Proof of Survival After Death

[AttheGates1996]

THE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH

We have had the experimental proof of survival after death ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day - The Quarterly Journal of Science - in 1874. These were repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions. International teams of scientists then repeated the experiments and obtained the same results. People who had once lived on earth came back and proved to these scientific teams that they had conquered death and were still very much alive. This is what Professor Charles Richet, the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, said about the experiments:

   "There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact."

The purpose of this pamphlet is only to bring to peoples' attention these exciting discoveries in subatomic physics. My job is easy, all I have to do is point to the books that have been published, but suppressed. The main reason why this incredible scientific discovery did not cause a revolution at the beginning of this century is because these experiments lacked the backing of any detailed mathematical theory. This is what Sir Oliver Lodge said in 1929:

   "We have to be guided by the facts; and if the facts seem incredible as the they do - we have first of all to assure ourselves that they are facts, and then conclude that there is a department of knowledge to which we have as yet not got the key."

At the end of the century we now have the key, the missing mathematical theory to back up these revolutionary, scientific experiments.

Source: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html

I don't really have an opinion on this but it very interesting, just wish there was more told about it.

[esoteric]

I can't say I am convinced by something that reads worse than an article in a popular science magazine. They need to explain the theories rather than give the background behind them.  

[shadowmystic]

Ever heard of quantum immortality, it's a strange speculation that states that it may be possible that when someone dies, assuming that there are many parallel universes, they probably survive in at least a few of them, and their conciousness continues in those.  It seems a bit far fetched, not to mention creepy, thinking about my near death experiences wondering if perhaps I did die in a different universe.  The main flaw I see in it is that it assumes that the consciousness is transcendent, and I don't see how this could be possible.  As for the article posted, it seems like nonsense, but then again I'm not exactly an expert on these matters.

[Vajra]

Ever heard of quantum immortality, it's a strange speculation that states that it may be possible that when someone dies, assuming that there are many parallel universes, they probably survive in at least a few of them, and their conciousness continues in those.  It seems a bit far fetched, not to mention creepy, thinking about my near death experiences wondering if perhaps I did die in a different universe.  The main flaw I see in it is that it assumes that the consciousness is transcendent, and I don't see how this could be possible.  As for the article posted, it seems like nonsense, but then again I'm not exactly an expert on these matters.

Is there any way that individual consciousness can literally (whatever 'stuff' it is) continue to exist (ie. be individual) after the brain has stopped functioning? I can't see it, myself.

[antithetikal]

Is there any way that individual consciousness can literally (whatever 'stuff' it is) continue to exist (ie. be individual) after the brain has stopped functioning? I can't see it, myself.

Possibly, after all I doubt our consciousness depends on our body to exist. But this is merely an assumption, I'm not quite sure about this.

[AttheGates1996]

I agree that this article is nonsense and doesn't really explain the theories well enough to understand anything about them.

I attempted to research more on the topic but I couldn't really find a stated theory about "proving life after death." Instead I found many stories about near death experiences and all kinds of interesting stories of deceased ones contacting people still alive. I even found stories of dogs who seemed to have an uncanny sense of sensing disaster.

Life after death seems possible to me, but I still don't think that I would connect it to any religion. What if the idea of heaven and hell came from people in the past who had near death experiences, and they just attempted to explain them through stories? All of the stories seem to vary and I don't think there is a set guideline for what happens to one's soul or conscience after death.

[oogaa]

The idea of life after death is utter nonsense. I'am not talking about it in terms of the religions but the idea itself is pretty idiotic to say the least. We think, feel, breathe ,live all because of mere chemical reactions within our body and when that stops happening, we're  no different than the table on which your monitor is mounted up.

To be honest, I like the idea (or fact) of nothingness after death a million times better than life after death.

[AttheGates1996]

The idea of life after death is utter nonsense. I'am not talking about it in terms of the religions but the idea itself is pretty idiotic to say the least. We think, feel, breathe ,live all because of mere chemical reactions within our body and when that stops happening, we're  no different than the table on which your monitor is mounted up.

To be honest, I like the idea (or fact) of nothingness after death a million times better than life after death.

I somewhat agree. I much rather be deceased after death. That was, and mostly still is, my belief about after life. I don't know why I just find myself questioning it a bit more. We do consist of more than just chemicals though, our conscience and our soul is energy and if I'm not mistaken some one theorized that energy lasts forever, just in different forms.

[Vajra]

Possibly, after all I doubt our consciousness depends on our body to exist. But this is merely an assumption, I'm not quite sure about this.

In order for it to be 'ours', I think our body does have to exist.

[esoteric]

The idea of life after death is utter nonsense. I'am not talking about it in terms of the religions but the idea itself is pretty idiotic to say the least. We think, feel, breathe ,live all because of mere chemical reactions within our body and when that stops happening, we're  no different than the table on which your monitor is mounted up.

To be honest, I like the idea (or fact) of nothingness after death a million times better than life after death.

The whole point, as i understand it, is rejecting the theory of materialism as it was stated by Einstein. We exist in more than just a material form, therefore it is possible to continue to exist after our thinking, feeling and breathing ceases. That doesn't mean we are able to think, but it envisages the our continuance after our physical death.

However, they didn't state the experiment whereby people come back from the dead and that is apparently verifiable mathematically. It's strange that I couldn't find it on that site.

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

I somewhat agree. I much rather be deceased after death. That was, and mostly still is, my belief about after life. I don't know why I just find myself questioning it a bit more. We do consist of more than just chemicals though, our conscience and our soul is energy and if I'm not mistaken some one theorized that energy lasts forever, just in different forms.

Then we can also argue that we have always existed. What makes intelligent life different from the rest of the universe is its ability to think, after we think we are no longer living and therefor me as an individual does not exist. Just may raw components. I wouldn't think I would live after death simply because part of my physical body was used in the construction of a house.

[AttheGates1996]

Then we can also argue that we have always existed. What makes intelligent life different from the rest of the universe is its ability to think, after we think we are no longer living and therefor me as an individual does not exist. Just may raw components. I wouldn't think I would live after death simply because part of my physical body was used in the construction of a house.

I didn't quite understand the second sentence, but I certainly don't believe that we will ever be able to live a similar life ever again. Just maybe our consciousness will carry on to somewhere else, or as something else. Maybe a ghost, or maybe another universe. It is all uncertain, and I still highly doubt the likeliness of an after life.

And I don't think, according to this theory, that we have always existed, but that this is our first life in which our conscious was born from the complex ever evolving organ in specimens known as the brain. Like I said, highly unlikely, just a thought.

[oogaa]

The whole point, as i understand it, is rejecting the theory of materialism as it was stated by Einstein. We exist in more than just a material form, therefore it is possible to continue to exist after our thinking, feeling and breathing ceases. That doesn't mean we are able to think, but it envisages the our continuance after our physical death.

I see what you mean but I fail to see how it actually applies. We glorify oursleves by implying that we do not exist simply materiliastically. You're separating humans from the rest of the species in this world simply because we can think better or do you think that this 'after life' applies to all the animals along with humans?

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

I didn't quite understand the second sentence, but I certainly don't believe that we will ever be able to live a similar life ever again. Just maybe our consciousness will carry on to somewhere else, or as something else. Maybe a ghost, or maybe another universe. It is all uncertain, and I still highly doubt the likeliness of an after life.

And I don't think, according to this theory, that we have always existed, but that this is our first life in which our conscious was born from the complex ever evolving organ in specimens known as the brain. Like I said, highly unlikely, just a thought.

Well you said that energy from us carries on, and as you said energy cannot be destroyed or created. Therefore if you believe that the energy from us carries on after our death and if that energy is "from the soul" it constitutes some kind of afterlife. But at the same time it can be a logical conclusion that we have always existed because energy cannot be destroyed or created.

With what i said about my broken down remains being used for construction was saying that I don't believe physical energy counts as an afterlife.

[AttheGates1996]

Well you said that energy from us carries on, and as you said energy cannot be destroyed or created. Therefore if you believe that the energy from us carries on after our death and if that energy is "from the soul" it constitutes some kind of afterlife. But at the same time it can be a logical conclusion that we have always existed because energy cannot be destroyed or created.

With what i said about my broken down remains being used for construction was saying that I don't believe physical energy counts as an afterlife.

I agree with the physical energy aspect.

The energy that forms our soul could have at one point not been a human conscious and when I refer to what I said earlier about the conscious being born, I should have specified the possibility of, not the creation of energy, but a collaboration of energy that already existed.

I'm also not trying to argue with you on this. My stance still remains neutral.