From: kimbawlion@aol.com   
      
   Alistair@nothere.com wrote:   
      
   >I assume that you must belive this cyucle of life and reincarnation   
   >stuff. I respect that and I would not try to convince you otherwise   
      
   Heh... Then what was the rest of your post about?   
      
   >Consciousness and awareness begin when there is enough physical brain   
   >and functioning connections to support them.   
      
   Evidence of consciousness is acknowledged when the consciousness/brain   
   interface matures to a pattern that we recognize.   
      
   That's not just New Age mumbo jumbo. The study of neonatal infants is   
   constantly redefining what a baby is aware of. Just a few years ago, it was   
   accepted scientific fact that babies did not feel pain, in spite of the   
   evidence of boy babies' screams when being circumcised. What is, and what   
   we recognize, are two different things.   
      
   >It is strongly accepted   
   >in the scientific and medical community (those people with a detailed   
   >understanding of the brain, it's chemistry, and  functions), that   
   >consciousness stops when the brain can no longer physically support   
   >its operation.   
      
   It is not.   
      
   In fact, many researchers have braved potential ostacism from their   
   physical sciences by stating that their research has led them to conclude   
   that consciousness cannot be fully explained without including the   
   "spiritual realm".   
      
   >While there is no evidence of consciousness surviving   
   >physical death   
      
   There is plenty of such evidence. Look up Dr. Ian Stevenson.   
      
   >the odds of such a occurance are remote.   
      
   That is just an assumption based on other assumptions.   
      
   >This is   
   >evidenced by reduced consciousness or impared perception in people   
   >with certain brain damage (e.g., if a consciousness capable of   
   >awareness existed seperate from the brain, reduced function after   
   >brain damage would be unlikely).   
      
   That explanation only works with the assumption that the brain is the   
   source of consciousness. However, if we recognize that the brain is the   
   _interface_ between consciousness and the physical body, then situations   
   you describe are perfectly understandable.   
      
   >This implies some sort of pre-birth holding-area for the   
   >consciousness...as unlikely as a "holding area" for the consciousness   
   >after death (Heaven...Hell?....hmmm...that's another discussion   
   >entirely).   
      
   "Liklihood" is an assumption, not any proof of anything.   
      
   We are spiritual being having a physical experience, not, as most assume in   
   the case of NDEs, physical beings who have spiritual experiences. The   
   "holding area" for consciousness is ourselves.   
      
   > Well, this arguement certainly has been recycled.  New age hoo-hah.   
   >In the physical "realm" (gosh, that word makes it sound so...mystical   
   > we live only once. Abraham Lincoln died...and he is still dead.   
   >So is Caesar, Einstein, and the guy who, for the first time in   
   >history,  intentionally hand-planted an apple tree with the intent of   
   >harvesting its fruit. None have come back.   
      
   You talk of proof, but you take a stance that is utterly unprovable.   
      
   >People like cycles...they comfort us.   
      
   How many times have I heard the specious argument that we "make up" these   
   ideas to comfort ourselves? (Too many.)   
      
   >But when   
   >speaking of reincarnation, we get into "fuzzy" science. We know when   
   >consciousness occurs...we can put electrodes on a fetus and measure   
   >its brain fucntion.   
      
   You're using fuzzy logic. All we know from that is the point at which we   
   can measure brain activity.   
      
   >We can measure when an infant first becomes aware   
   >of "self."   
      
   No, we can only observe when the infant gives a response which we interpret   
   as self awareness. Such things actually only measure our own awareness.   
      
   It's similar lack of recognition that led to the false (but "scientific")   
   idea that animals have no self-awareness.   
      
   >To confirm an afterlife, we'd really   
   >need to talk to several folks who have been dead a while - I'm   
   >speaking of hours or even days...not just flatlined and revived   
      
   You seem to be setting up conditions which you know are unachievable. Why   
   is you specified time period so important?   
      
   Anyway, in actuality, Dr. Stevenson did just what you describe. The   
   consciousnesses just happened to be in different bodies when he interviewed   
   them.   
      
   >Confirming reincarnation defies measurement. As such,   
   >we should must assume it does not exist   
      
   Regardless of whether it's a "should" or a "must", all you are proposing is   
   that because we do not have physical instruments to measure something, it   
   cannot possibly exist. Go back a few years, and you can say the same thing   
   about infrared or ultraviolet light, etc.etc.   
      
   >But the bottom line is that we have no   
   >evidence of a conscious, individual awareness existance after   
   >death...and lots of evidence that there is none   
      
   There is no such thing as evidence of nonexistence, and if you think there   
   is, then you need to do a serious defuzzification of your own "scientific"   
   thought processes.   
      
   The problem lies in what limitations you place on what can be called   
   evidence. I have remembered one of my past lives. I have talked to the   
   spirit of someone shortly after she died. And I have other experiences that   
   prove to me that consciousness most certainly survives any physical body.   
   But, because none of my experiences can be measured or weighed, they're not   
   "evidence".   
      
   >Personally, I've found my lack of belief to be incredibly freeing.   
   >Everything I do takes on a new importance and a new significance.   
   >Sure, there are downsides. I know that when my friends and family die,   
   >we will not be "reunited" in some cozy place where we will all live   
   >together for eternity. But in exchange, I have a new respect and   
   >appreciation for life.   
      
   This is the explanation for the nature of your NDE (or should I say,   
   non-NDE). You have experienced a healing and growing experience. NDEs are   
   not identical. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are guided.   
   You received what you needed.   
      
   >Belief in an afterlife dilutes us...belief in reincarnation, even more   
   >so. With those beliefs, we can have a second chance. We put off what   
   >we should do, we don't do the right thing because we can always "ask   
   >for forgiveness" or even have a second chance to live our lives right.   
   >. Tell you what - keep believing - but live right this time   
   >anyway .   
      
   I could make an equal argument against the idea that we have one life   
   followed by oblivion. Why worry about what you do if nothing exists after   
   this life? Grab what you can, screw over who you can, you'll end up just as   
   dead anyway.   
      
   Not that I'm saying your conclusions are wrong. Living "right" is what we   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)