Just Another OC Homeless Guy: he is writing a book and needs to publicize it. Correlation =/ causation, but still....

No need to think about correlation/causation. You nailed it. The man's a charlatan, who has decided to use his MD title to bilk born-againers out of a lot of money.

nmemkha: You miss my point. They dismiss anything that does not meet the current scientific definition of "truth". None I have met are willing to consider anything spiritual. Further, this very thread started off with comment mocking religion.

Finally a statement I would like to address.

"Spiritual"

I'm a non-theist. I believe in no "greater power" and that anything unexplainable has an explanation...just not yet. I also believe that if someone is helped by their "beliefs" then why stop that? Sure, help correct behavior, but belief? That's personal and is like telling a gay person to stop being gay. No argument will change what it is.

That being said, let's talk about "spiritual". We have recently been shown (well, to me) that there are 12 particles which exist. There is no denying it, it exists. They say also, that we know only three are required to create matter; the stuff we see, breathe, smell, taste, etc. on a daily basis.

My question is this: What do the other 9 do?

Maybe what we need to do is stop fighting over words that are not defined. Perhaps "god" exists as part of life; not a sentient being but more of a "fact of life"; an undefined set of scientific parameters which cause the triggering of specific actions in life.

And, when we can't define why we do something, we chalk it up to a "god" or "higher power" when, in fact, we are doing exactly what nature has set us to do.

I don't know. It's not even a good theory, but it's just as viable as there being a "god". Are you willing to admit that "god" could simply be the same thing scientists are looking for but may turn out to be a completely different ideal than the traditional religious person believes?

Every day we learn more and more. Spiritualists keep saying we're moving further and further away from god but what if we're not? What if we're finally starting to prove that god actually exists...just not in the way the religious think?

But my questions are rhetorical, of course. I would never want to take away your belief system as that is a part of makes you who you are.

But I'm willing to consider there is a "god" as long as we can agree on the definition together.

Heaven Is Real: A Doctor's Experience With the Afterlife

Sounds like something a braindead person would say.

My near death experience was a vision of Zeus and Bigfoot locked in a passionate embrace. Lots of heavy petting, and some Scottish dudes playing bagpipes behind them. I know you think I'm joking, but I'm not, these are my personal beliefs therefore you're not allowed to laugh at me.

Hale-Bopp: Sounds like he may have likely experienced a large dose of DMT released by his brain in order to help him cope with the process of dying.

I don't get that. If we evolved all of our traits as advantages to increase our odds of procreation, what evolutionary advantage does ease of dying provide? How could we evolve a trait that almost always immediately precedes the death of the person exhibiting it?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Btw, go look into the link I just posted, from there it can take you to hundreds of other doctor verified "anecdotes" for you to dismiss as such.

Yay! More anecdotes!!!

Just after I posted my last response I figured out why you are so upset. It is because we are "attacking" this evidence.

This is standard practice in science. When evidence is presented (for anything) it is attacked, criticized, and judged to determine its worth. Theories are evaluated based on the "weight of evidence" that support them. So when any evidence is presented we must determine its weight ... how much does it contribute to supporting the theory.

This is the irony ... what you claim is us being dismissive is actually us considering what is presented. I am sorry that anecdotes traditionally carry very, very little weight ... especially when other explanations are present (like the near-death brain being flooded with chemicals).

Do you think that the recently presented evidence for the discovery of the Higgs Bosun isn't being attacked?? It is and many of the attackers are physicists who would love for the results to be true. But, in science, you do not accept evidence because it says what you want ... you accept it after it has survived attacks from anyone and everyone.

When the researchers claimed they found neutrinos traveling faster than light their evidence was immediately "attacked" (i.e. questioned, analysed, etc.) by others and themselves to see if it held up. And guess what ... last I heard, they had discovered other possible causes and a are planning new experiments to confirm which causes for the measurement are correct.

TLDR: You are upset that we are not considering your evidence because we are attacking it. But, if you understood science, you would realize that we actually are considering your evidence by attacking it. Sadly it does not hold up well because, in the end, it is still just an anecdote.

Following a car accident, I spent a week in an induced coma. The coma is so deep that there is virtually no brain activity so you are put on life support. I don't remember a damn thing about it; no lights, no voices, nothing.

nmemkha: I find Atheists interesting. They dismiss anything that does not fit their narrow worldview out-of-hand and are generally mocking and condescending to the views of others.

You fit your own mold... However I would choose words like "patronizing" and "bigoted" for you.

nmemkha: Poppa Boner: nmemkha: I find Atheists interesting. They dismiss anything that does not fit their narrow worldview out-of-hand and are generally mocking and condescending to the views of others.

If the faithful just kept their moronic beliefs to themselves and didn't try to control every facet of other people's lives maybe we wouldn't need to shout you down so much.

Shout you down? I'm sorry I thought rational people enjoy civil discourse and debate. So you adopt the same tactics that you claim to despise in Theists?

Bingo... I had papa boner on my favorites list for saying some really smart stuff in the past. He has just been removed for being an ass.

nmemkha: Fair enough. But, look at this thread. How many posts are snarky statement belittling religion and religious people. How many are theists doing the same?

The internet is a safe forum for atheists to express the frustration that they don't get to express in everyday life. I've yet to hear an atheist be intentionally rude to a theist in real life. I don't doubt it happens, but I do seriously doubt it happens half as often as religious people telling unbelievers that they're going to burn in a lake of fire or something similar.

How many atheists have come to your door to tell you your worldview is completely wrong and you're going to be tortured for eternity if you don't change it? What's that? None? Shocking.

In our society, religion gets protection from criticism that few if any other topics get. Claiming religion allows people to express hate and bigotry that wouldn't be tolerated in pretty much any other form these days. So when you come to a place like fark, you get to see the frustration. Theists on the other hand have in the past and/or are now trying to pass legislation to do the following: prevent gay people from getting married, tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body, teach mythology as science, force their religion on others in the form of school prayer, and prevent the criticism of religion through blasphemy laws. I'd much rather if all I had to deal with was a couple rude or mocking theists on some internet message boards than have to worry about them trying to restrict my rights and force their religion on my hypothetical children.

nmemkha: Pathman: nmemkha: You rational approach is commendable, but some people feel there more to the Universe than what is tangible. Some feel a "connection" to "beings" that transcend our existence. Not everyone has these "spiritual" yearnings, but those that do find it hard to discount them.

and those that don't are, in your experience, assholes.
like i said - confirmation bias

Now this is a strawman. Their beliefs do not make them "assholes". Its their behavior does.

that was my point chief. not a strawman - an exact retelling of what you said

Mugato: logistic: Although I considered myself a faithful Christian

Loses any trace of credibility at this precise point. Not arguing one way or another, but his opinion is nixed by this statement.

You didn't finish the sentence. I was so more in name than in actual belief. So according to the Bible, he wouldn't be in heaven, he'd be in Hell!

/how come no one has near death experiences of Hell, anyway?

They do, in fact there's a whole book about it that another doctor wrote. I read it in the 90's.

Perhaps you have good Google Fu to find it. :)

Farking Canuck: You are upset that we are not considering your evidence because we are attacking it.

Nope, just the manner in which you attack it, which is directly analogous to the reasoning presented by creationists.

czetie: Again: show me the verified instance where somebody having an out-of-body experience described what was unexpectedly on the top shelf and you have something more than the subjective experience of the brain messing around.

Too bad he has me on ignore, I posted exactly this.

Maul555: Bingo... I had papa boner on my favorites list for saying some really smart stuff in the past. He has just been removed for being an ass.

Why? Because I called out a condescending prick? Have you been reading what this guy is posting? Have you been reading what I've been posting? I'll repeat... I have no problem with people of faith. I have a problem with people who twist reality to suit their delusions and cram them down everyone's throats. I have an even BIGGER problem with those who act like they're being victimized when someone doesn't buy into their bullsh*t.

Are you one of those people? Because if you are I didn't want to be on your favorites list anyway.

Gaius: Following a car accident, I spent a week in an induced coma. The coma is so deep that there is virtually no brain activity so you are put on life support. I don't remember a damn thing about it; no lights, no voices, nothing.

That's what makes these experiences of NDEs (and Out of Body experiences, especially when they have verified information) so interesting. To our understanding of science and neuroscience in particular, they absolutely should not happen. Period. When people are conscious during life-threatening situations or just after being resuscitated, they usually are distressed, jumbled, groggy, disorganized and unaware of events. The NDE experiences describe experiences that are completely coherent, aware, and more real than reality itself. When people go on DMT trips, they experience a distorted view of reality and are aware that it is distorted. NDE experiences describe something that feels realer than real and nothing that would be out of the ordinary (distorted body image, elongated limbs, etc.) aside from being dead. And while there are a few negative ones, most have certain basic similarities about knowledge of existence, universal love and acceptance, etc and although some do have eastern/western religious influence, not many are "Ok, here's Jesus taking me to see St. Peter in heaven" but of something that is basically a universal feeling of love and oneness. Or, at least that is what is reported.

I think I saw this movie, actually.....

He wears a bow tie.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Farking Canuck: You are upset that we are not considering your evidence because we are attacking it.

Nope, just the manner in which you attack it, which is directly analogous to the reasoning presented by creationists.

Saying that over and over does not make it true.

Creationists do not consider evidence ... you are using an unethical argument technique called Association Fallacy.

The Billdozer: more real than reality itself.

That phrase is more meaningless than meaninglessness itself.

Farking Canuck: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Farking Canuck: You are upset that we are not considering your evidence because we are attacking it.

Nope, just the manner in which you attack it, which is directly analogous to the reasoning presented by creationists.

Saying that over and over does not make it true.

Creationists do not consider evidence ... you are using an unethical argument technique called Association Fallacy.

Actually, that's not how association fallacy works at all. Nice try though..

Oh, well, if a doctor whose brain was being attacked by bacteria flew up to a "another, larger dimension of the universe" and telepathically communicated with a hot ass brunette I guess I believe in God now.

Although I like his message, 'There is nothing you can do wrong.' That works for me.

royone: The Billdozer: more real than reality itself.

That phrase is more meaningless than meaninglessness itself.

I'm sorry if I'm just going by what people have reported. Hyper-real is a term used as well. The people who have these experiences say that words cant accurate describe it, so the terms are probably fitting for a soul-changing experience or one hell of an insight on how the brain/mind works.

HakunaMatata: the theory that the brain, and in particular the cortex, generates consciousness [...] now lies broken at our feet. What happened to me destroyed it. [...] When the castle of an old scientific theory begins to show fault lines, no one wants to pay attention at first.

So a whole theory is layed to waste by one persons anecdote? Does an anectdote undergo some alchemical transformation into objective data when it is experienced by a DOCTOR?

The enormity of the universe he describes is surpassed only by the enormity of the ego of a doctor.

And saying that no one wants to pay attention "at first"? As if the claim that there is an afterlife is brand new cutting edge fringe stuff?

If you said "no one can fly" and I come flying by while a bunch of physics experts and engineers are looking at me to make sure I'm not wearing a jetpack, it is disproven.

browntimmy: My near death experience was a vision of Zeus and Bigfoot locked in a passionate embrace. Lots of heavy petting, and some Scottish dudes playing bagpipes behind them. I know you think I'm joking, but I'm not, these are my personal beliefs therefore you're not allowed to laugh at me.

If you founded a church based on that, I would subscribe to the newsletter.

/Permission to laugh with you?

Deep Contact: He wears a bow tie.

Bow ties are cool.

And I'd like to say the reason this angers me and why I bothered logging in is because this is being spun as PROOF. It is not proof and it is disingenuous, manipulative and outright dangerous to claim it is. 20 years ago this guy would have been flagged as a nutball for making such a wild claim but in today's political and social climate this kind of outright lying is considered an acceptable argument and is becoming more and more common to the detriment of logic and reason. If the guy had just told his story and said he now believes in a higher power or an afterlife I would have no problem. I wouldn't even doubt him. But for him to flaunt his scientific credentials (and remember he is a SURGEON... not a researcher) and use them to manipulate people is atrocious. To add to that the press, and not even fringe press (WTF Newsweek) to boldly back up his claim that this is PROOF is a very frightening state of affairs. To allow this kind of sh*t to go on and not say anything is a disservice to the advancement of mankind and threatens to plunge us into the next Dark Ages.

It is about as infuriating of debating issues like homosexuality or the age of the Earth with someone who's only science is the bible.

THE BIBLE ISN'T FREAKING SCIENCE AND NEITHER IS THIS GUY'S DREAM!

angry bunny: I fear dying. Alot. I fear it no matter the outcome. If we simple shutdown and cease to be that sucks. I don't want to cease to be I like being. If we go to some type of heavenly place I still don't really like that resolution either. I can't imagine being for an eternity. Seriously take a few seconds, zone out, and imagine never ending. Yeah I know its terrifying in its own right. Save some version of reincarnation which still sort of falls in the second category of being forever, I can't imagine a worse thing than dying. I assume I'm not alone in this.

There, there. You're definitely not alone in this. However, you've got to keep it all in perspective. You have no memories of before you were born, because you didn't experience it. Your end will be a little more dramatic, if only for the fact that you will probably know it's coming, just as you do now.

*But*, you should take comfort in this fact. For who wants to continue on after the quality of your life has been reduced to dependency on others for all your needs. For an infant, that's fine. But for an adult who has previously achieved independence, I can think of no greater insult, than to watch your body slowly decay and wither. It would be nice to go in my sleep. As for whither you go, I take some small consolation that it's probably exactly "nowhere". For who wants to pay taxes in perpetuity, whether they be in hard-earned cash or endless, boring Hosannas?

HakunaMatata: the theory that the brain, and in particular the cortex, generates consciousness [...] now lies broken at our feet. What happened to me destroyed it. [...] When the castle of an old scientific theory begins to show fault lines, no one wants to pay attention at first.

So a whole theory is layed to waste by one persons anecdote? Does an anectdote undergo some alchemical transformation into objective data when it is experienced by a DOCTOR?

The enormity of the universe he describes is surpassed only by the enormity of the ego of a doctor.

And saying that no one wants to pay attention "at first"? As if the claim that there is an afterlife is brand new cutting edge fringe stuff?

Saul/Paul was hunting down this group of people that were following some guy around who said he was the Messiah and became their biggest supporter in human history. Sometimes all it takes is the turnaround of one enemy to make an idea have flight.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: boyofd: BraveNewCheneyWorld: czetie: In the entire documented history of near death experiences, out-of-body experiences, visit-to-heaven experiences, etc., nobody has ever come back knowing some objective fact that they couldn't previously have known. Not even something as trivial as the fact that open-mined neurosurgeons have placed a piece of paper on top of one of the shelves in the operating theater that says "If you can read this, you are having a real out-of-body experience".

Except for the cases where people can describe their surgery and conversations the doctors had, yeah, there's absolutely none.

Were their brains and ears not in the room when the surgery took place? Holy cow, that's even more amazing than the OBE.

You don't know much about the monitoring they do during surgery, do you? Anyway, plenty of subjects saw the surgery. That's kind of difficult when you head is back and your eyes are shut. A few more examples for you to cover your eyes and ears.

You must not understand much about how the brain works. Even under general anesthesia, patients can be capable of learning and retaining details, and many people with NDEs retain information about what was happening to them while their "souls" were allegedly off to heaven and back.

The article you linked is largely one long anecdote, and there seems to be little analysis of how often those with OBEs are getting the details they observed right or wrong. Instead, as with non-critical analysis of psychics, it's all about the amazing "hits," and no mention of the misses. Instead, I suggest you look up Penny Sartori and how all of her patients who experienced OBE during surgeries were unable to identify the playing cards she had placed on shelves around the OR (or even to notice that such cards existed). Our brain simply isn't a VCR/DVR recording the input from our eyes, ears, and other senses; our brain constructs our experiences from our senses and fills in the blanks with its own construction of what should be there.

angry bunny: I fear dying. Alot. I fear it no matter the outcome. If we simple shutdown and cease to be that sucks. I don't want to cease to be I like being. If we go to some type of heavenly place I still don't really like that resolution either. I can't imagine being for an eternity. Seriously take a few seconds, zone out, and imagine never ending. Yeah I know its terrifying in its own right. Save some version of reincarnation which still sort of falls in the second category of being forever, I can't imagine a worse thing than dying. I assume I'm not alone in this.

I think that stories like this alleviate some of that fear and hey that's fine. Making everyone's time here on Earth that much better before whatever terrible fate befalls us is ok by me. Choosing to not believe one man's story about an afterlife also seems totally rationale. The problem here is claiming that you know what will happen when you die (either way) if you think we just shut off... Maybe but you have no way of knowing that. If you cliam we go on and persist in some fashion... Maybe but you have no way of knowing that.

Either way expressing your oppion on the existance of an afterlife will probably lead to alot of red faces on Farkers' death beds. Cause you're going to die. You're gonna die sooner than you think. You're gonna die whether you want to or not. It's the one thing that is assured everyone will have to go through.

/People die all the time, just like that
//Why you could wake up dead tomorrow
//Well... goodnight

So, why don't you have any memory of before you were born?

/death is exactly like that, probably.

Poppa Boner:

THE BIBLE ISN'T FREAKING SCIENCE AND NEITHER IS THIS GUY'S DREAM!

Dude.

Babwa Wawa: xanadian: The jury's still out.

Well, yeah. If one has "proof" of something or another, then one no long needs "faith" in order to believe in it.

The whole "life after death" obsession strikes me as silly and indicative of perpetual juvenility.

You're not going to know jack sh*t until you are dead. Dead-dead, not "turned-off dead". Anyone claiming certainty on the matter is either delusional or a charlatan. When you've got a book deal like TFA, I'm banking on the latter.


Given the absoluteness of your statements, I wonder if you can sense the immense irony of them. I'm guessing not.

Poppa Boner: And I'd like to say the reason this angers me and why I bothered logging in is because this is being spun as PROOF. It is not proof and it is disingenuous, manipulative and outright dangerous to claim it is. 20 years ago this guy would have been flagged as a nutball for making such a wild claim but in today's political and social climate this kind of outright lying is considered an acceptable argument and is becoming more and more common to the detriment of logic and reason. If the guy had just told his story and said he now believes in a higher power or an afterlife I would have no problem. I wouldn't even doubt him. But for him to flaunt his scientific credentials (and remember he is a SURGEON... not a researcher) and use them to manipulate people is atrocious. To add to that the press, and not even fringe press (WTF Newsweek) to boldly back up his claim that this is PROOF is a very frightening state of affairs. To allow this kind of sh*t to go on and not say anything is a disservice to the advancement of mankind and threatens to plunge us into the next Dark Ages.

It is about as infuriating of debating issues like homosexuality or the age of the Earth with someone who's only science is the bible.

THE BIBLE ISN'T FREAKING SCIENCE AND NEITHER IS THIS GUY'S DREAM!

I don't know you whatsoever, but this seems to be bothering you. Why not just write to a letter to the editor of find a journal to publish your dissatisfaction with this book or idea? People who have argued cases against the paranormal aspect of NDEs before on a site or amazon review (Worlee in the case of Pam Reynolds) have been published before or asked to speculate.

Millennium: One big thing separates the atheists from other sides in the ongoing religious debates: only atheists insist that their opponents do not think. ...

Not true. We merely point out when you try to dismiss critical thinking and the scientific method. Farking Canuck said it best above.

nmemkha: meat0918: You haven't met many atheists then, or more likely you're letting your biases get in the way of your view of them.

I've yet to meet one that outright dismisses the spiritual cannot exist. Not one is 100% certain of it. It's just that the evidence for the literal Biblical interpretation of God (which in my experience is typically what is being advocated by fundamentalists these days, you may or may not be one of them) is quite lacking in the face of the current level of scientific understanding. Fit him in the gaps if you must, but don't try to legislate him into those gaps or reopen ones long since closed.

I think we're potentia ...

Fair enough. But, look at this thread. How many posts are snarky statement belittling religion and religious people. How many are theists doing the same?

Welcome to Fark. If you'd like to see the roles reversed, go to Free Republic or some other online conservative forum.

/+5 points for number of bites you've received, -several more for lack of style.

browntimmy: My near death experience was a vision of Zeus and Bigfoot locked in a passionate embrace. Lots of heavy petting, and some Scottish dudes playing bagpipes behind them. I know you think I'm joking, but I'm not, these are my personal beliefs therefore you're not allowed to laugh at me.

I think we've all had that wet dream when we were 12. It is perfectly natural and a part of growing up.

Right?

Queensowntalia: Millennium: One big thing separates the atheists from other sides in the ongoing religious debates: only atheists insist that their opponents do not think.

Citation needed.

I'm willing to bet there are plenty of religious sorts who'd make exactly that argument. Don't let that stop you from making generalizations based on your own prejudices, though, because what fun would that be?

That would be proving a negative. Your own logic puts the onus on you to counter my claim, which I've worded such that even a counter example -a single person not on the side of the atheists, making the claim that any other side in the debate doesn't think- would be sufficient. Can you truly find none?

I'll tell you this: I don't think you can. I certainly couldn't. You recognize that the accusation I'm making is, in fact, quite a serious one: do you really think I would make it if I had ever, even once, found a counterexample? So go ahead; I dare you to find one. I'd actually feel a whole lot better about humanity in general if you could. But you won't. This particular meme has gotten its claws into one side, and its nature prevents it from taking any kind of hold in any other.

"Somebody is pimping a book" would have sufficed, submitter.

Really all we need to know.

The Billdozer: Gaius: Following a car accident, I spent a week in an induced coma. The coma is so deep that there is virtually no brain activity so you are put on life support. I don't remember a damn thing about it; no lights, no voices, nothing.

That's what makes these experiences of NDEs (and Out of Body experiences, especially when they have verified information) so interesting. To our understanding of science and neuroscience in particular, they absolutely should not happen. Period. When people are conscious during life-threatening situations or just after being resuscitated, they usually are distressed, jumbled, groggy, disorganized and unaware of events. The NDE experiences describe experiences that are completely coherent, aware, and more real than reality itself. When people go on DMT trips, they experience a distorted view of reality and are aware that it is distorted. NDE experiences describe something that feels realer than real and nothing that would be out of the ordinary (distorted body image, elongated limbs, etc.) aside from being dead. And while there are a few negative ones, most have certain basic similarities about knowledge of existence, universal love and acceptance, etc and although some do have eastern/western religious influence, not many are "Ok, here's Jesus taking me to see St. Peter in heaven" but of something that is basically a universal feeling of love and oneness. Or, at least that is what is reported.

I had a religious upbringing, although I never truly believed. Studying philosophy in college further reinforced that feeling, and instilled in me an Epicurean view on death; that there is nothing after life. Perhaps my views on life and death influenced me on the most basic of subconscious levels, preventing a NDE.

Whatever the case, after reading this article I feel jipped.

poonesfarm: Although I considered myself a faithful Christian... I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself.

Uh...what?

It's a common misconception by those who cannot think in anything but binary concepts. Being a scientist and believing in God aren't and never have been mutually exclusive conditions. They only seem so to those lacking in experience in either but who like to believe they're enlightened, intelligent and educated.

RanDomino: Millennium
There is a disturbing element of dehumanization in the argument that one's opponents do not think. It also the concept of debate useless: there is no point in a meeting of minds if one of those minds doesn't acknowledge the other. It's also one of the most fundamentally dishonest arguments a person can make about other people: we think. It's what we do. It is a pity, then, that this line of argument has become fashionable among the atheists of our time to use it, because it makes it so easy to ignore such people as the zealots they are. They damage their own side more than they realize.

Believing without doubting or requiring evidence is not thinking.

Not by your model, but your model excludes quite a lot. It has value in some particular fields of study, but is woefully incomplete as a guiding principle for life in general.

czetie: boyofd: BraveNewCheneyWorld: czetie: In the entire documented history of near death experiences, out-of-body experiences, visit-to-heaven experiences, etc., nobody has ever come back knowing some objective fact that they couldn't previously have known. Not even something as trivial as the fact that open-mined neurosurgeons have placed a piece of paper on top of one of the shelves in the operating theater that says "If you can read this, you are having a real out-of-body experience".

Except for the cases where people can describe their surgery and conversations the doctors had, yeah, there's absolutely none.

Were their brains and ears not in the room when the surgery took place? Holy cow, that's even more amazing than the OBE.

Thank you. I have BNCW on ignore because of his long history of stupidity, so I didn't see that particularly stupid response. Since to this day we don't really understand how anesthesia works, and keeping a patient under is more art than science, and there are even studies that show that patients do better in recovery if the surgical team make positive comments while the patient is supposedly under... no shiat, people can sometimes recall what happened in the OR. It's not exactly mysterious. One very common recollection is "Doctor, the patient is awake". Now, if they could describe the surgery that was taking place simultaneously in the next theater over... then I'd be impressed.

Again: show me the verified instance where somebody having an out-of-body experience described what was unexpectedly on the top shelf and you have something more than the subjective experience of the brain messing around.

/Did you know that it's now possible to induce an OBE on demand with powerful magnetic fields?

Didn't realize who I was dealing with. I have now bumped another comment or two for your viewing displeasure.

Son of Thunder: Deep Contact: He wears a bow tie.

Bow ties are cool.

The view of unity and complete inter-connectivity of all things, as well as the beauty of the "garden" and massive underpininning of love have always been at the core of Buddhist and Hindu belief systems. Bravo Doc for tuning in and writing about it so well.