I have been reading different perspectives about an experience Dr. Eben Alexander had and is written in Newsweek called.”Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife.” I gained access to written material through The Daily Beast written on Oct 8th 2012. Also additional information from the Sam Harris Blog, and entitled article,”This Must Be Heaven,” on October 12, 2012.
A review of this article also by PZMeyers, called,”Newsweek panders to the deluded again.“
Okay, so you know, I assume most scientists take the position of PZMeyers in terms of the proof that is required in terms of the validation of experience that is easily reproducible. We want other people to be able to objectively tell their point of view when it comes to the issues regarding the near death experience. Not to regard their training in terms of their education so as to be thwarted or derailed by experiencing reality in a new and profound way.
So if you are a scientist, what procedures would you ask that such adventure be placed before such subjective investigation that one would say they have dealt responsibly with the research and development of a method to a “compilable experiencer of truth finding and factual evidence?”
So of course for me, to see consciousness induced and being able to provide for the similarity of experience would be evidence for the reproducibility of at least explaining the basis of the experience.Would it not for you?
In, “The Photon and Emergence,” I begin to deal with a perspective and question about how we all perceive reality. Is this not an acceptable point of view about what emergence implies as one talks about the masslessness of being, while being a materialist in a material world?
I ventured to say that while I may see in terms of Lagrangian in as a classical description of our universe, it is almost if, I had taken to verse and felt moved, seeing the self as a massless being, as moving through the Cosmo. The easiest and fastest route traveled, without becoming attached to the environs of the materialist worlds.
Does it not seem that the environs of such worlds are as luring in thought as the question of what our attachments are in how meaning becomes our friend toward such expressions? So while Myers sees the original experience of Dr Eben Alexander as an conflated adaption of the original by virtue of the written after math, such is the reality of forming perspective raised by the definition. This attempt at finding and explaining the originality of the experience. Should we be asking, have you experienced same?
So then indeed what is the equative formulation of such experience that one may follow not only the logic of but of the science as well.
In the park there is something quite luring and settling in my own mind about what we experience in the material world and how we find meaning. I mean this is what we find in uniqueness of our own characterizations of being that one could tell each other apart from another.
It would be far removed then from conduct becoming of being, that such a person would defile another based on their telling experience. Sure, one may not have recognized the value of the psychological in terms of what meaning plays in a person’s life. Why, one can be seen as being quite insensitive to the quest for defining and explaining the originality of that experience. The detractor, as a stance of scientific investigation I may say as another, “be kind and truthful to yourself, ” while being absent of the same originality of experience you see.
As a layman I find this of particular importance when we send our vision out amongst the stars, all the while looking at the substance of these events “within the larger context of the universe.”
Working from the same periphery of dialogue that an experiencier adds to the artifact of originality, may be displayed in analogy as some Spherical Cow of the reasoning of the sort as to finding the originality in expression? Yet, we use all the ways and means to define the experience of that moment by what elements lead to the discretion of the original? What was it’s original form? What motivations defined in the expression of the cosmos of being?
So we use the backdrop of measure to define the decay product of the original as to say that the original existed at some point defined in 10 -43seconds as an act, do we say, that such existence is not part and parcel now of the elements of the whole universe?