quickly and often to a location not too far away. It is as if the memory is 'fresher'. If reincarnation is what it appears to be, then the fact that the ability to recall past lives declines with age could be accounted for. The youngest children who can communicate verbally are the ones who are most likely to have this ability. This is because the brain shuts down the door on past lives as we grow older (when they may possibly be accessed via the subconscious, if at all). A spiritual explanation for having these memories might be that they ease the transition into this new life and to instill in one that the life ahead of you to live has a purpose.
If it exists, super ESP or super psi (the passing of large amounts of information from one person to another) could account for past life memories but not for skills which have to be acquired through practice such as the speaking of a new language (actually, more accurately, language requires both the obtaining of new information and practice to develop the skill of speaking the language). Thus, it is highly unlikely that xenoglossy (in cases suggestive of reincarnation, speaking in a language without having learned it by normal means) could be accounted for by super ESP.

∙ Fraud could be perpetuated on the part of the investigator in these cases - but to do this would typically require the collusion of the subject and their family and many witnesses. This would be quite a feat to pull off with several cases.

∙ Possession by a spirit as an explanation would still be indirect evidence for life after death. Possession or manipulation by aliens is also a very remote possibility.

∙ Though extremely unlikely, a combination of these alternative explanations is also possible - two or more explanations other than reincarnation accounting for the observations.

® There is one other possibility (though it would be highly unlikely that I expect it to be the explanation) that I can think of. That is, much like with apparitions being as the result of left over energy (if some of the ghost phenomena can be accounted for this way), this energy instead of dissipating into the environment over time could possibly in early infancy or at around or before birth of another person, somehow imprint or imbed itself onto the fetus or baby very early (at this stage only there might be a susceptibility for allowing such). And this could also could be an explanation for the birth marks related to traumatic death in the previous life associated with some past life memories.
Thus, the infant would already have this imprinted or imbedded memory and maybe personality prior to acquiring its own memories and personality development. Over time, any prior remnant personality and memories would dissipate much like an apparition does (albeit at a faster rate - maybe because it is in a body which somehow 'absorbs' this energy better). This is why the previous personality and memories seem to be eventually forgotten by the child as they grow up.
Though it would seem highly unlikely, if true, this might even be able to account for xenoglossy or skills that have to be learned through practice. It is similar to picking up memories but of a much higher level and greater transmission of information.
This alternative explanation is paranormal in nature and similar to reincarnation but consciousness has not moved from a body that has physically died to another new one but some part of the memories and possibly personality associated with the consciousness have. If true, this would only be evidence for some memory survival (and possibly some aspect(s) of personality continuing) but not for survival of consciousness.
However, I would think it could hardly be able to account for recall of more than one past life (ie. multiple past lives) for which evidence for is brought out under past life regression therapy through hypnosis. Although some or even all past lives 'remembered' under this technique may be false and due to information picked up by normal means by the child or adult and transformed or converted somehow by the brain into these past life memories. Interestingly, regression therapy has been reported to yield visions of possible future lives also.
Hypothetically, it could account for some or all of the reincarnation cases, as the apparent reincarnation could just be surplus energy from a traumatic death. But in the strongest cases, it is as if the whole consciousness of someone who lived prior has carried over and survival of consciousness is a much better explanation. Additionally, the ‘lag’ period for the soul to spend in some spiritual dimension first before coming back to earth that is often reported (ie. from regression and mediumship) would not be accounted for, which going by the evidence we have would seem to be the norm for most of the cases. It would also mean that people reporting the past lives not of very recent times would have to be picking up memories of deceased person(s) that were 'floating around' or dormant in the environment for periods of time without these memories being largely compromised (though they could become fragmented and still have this happen). And in fact there could be more than one explanation to account for the evidence for reincarnation that is observed.

∙ Assuming reincarnation happens, from what I have read and tried to rationalize, it seems the soul has a choice whether or not and when to reincarnate (to some extent at least) and typically does not do so right away after death. Typically there is a period of reuniting of the 'soul group'.

∙ Child prodigies like Mozart, who was composing music by the age of 5, are hard to explain from conventional wisdom. How could someone develop such a talent so quickly? Possibly, they have brought this 'developed' talent with them from a previous life?

∙ If we assume homosexual preference is roughly 1 in 25 or 30 of the general population, then this is probably too prevalent to be considered a genetic defect. Neither would this be a genetic trait passed on to subsequent generations because of its very nature, it reduces offspring produced. It is not probable that homosexuality is a learned behaviour as it has generally had a stigma attached to it throughout cultures. Therefore, we may be only left with 'instinct' as the explanation for it by default. Possibly it is chosen prior to incarnation.

∙ If we humans do have souls, would it not be only fair, naturally just, rational, and to be expected that animals do also? With reincarnation being true, then this would likely automatically follow. This makes better logical sense than does only humans possessing souls. Though animals, at least the less intelligent and less aware life forms, might have more of a 'group soul' (ie. a single soul may be divided over several animal bodies).
In fact, higher life forms did not appear right away on earth possibly because there weren't souls progressed enough to occupy them at the time. These souls might have had to start from 'scratch' and life on earth advanced along with the souls. Thus, man only appeared recently. The Creator may have chosen not to create what we might call perfect souls and instead had them improve through their own free will. It might even be that such perfect souls cannot be created for some reason we do not know.

∙ If there is life elsewhere in the universe, it may even be possible for us to have lived or live as those alien forms of life in past or future incarnations.

∙ Typically, identical twins have quite similar but still different personalities though they are identical genetically. The scientific explanation for the personality differences is that these can be accounted for by environmental factors starting with their different positions in the womb. But often there is little difference in environmental factors and even Siamese twins, who for practical purposes have no differences in environmental influence and social experiences (other than position in the womb in case it might be a significant factor which seems quite unlikely), can often possess quite different personality traits. Possibly, the differing underlying personalities of each of the souls may account for the variations?

∙ An argument against reincarnation is that the population explosion over the past century or so would not have had a sufficient number of souls for the number of people born in that time unless they were created as needed from 'scratch' which would not make sense from a reincarnation standpoint because that would mean these 'brand new' souls would be less advanced ones than the average and therefore we would have seen a large deterioration in the 'quality' of human beings which we cannot say has been observed. The actual fact is that the best estimates show more humans have died than are now living. However, if many of these souls have been born into human form several times previously on earth, there could be a 'shortage' of the necessary souls to accommodate the population explosion. But what is more likely is that even if no new souls were to be created, there is a 'pool' of souls somewhere in the afterlife which is much greater than needed to supply human bodies on earth and these souls could allow for unlimited population growth on earth. Also, souls may incarnate from this pool to other worlds as well as earth so it could be possible souls on earth may have had previous incarnations in other worlds unknown to us (and vice versa). Finally, possibly some souls may have advanced to taking human form from that of prior animal ones as taught by some religions.

∙ Some of the reasons we do not remember past lives (and past deaths) here on earth (except for the very rare case) are these past life memories would interfere with our lives here (need a blank slate for spiritual lessons having the full impact) and not being burdened by them and have this distraction; a uniquely experienced life here may be desirable spiritually; and no actual benefit except less anxiety about possibly not having a soul but we can make greater spiritual advances (accelerated spiritual progression) this way - which is likely why we are here on earth in the first place. Possibly if we can also have incarnations into other worlds and universes, past life memories may not be withheld there.

∙ Unlike for reincarnation, evidence for lives lived between lives is very limited. Michael Newton is one of the few people who claims to have collected such evidence from patients while they are in an extreme hypnotic state. He has also had subjects who report lives lived on other planets while under this same state. His first book on the subject was "Journey of Souls" and the subsequent follow up book is "Destiny of Souls". An alternative explanation might be the hypnotherapist is telepathically projecting their thoughts onto the patient during the hypnotic state and the patient is reporting essentially the same back.
From regressions, the interlife reported suggests that it is not simply just false memories otherwise why would this type of memory be reported? These interlife memories first came about in the 1960’s when the pioneering researchers working independently of one another reported these same interlife memories of their subjects. Neither the subjects nor the researchers should have had prior knowledge of this in order to come up with, intentionally or not, false memories of an interlife, though this cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty.
Another further point interestingly is that psychologists and psychiatrists using past life regressions report that the people undergoing such who are regressed to the moment of death and just after have the same experience reported by people undergoing NDEs. Thus, this is good collaborative evidence for NDEs being real as experienced by the people undergoing them. Or alternatively, unlikely as it may seem, the brain is just hard-wired to produce these type of memories. Or even less likely, there is fraud involved in.

Communications with the Dead
Psychic mediums like John Edward (TV show "Crossing Over" which is no longer on the air) and James Van Praagh (TV show "Beyond" which is no longer on the air) claim to receive messages for people from the departed souls of their deceased relatives and friends. There are 7 possible explanations other than actual communication with deceased souls as follows:
(1) Cold reading. The medium is only giving messages of a little better quality than most people could with some practice. The medium asks leading questions, gives only general information applicable to most people, and other 'trickery' to give the appearance that information is being passed on. If you have watched one of these shows closely, then you would have to conclude this is not the sole method of deceit (if such is taking place) because the quality of correct information that is communicated is too specific.
(2) Warm (eg. information obtained prior by internet search) or Hot (eg. questioning people who know information about the person to be read beforehand) reading. The medium (or resources at his disposal such as staff researchers or investigators) collects information about the person to be read beforehand.
An example of this might be that if show tickets are mailed out, then the show could readily find out information on the audience participants since they know their addresses along with the name of at least one person who will be attending associated with it. However, hot readings are much less likely and harder to obtain for general audience participants than for pre-booked or celebrity readings.
This cannot be the sole explanation because specific information that is only known to the person being read is often given during readings. Also, if hot readings are common practice it is easy to be found out in the process eventually and reported to the media; the fact this has not happened suggests it is unlikely that is is being used to any large extent. (1) and/or (2) is what most skeptics who do not wish to give any credence to any psychic phenomena whatsoever choose to believe as their explanation.
(3) The mediums could be in collusion with the people they are reading. If this were the case, then over the years thousands of people have been given 'successful' readings by some well known mediums. Because so many people would be involved over a long period of time, then we would expect that someone would have 'blown the whistle' by now if this were in fact happening. In addition, this would also mean that people like Larry King and Montel Williams (talk show hosts who regularly bring on mediums to do these type of readings) would have to be 'in on it' - considering how little they would stand to gain and how much they have to lose, we could say this would be very unlikely.
Nevertheless, we cannot rule out that it could possibly explain some (not as well known) mediums but not all mediums and their readings.
(4) Mind reading (telepathy). Mediums are reading the minds or 'picking up' the thoughts of the people who they are 'connecting' with their loved ones. If this were the case, the medium would most likely just be reading what is on the person's mind at the time but this is not often the case. In addition, the medium relays information which the person could not and does not know at the time and later finds out to be true.
A possible test to see if mediums are reading minds is to have them read subjects who do not speak any language the medium knows or understands. This would not completely rule out mind reading since it might even be possible that mediums can read pure thoughts which transcend any language.
We can effectively rule out mind reading as the sole explanation because of the research done by Dr. Gary Schwartz (presented in his book "The Afterlife Experiments"). He tested mediums and found them to give information about the subjects being read not known to the subjects and later found to be true.
(5) Demons (negative entities). The mediums may unknowingly be communicating with demons or evil spirits who for whatever reason(s) are posing as the departed souls.
(6) Aliens. A very far-fetched possibility is that the whole process is being manipulated by alien beings who may or may not have created us.
(7) Pool of consciousness (super ESP or super psi). Another highly improbable, but worth considering, possibility is that mediums are somehow 'tapping into' the collective pool of consciousness that may exist in the universe (or even just picking up thoughts 'floating' around connected to the person being read). But how would super ESP account for relaying information of events in the future? Of course, the afterlife could also be part of this pool and therefore exists anyway even if the medium is reading into this pool and not directly connecting with the dead.

® If mediums are tapping into such a pool, then they would be consciously engaging in deceit since the information would be coming to them in a different form than what they are leading us to believe (thoughts instead of messages in the form of conversation). If the mediums are just tapping into this pool, then they would somehow need to sort out what information needs to be extracted (which deceased person's life). A reason they may not be doing this is that the departed souls give us information in readings that is from both before and after their passing. This would only make sense if there is a survival of consciousness; otherwise by what mechanism would thoughts associated with a person when they were alive be combined with that since their death?
If the mediums are able to both engage in mind reading or finding out information about the person being read beforehand (warm/hot reading), and then tap into this pool of consciousness, they might fool us.
From my observations of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Van Praagh's TV shows, two or more of (2), (4), and (6) (warm/hot reading, mind reading, and tapping into a pool of consciousness) have to be occurring for a reading to give an explanation other than what the mediums are claiming to be happening. Of course a better test for Mr. Edwards and Mr. Van Praagh is when they appear as guests on "Larry King Live" (as they regularly do) where they do readings for viewers who phone in. Here they are not in a position to find out information about the people to be read beforehand (these people call in to the show just prior to its airing and/or while it is live). Nor is there editing of it as it is a live show (unlike with their own shows where the final production for broadcast will likely only show the best readings and edit out or not show at all the less successful ones). I have not viewed and analyzed a sufficient number of such appearances on Larry King to make good deductions, although I cannot definitively rule out mind reading by itself from those appearances.
Some (but not all) of the mediums need to be more honest and forthcoming and admit they are not 100% accurate and the communications channels are not fully clear. Being more humble would make them more credible. Of course, some are outright frauds and some are self-delusional.
If these mediums can accurately tell people about specific events the departed souls say will happen to them in the future (as they sometimes communicate in readings), then we could rationally rule out all alternate explanations (and their combinations) and accept what these mediums tell us as true (though ruling out demonic and/or alien manipulation is not completely possible). This type of data is lacking (is not communicated that often) and to the best of my knowledge, has not been studied using scientific protocols.

® Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona, has conducted a series of experiments on communications with the dead (Link: http://veritas.arizona.edu). His results thus far are that mediums are in fact communicating with departed souls and further experiments are to be done in the future.
Of course there are many other mediums who either do not possess this gift to the same degree (probably only a handful do in North America) or not at all. And some we can be reasonably sure are being fraudulent. But we should be careful not to group the best mediums with the mediocre ones or scam artists.
The ultra-skeptics will argue that there is no evidence to support communication with the dead and all information received can be accounted for by (1), (2), and (3). The ultra-skeptics are atheists (though some will claim to be agnostic) and follow a very orthodox approach to science who instead of saying the evidence is not strong enough to support the claims the mediums are making, just dismiss it all as fraud. This is despite the fact they have not been able to make the case for fraud. Alternative explanations such as telepathy are not even considered since these people are too close-minded to even contemplate telepathy might possibly exist. It is good to be a skeptic (I consider myself one) and all should be encouraged to engage in healthy skepticism but to be so stubborn and narrow-minded so that you dismiss anything which does not fit your particular view of the world as simply being fraud is ignorant and self-defeating.

® Psychic mediums in the west who are claiming to be able to communicate with the dead are in conflict with the predominant Judeo-Christian beliefs of the societies they are in (for example, no belief in reincarnation in the dominant religions in the west). Further, they generally tell us there is a lag time typically of several decades where people connected to one another 'reunite' in the spirit world prior to their next incarnation which is not necessarily even taught in the major eastern religions. Because they are not just trying to go along with what most people already want or expect to hear, I think it gives them a bit more credibility. Unless, they are being forced to 'tow the line' laid down by psychic mediums historically so as not to be in disagreement with it.

® Psychiatrists (like Dr. Brian Weiss and others of high academic credentials) and psychotherapists, who do and have learned from past life regressions of their patients, have findings that are completely in agreement with and fully collaborate what the psychic mediums have been telling us about the nature of the afterlife and spiritual order. Though there is the small possibility of some other explanations to account for this, for example, conspiracy to perpetuate such a fraud, manipulation by alien beings or other entities for whatever reason(s), etc., I think we could pretty much rule out that the past life regression academics are engaging in fraud. So unless mediums knew of the results of past life regression going back in history and have thus tailored their 'messages' from the other side to be in accordance with this all along, knowing this, some might reason this could be taken to validate an afterlife.
An excellent and very thorough overview (especially historical) and analysis for mediumship in the scientific literature (as well as much of the other life after death evidence) is given in Dr. David Fontana’s book, "Is There An Afterlife?".

Other
There is no adequate scientific explanation for the vast array of psychic phenomena. It has not been quantified by science, but demands some sort of explanation. Orthodox science would have to make vast changes to it in order to accommodate paranormal evidence into existing scientific theories (and possibly later, scientific laws) - thus it demands such a high degree of authentication of any of the paranormal before it will 'throw out' existing science. But psychic phenomena which has a spiritual realm to it cannot simply be refuted just because it does not fit science's existing artificially limited scope. As far as life after death is concerned, only one case of the various types of life after death suggestive paranormal phenomena has to be true in order for there to be life after death. Some additional psychic phenomena, which are mostly indirect evidence for survival of consciousness and not already discussed, are mentioned below.
∙ The evidence from hospice medical personnel is that many (maybe even all?) people who are dying and can talk and are not in a drug induced and altered mental state report receiving death bed visitations from spiritual beings. This is found throughout the world and the experiences are very similar. Though hallucinations cannot be ruled out as the explanation, the few researchers in this area do think it is an actual spiritual experience. So this would be considered a possible evidence for an afterlife reported by the dying prior to death.
Some of the interesting and unique findings are:
- There are rare cases of the care-giver receiving the same vision as the dying person.
- The more lucid visions tend to be in the people dying who are in the best physical state (therefore cannot simply be attributed to due to confusion, hallucinations, etc.).
- The dying person becomes more lucid prior to death (this is more readily observed in the very sick, in those with dementia, etc.).
- Unlike with NDEs, there are no hellish visions or visitations.
- Often the dying report seeing a bright light.
- Animals such as dogs, cats, and birds often behave different around the time of death of the person - like they know or are influenced.
- Clocks right there or nearby sometimes stop at the time of death (tend to do so more so than they normally do).
- There are reports of the person just deceased appearing at the moment of death to someone at a different location.

∙ After death communications directly (ie. not from mediums, etc.) from loved ones that have died (usually recently) is commonly experienced by people. The most common types are sensing a presence of the departed one, feeling a touch probably of the departed person, hearing the voice of the departed person, or seeing the departed in a partial or solid form. I doubt if all could simply be dismissed as some form of grief induced hallucination every time - but neither can we rule out this explanation in general for many of the experiences. The reason (spiritual) for these experiences would likely be to reduce the grief to the person(s) still living and further to show them there is an afterlife and that later they may reunite with their departed loved one(s) there.
There is also induced after death communication (Link: http://www.induced-adc.com) and there appears to be some evidence that the same information from deceased to different receivers (people here on earth) has been given in work done by psychotherapist Dr. Allan L. Botkin.

∙ Instrumental Transcommunication such as electronic voice phenomena (EVP) - to be elaborated on further soon.

∙ Materializations of spirit forms and ectoplasm.

∙ ESP and remote viewing (clairvoyance) have been tested and shown to have some evidence for them, although not strong enough to be considered proof for their existence.

∙ People having premonitions of bad events prior to their occurrence and as a result are often able to avoid a negative outcome.

∙ Also, the brain may be a 'reducing valve'. Something that eliminates from a souls consciousness all that serves no purpose in the present life. Thus when the brain dies, the reducing valve is removed and ones mind experiences a much greater level of consciousness. This would account for dying people remembering their whole just completed life in an instant with great detail, clarity, and understanding.

Previous: Scientific-Evolution Home Next: Religious
Harinder S. Sandhu
Copyright © 2003-2010. All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated on: .


RELIGIOUS
Perhaps we could best describe religion as a middleman between us and spirituality. God would probably be more like a 'force' rather than just a physical entity and would be more encompassing, omnipotent, and without limitations than we may be presently able to readily comprehend.
Prophets and messengers who claim to be giving us the teachings from God to us (such as Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Guru Nanak, etc.) have laid the foundations for the world's major religions. They have all given us a teaching that there is an afterlife and our souls go there after we die. These messengers and the resulting religions cannot be merely dismissed as not being evidence for the existence of God and an afterlife as many atheists would have us believe. Though this is not evidence in an empirical sense, it is evidence nonetheless. For many wise, intelligent, educated, and open minded people, just one of these religions is all the evidence they need to have absolute faith in its teachings. Many scholars have studied there chosen religion in great depth and come to the same absolute belief. If only one such prophet had come to earth giving us one religion, then it might all be easier to dismiss as some sort of misinformation. But the fact is that this has happened several times independently so that this evidence becomes harder to reject or discount. Could all these prophets and religions be just dismissed as being wrong?
® If one does not wish to believe that none of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, etc. were telling us the truth about life after death, then they are left to account for their messages by one or more of the following: (1) they were suffering from some serious psychological disorder, (2) were manipulated by aliens, and/or (3) masterminded such a grand deception, the likes of which the world has never seen, for some motive or benefit which is unclear. These alternate explanations would be highly unlikely for every single messenger unless it were explained by (2) in which case the number of messengers would probably be irrelevant.

∙ Most priests of the major religions undergo a scholarly education. This is especially true of Christians in the west. Typically they study to at least a bachelors degree level in religious or theological studies. Yet seldom (or never) do we hear of scholars reject or refute say the Koran or New Testament - they may question certain inconsistencies in these Holy Books (for example, with the New Testament, there are bound to be passages which may not be divine as they were written by mortal men about 40 or so years after the death of Jesus). Even allowing for the fact that these people are typically believers to start with, this suggests that the more one is to investigate one of these religions for 'authenticity', the more likely they are to become true believers of it. Even if there is the odd discrepancy in these Holy Books, the religion does not rest or fall on such and therefore a critic cannot rationally conclude there is no God or an afterlife.

∙ The problem many people have with religious arguments is that they have to be open for debate on the evidence for their claims. Though not all, but a fair number of religious people are not willing to engage in an open exchange of dialogue or critique of their religion. Also, the messages of the prophets suited the time periods they were in and that is why some of their messages may seem somewhat overly simple to some of us today and may not always apply fully to the world we live in now.
One general problem with religion is worshiping without respecting other views and possibilities. This applies to any form of belief whether it is capitalism, communism, atheism, materialistic science, or militant or fundamentalist interpretations/forms of different religions. In addition, all belief systems share the same problem in that they will not hold up to rational arguments for every single one of their teachings or interpretations.

∙ Some of the many religions there are appear to be made up, some have incorporated some or are based upon mythology, and some (one or more) may be essentially true. Even so, man has added his own interpretations to religions as they give limited or incomplete information in order to complete the picture as well as other motivations (such as political and power related). For me personally, religion cannot be accepted purely on faith alone and needs to be open to critique on all grounds including (but not limited to) scientific, historical, moral, logical, rational, etc..

® Many of us may find some of the teachings or revelations of the world's major religions to be ambiguous, contradictory, or even incorrect. It is quite possible they were meant to be presented to us in such a way so that they would not be absolutely irrefutable and thus not all would believe or follow them - as if it was all purposely done and is part of some grander plan.

∙ It is not easy for all of us to accept the teaching of some of the religions that we have but one life for which we are judged upon. What if one only lives a few days and dies as an infant? Is an individuals personality not largely genetic (or perhaps more correctly, mostly 'fixed' when they come into the world) and thus ones actions and the life they lead not really under ones complete control?
What about animals - are they not capable of feelings and emotions like us and is it not only fair that they possess souls too (contrary to what we infer from some religions)? One can be taught to live a certain way but their thoughts and feelings are determined mostly by their 'hardwiring' (their brain and soul). So if ones actions are good but their thoughts are not pure, which counts in judgment?
Possibly, the soul is judged on how it makes use of the brain (and it's genetics) it is given to work through in this life. For this to make sense, then our personality would have to be a combination of both what our soul brings with it and the brain's genetics.
Reincarnation of the soul may not have been revealed to us through some of the prominent religions since this knowledge may be a detriment to how we live out our lives on this earth. One might squander the present life on guilty pleasures and evil ways knowing they can pursue a more moral living next time around.

® According to Genesis the earth is currently about 6,000 years old and the universe was created in 6 days. However, radioactive dating clearly does not support this. This discrepancy could be explained as follows: God creates the universe and everything in it in a period of 6 days. But God has billions of years of activity take place during these 6 days (plus 1 'rest day'). So when we do our radioactive dating of fossils, etc. we end up with the measurements observed leading us to the conclusions of age science makes - these are the apparent ages.
It may be the case that the 6,000 year age may have been misinterpreted. Or possibly, another religion may have a better answer.

® Let us examine the logic of Satan if he indeed exists. It is told in the Bible that Satan is to be destroyed by God. Satan having intelligence wants eternal life (and is in a dimension where entities would understand the importance of such). So why would Satan not denounce his evil ways and go back to God's side? Either Satan believes what the Bible says will happen isn't necessarily going to happen (maybe he will be forgiven and redeemed at the end) and he is right or maybe Satan is an entity deficient somehow in seeing this? Or maybe Satan doesn't even exist (though God does)?

∙ There were reported visits by Jesus Christ after his physical death to many people. It is unlikely that these were just bereaved people seeing something they wanted to because two of his disciples seen him but did not recognize him at first (there was also another sighting where recognition was not made right away).

∙ Possibly the best approach for evaluating religion as evidence for the non-believer and for many of the rest of us also is to look for events such as miracles (which would have to be supported and validated historically) and knowledge revealed through the religion which could not have been known at the time otherwise.

∙ If reincarnation is true, then one could not progress to the highest levels of spiritual progression just by following some external doctrine (ie. religion). For this would not significantly change the soul, but only the person. One's soul would have to reach such a high level by internal improvements which improve thoughts and feelings as well as actions and behaviour.

∙ Even allowing for man changing religious teachings, the fact still remains that there are fundamental differences between religions that should not be there if all are true. We should expect almost full agreement between them and since we do not find such, this can be taken to mean either that all sources are not divine or are not fully credible. This fact weakens some (or all) religions and their evidence for an afterlife to an extent.

® Priort to the prophet Mohammed receiving his messages in 7th century Arabia, the nomadic tribes there worshiped their ancestors but did not believe in an afterlife. Neither did the Jews until an afterlife was incorporated into Judaism at a much later time (about a millennium) from its origins.

Atheists have turned disbelief (of a Creator or God) into a belief system in itself.
® People will typically adopt an atheist belief system due to the following factors: One can sometimes lead to believing too much in ones own intellect and that there cannot be anything greater in some supernatural realm, which they don't believe exists anyway); they develop a distaste or even hatred for religion;
It is only rational to be an atheist (note that some atheists are actually agnostic eventhough they may incorrectly label themselves as atheist) e.

FINAL THOUGHTS
To be able to come to the conclusion there is no life after death, every single one of the varied types of evidence supporting life after death would have to be disproved - merely giving possible alternative explanations is not sufficient. Otherwise, for someone not accepting the evidence for life after death, the only logical conclusion has to be that it is unknown whether or not there is life after death.
To come to the belief that there is likely no life after death, one would have to accept ALL of the following:
1) NDEs and/or OBEs do not actually occur and are just part of the brain's chemistry.
2) Jesus Christ, Mohammed, etc. were all frauds (or were given fraudulent information by someone or something eg. alien beings).
3) Ghosts, poltergeists, angels, and spirits are not what they appear to be and instead all have some other rational explanation(s).
4) No medium has communicated with the dead and all mediums are fraud artists.
5) There is some other explanation for the evidence for reincarnation (past life regressions and claims of previous lives lived).
In addition. the following would probably have to be true; though if it were there still could be life after death, though less likely:
Life started on its own by random chance and evolved to that of the complexity of human beings. The ability for organisms to sustain themselves by biochemical means and reproduce were also chance events. Further, consciousness also evolved through random mutation as did emotions such as love, hate, and jealousy.
The most likely possibility is that a Creator made the universe and created life on earth. Initially, there were not advanced enough souls so that only the most simple forms of life were present. As these primitive souls advanced through reincarnation, more advanced life forms were continually created until there was man. Souls incarnate on earth in order to progress spiritually. The Creator could have created souls from the start to be what they ultimately should be (unless this is an impossibility), but may have wanted them to become more perfect on their own free will (possibly because otherwise there would be no 'growth' in the total spiritual 'value' of the universal consciousness).
In my evaluation I am of the view that it is unlikely that life originated and evolved on its own through random chance (it was likely 'directed' to do so by a Creator). Even so, there is very strong diverse evidence for life after death (NDEs, spirits, communications with the dead, etc.). Though I encourage everyone to make there own conclusions or leanings, whilst trying to be objective and unbiased as possible, the more I investigate this, the closer I come to the conclusion that we have a soul that survives physical death.
For us, life after death is the greatest mystery of all, and in the end, the only one that matters.


Previous: Additional Comments Home