Does death truly kill us?

What doesn't die when our bodies do?

What doesn’t die when our bodies do?

My personal belief is that the better we answer this question — Does death truly kill us? — the better off we as an evolving planet will be.

This is a question that as a general rule science is not motivated to answer. However, there is an ever-increasing pile of anecdotal evidence that life goes on after death — that consciousness survives the demise of the body.

Some have opined that the reason why science doesn’t want to tackle this question is that the answer is not conducive to profits. Scientific research is most often funded when there is a profit to be made from the work. Ignorance is better for corporations because then they can sell products that play off the fear of death.

It would change the whole dynamics of fear to learn that Earth is not the chaotic mess it often appears to be. Rather, life here is an orderly Earth School curriculum where the point of our physical existence through a multiplicity of different lifetimes is to learn about love. Our bodies die off but our souls eventually slip into new bodies, new lives. It this were proven and commonly accepted, it would mess up the profit-making paradigms found in life insurance, health care, the war industry, the entertainment industry (war movies!) and a bunch of other things.

People who have had near-death, out-of-body, or other spiritually transformative experiences¬† frequently lose their fear of death and radically change their lifestyle to one of love and compassion. It changes their whole outlook on life. They have something to tell us if we’ll drop our preconceptions and habituated thinking long enough to listen. These people are easy to find. They are not hidden in remote outposts of the Himalayas. They’re all over Facebook and YouTube.

We just need to start paying attention.

7 thoughts on “Does death truly kill us?

  1. eremophila says:

    Death is easy. Dying a little harder. Living well is exceedingly difficult!
    I agree with you on the profit-making industries. Profits not prophets.

  2. Ricardo Jorge says:

    I think the reason science doesn’t focus on near death experiences is because we know that consciousness is a product of our brain, and that nothing else (like a soul) is storing our personality and memories independently from our brain. And when the brain dies, so does everything about us.

    There have been people that after brain damage, developed a different personality than before, or even lost all memory and became essentially a different person. If there was a soul independent from the brain, with a connection to it, I believe memories and personality wouldn’t be lost. And if that soul doesn’t store our memories or our personality, how is it any different from the soul of any other person?

    My mother had a car accident, and when she woke up in the hospital after a week in coma, she didn’t recognize us, herself and even thought she was of a different religion than her own. That made me very skeptical of the concept of a soul.

    Also, I have some scientist friends that study things related to artificial intelligence, and the work they do is so abstract that it will take decades before it can be used in anything remotely profitable. Not being profitable isn’t the problem. If there was something to be found, there would be people working on it.

    • Joshua Bagby says:

      We know that consciousness is a product of our brain

      Many people who have had near-death experiences would disagree with that, including Dr. Eben Alexander, the neurosurgeon who wrote about his NDE in his book “Proof of Heaven.” (That title, by the way, was his publisher’s idea, not his.) There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that supports the idea that consciousness occurs outside of the brain, or at lest where the brain is located.

      • Ricardo Jorge says:

        Well, that only constitutes anecdotal evidence like you said. It isn’t reason for making it sound like a conspiracy.
        And the brain damage evidence is more abundant and understood. Before my mom awoke of from the coma, the neurosurgeon had already told us that from the place that was hit, she probably would have no memory when she would wake up.
        And I’d like to see whether other neurosurgeons and scientists agree with that one, or if this is like the climate change deniers, where about 3 “scientists” think that climate isn’t changing, while the other thousands understand that it is.
        Oh, and since you can induce near death experiences with chemicals, it’s very hard to believe they are some sort of transition of dimension or something like that.

        I don’t want to seem hateful or overly critical, but some of these subjects are very near to me and I’ve seen consequences of people believing in this stuff over and over, even if there is no good reason to believe them.
        Even if there is an afterlife (very unlikely), we shouldn’t believe there is one unless there is good reason. Until then, we should behave like there isn’t any (this also works for gods, karma, astrology, homeopathy and other things people believe without good reason).

  3. Joshua Bagby says:

    Ricardo, I can remember, and it was not that long ago, when “scientists” thought that climate change was entirely woo-woo and the people who were giving out warnings about it were nuts.

    I can appreciate where you are coming from. My own position is that having personally heard about a hundred people describe their NDEs, let alone all the literature, websites, and videos on YouTube I’ve encountered, there is more than enough anecdotal information to justify our studying “do we really die?” more scientifically. I often wonder about scientific priorities of what gets researched (and how much it costs) and what doesn’t. I have always thought that if NDEs are actually products of a dying brain, then we should at least be studying this incredible experience. Speaking of which, what usually separates a “real” NDE from a drug-induced NDE-like experience is the dramatic personality change that happens in the real ones. Artificial NDEs create symptoms common to an NDE but are not emotionally gripping like the real deal.

    I am very sorry to hear what happened to your mother. Brain injuries can indeed create heart-wrenching situations as several of my friends have personally discovered in their own lives, either as victim or caretaker.

    • Ricardo Jorge says:

      We found out about climate change through data gathered throughout the years. It’s logical for scientists to not trust the data until enough is gathered. And that explains why they wouldn’t all trust it the start, but now it’s more than evident that the climate is getting warmer, and “scientists” who say they don’t believe are just reading the data wrong or doing it it for religious reasons.

      The near death experiences don’t have the same problem, all the data we have points to the brain creating the illusion of a conscience and it being changed when the brain is changed, and dying when the brain dies.

      And as for the drug induced NDE’s and the “real” ones, that could be explained from the point that the people on the drug induced ones know that it wasn’t a real near death experience. It would be like if you did an experiment where you gave someone a enzyme that would change their serotonin into another compound that didn’t fulfill the original role. They would get all slow, uninterested, sad, apathetic and depressed, but they would know why, so they probably wouldn’t want to kill themselves like people with real depressions do. If they didn’t know about the experiment, they would probably have a reaction much closer to real depressed people.

      And, except for ethical problems, it doesn’t seem that hard to do an experiment where you would induce a near death experience to some subjects and then tell some of them that there was an accident or medical emergency and that they nearly died (so they would think it was a real near death experience). And then check the reactions. I’m sure the people who thought it was a real near death experience would have a much more profound reaction than the controls.

      That’s a very weak stance, and there seems to be no reason to believe it, except fear of it not being true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s