Archive for the ‘Filosofia’ Category

Filosofia, contemporanea: The Philosophers Magazine

domingo, outubro 8th, 2017


Esperar resultado ( do governo) em 10/out. Se positive, completar subscricao (U$ 6,00 ) e ler primeiro o artigo sobre a a Natureza da Vida…

Teoria dos Modelos

sábado, outubro 7th, 2017


Model Theory

`A primeira vista, aconteceu com o conceito de “modelo” o mesmo que aconteceu com o conceito de sistemas. De repente deixaram o objeto real, o fato, para um lado e se entregaram a exercitar as abstracoes mentais sobe o fato ( Already by the late 17th century the word “model” could mean an object that shows the form, not of real-world objects, but of mathematical constructs. Leibniz boasted that he didn’t need models in order to do mathematics.)

Pode se ver isto nesta encyclopedia definindo teoria dos modelos. Ela inicia falando do que ‘e a teoria em matematica e so’ mais tarde retorna ao que realmente e’ modelo de fato.

Ler com mais tempo isto para conhecer a historia da evolucao do pensamento a respeito deste assunto:


O que causa as instantâneas “experiencias fora do corpo”? Cientistas Dizem que e’ Falha nos Ouvidos!

segunda-feira, agosto 14th, 2017


(Traduzir artigo e comentario)

What Causes Spooky Out-of-Body Experiences? It Could Be Your Ears

And my comments posted at 8/14/2017

 Louis Charles Morelli

We have scientists and their technical article focused on the ear, and all comments below from the public saying that is not the ear, it is… a thing called “soul”. Nature working in its way, the universal duality of opposites is here. But, Nature also has another universal trait: at initial conditions of any system, arises two extreme opposites which are in mutual conflict. The conflict creates chaos around, and suffering for both. The suffering makes they wake up, conflict is worst, then, they join as a par. The par produces a third element, which is more evolved than the two parents. Ok, it means that who is right here, is not scientists, neither mystics. Must have a third alternative, with the right solution. Which is it? I think is Matrix/DNA Theory world view. It suggests that we humans, carries on ahead with the function of a egg. Inside the egg there is the amnion and placenta, which are the brain. The fact of spinal cord means that the egg was recently fecundated, the cord is the remains of spermatozoon’s tail. The creature being generated has a body under formation composed by energy from the synapses. This is the physical, hardware part of the creature. Which has under formation its software, its mind, which we call consciousness, composed by the cloud of light resulting from the energy sparks.
So, we are 8 billion half-conscious genes building a baby consciousness. My friends scientists and religious… this conflict is no intelligent. Because, genes are mortally dependable of their own success but also of the other 8 billion success. If one unique gene does not make his/her work, we – the baby – will born handicapped.
Which has the best belief that produces the best moral code for a better humanity? The scientists belief is too much “could”, mechanistic, does not respect the humans emotions, felling, etc. The “souls” believers are too much metaphysicals, while the embryo that need work is here, at material ground. The Matrix/DNA supporters are trying to help all 8 billion genes for to get good life’s conditions for doing well their job that we need. Think about that…
Other good article about this issue:
The woman who ‘can leave her body at will’: Student sheds light on the strange brain activity involved in out-of-body experiences

Read more:

Tempo: Experiencias Quanticas Indicam que Nao Existe

domingo, agosto 13th, 2017


Mind-Altering Quantum Experiment Shows Time Has Never Existed As We Think It Does

Posted on

Article Source: Cosmic Scientist

In 2012 US National Medal of Science award winner Yakir Aharonov, who is regarded as one of the world’s leading quantum theorists published a paper in Nature Physics showing that the present is constrained by the past and the future. This means that what happens in the present can depend on what happened in the future, which makes no sense, as quantum physics rarely does. It also means that what happened in the past can effect the present. Seems strange, doesn’t it?  It’s definitely something hard to wrap your head around.

“We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.” Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate of the twentieth century (Radin, Dean. Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences In A Quantum Reality. New York, Paraview Pocket Books, 2006)

This isn’t the first time quantum physicists have studied the structure of time. Below are details of an experiment, the same one mentioned in the paper cited above.

Delayed Choice/Quantum Eraser/Time

There is another groundbreaking, weird experiment that also has tremendous implications for understanding the nature of our reality, more specifically, the nature of what we call “time.”

It’s known as the “delayed-choice” experiment, or “quantum eraser,” and it can be considered a modified version of the double slit experiment.

To understand the delayed choice experiment, you have to understand the quantum double slit experiment.

In this experiment, tiny bits of matter (photons, electrons, or any atomic-sized object) are shot towards a screen that has two slits in it. On the other side of the screen, a high tech video camera records where each photon lands. When scientists close one slit, the camera will show us an expected pattern, as seen in the video below. But when both slits are opened, an “interference pattern” emerges – they begin to act like waves. This doesn’t mean that atomic objects are observed as a wave (even though it recently has been observed as a wave), they just act that way. It means that each photon individually goes through both slits at the same time and interferes with itself, but it also goes through one slit, and it goes through the other. Furthermore, it goes through neither of them. The single piece of matter becomes a “wave” of potentials, expressing itself in the form of multiple possibilities, and this is why we get the interference pattern.

How can a single piece of matter exist and express itself in multiple states, without any physical properties, until it is “measured” or “observed?” Furthermore, how does it choose which path, out of multiple possibilities, it will take?

Then, when an “observer” decides to measure and look at which slit the piece of matter goes through, the “wave” of potential paths collapses into one single path. The particle goes from becoming, again, a “wave” of potentials into one particle taking a single route. It’s as if the particle knows it’s being watched. The observer has some sort of effect on the behavior of the particle.

You can view a visual demonstration/explanation of the double slit experiment here.

This quantum uncertainty is defined as the ability, “according to the quantum mechanic laws that govern subatomic affairs, of a particle like an electron to exist in a murky state of possibility — to be anywhere, everywhere or nowhere at all — until clicked into substantiality by a laboratory detector or an eyeball.” (New York Times)

According to physicist Andrew Truscott, lead researcher from a study published by the Australian National University, the experiment suggests that “reality does not exist unless we are looking at it.” It suggests that we are living in a holographic-type of universe. (source)

Delayed Choice/Quantum Eraser/Time

So, how is all of this information relevant to the concept of time? Just as the double slit experiment illustrates how factors associated with consciousness collapse the quantum wave function (a piece of matter existing in multiple potential states) into a single piece of matter with defined physical properties (no longer a wave, all those potential states collapsed into one), the delayed choice experiment illustrates how what happens in the present can change what happens(ed) in the past. It also shows how time can go backwards, how cause and effect can be reversed, and how the future caused the past.

Like the quantum double slit experiment, the delayed choice/quantum eraser has been demonstrated and repeated time and time again. For example, Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, the findings were recently published in the journal Nature Physics. (source)

In 2007 (Science 315, 966, 2007), scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus and showed that their actions could retroactively change something which had already happened.

“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” – Asher Peres, pioneer in quantum information theory (source)(source)(source)

The list literally goes on and on, and was first brought to the forefront by John Wheeler, in 1978, which is why I am going to end this article with his explanation of the delayed choice experiment. He believed that this experiment was best explained on a cosmic scale.

Cosmic Scale Explanation

He asks us to imagine a star emitting a photon billions of years ago, heading in the direction of planet Earth. In between, there is a galaxy. As a result of what’s known as “gravitational lensing,” the light will have to bend around the galaxy in order to reach Earth, so it has to take one of two paths, go left or go right. Billions of years later, if one decides to set up an apparatus to “catch” the photon, the resulting pattern would be (as explained above in the double slit experiment) an interference pattern. This demonstrates that the photon took one way, and it took the other way.

One could also choose to “peek” at the incoming photon, setting up a telescope on each side of the galaxy to determine which side the photon took to reach Earth. The very act of measuring or “watching” which way the photon comes in means it can only come in from one side. The pattern will no longer be an interference pattern representing multiple possiblities, but a single clump pattern showing “one” way.

What does this mean? It means how we choose to measure “now” affects what direction the photon took billions of years ago. Our choice in the present moment affected what had already happened in the past….

This makes absolutely no sense, which is a common phenomenon when it comes to quantum physics. Regardless of our ability make sense of it, it’s real.

This experiment also suggests that quantum entanglement (which has also been verified, read more about that here) exists regardless of time. Meaning two bits of matter can actually be entangled, again, in time.

Time as we measure it and know it, doesn’t really exist.

Article Source: Cosmic Scientist

Video de lobos e cervos reconstruindo o ecossitema

domingo, agosto 13th, 2017


A existência de predadores e presas revela uma natureza estupida, cruel. Mas sem uma programação genética para conter superpopulação, não tem como produzir um ecossistema sem predadores. Este vídeo ( se for verdadeiro e contar toda a historia) mostra isso

Maravilhas del equilibrio de la naturaleza

Adão e Eva e o Paraíso, a Queda,… esta sendo provado pela Matrix/DNA?

quarta-feira, agosto 9th, 2017


Num debate na Internet consegui explicar uma das teorias da Matrix/DNA de forma nunca pensada antes. Registro aqui o debate para pensar nisto:

luvdomus  – 4 hours ago – 8/9/17:

The ‘jump” of abiogensis was a series of very small steps over millions of years.

There was no origins of life, so, no jump of abiogenesis. Biological systems (aka,life) were built by the building blocks of this galaxy, which worked as photons-genes and became the building blocks of DNA. All known properties of life were existing in less evolved state at this galaxy, by entropy its information fail to Earth surface, as the initial conditions. See at my avatar and website the face of LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor) the evolutionary link between inorganic and organic, but it never came to Earth, it is surrounding us in the sky. Ok I described my theory. But you said “The ‘jump” of abiogenesis was a series of very small steps over millions of years”, in an affirmative way. You was not there, you have not watched it, so you need to advise that you have a theory. Time and more data will solve which is the best.

+Luvdomus – Why do you believe it happened by small steps? Science has never shown life to come from non life in small steps or big steps ever. So why would you believe it?
+Luvdomus – that’s because bacteria and viruses also play a roll in the complexity of life , this video did not get to that yet. Also 4 billion years of evolving matter to living things is hardly a jump. Do you really understand how long 4 billion years is ?

Smoothsay2 Smoothsay 

+Santana – Do you really believe that chemicals could assemble themselves into DNA that is programmed to build cells, rna, cellular machinery, & self correcting rna polymerase transcription functions & reproduction systems? Rather a wild accident isn’t it 4 billion years or 100 billion years do you actually believe this would happen?

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli 48 minutes ago

Smoothsay2 – Now, imagine this belief growing. Then they will write their sacred book. ” There was a talking rock radiating light that separated the waters of the Red sea and came to Prophet Darwin saying that…”
I suspects in this way were wrote the Kuran, the Bible, etc. and, do you believe that till today there are people believing in that?! But, for telling the thru, I found that Genesis is the correct scientific description of the events that brought life and the man to Earth. It is the right description of LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor) and the events creating life here. If you see and understand how works the system called LUCA ( its face is at my avatar – the life cycle of any astronomic body like Earth, and the building blocks of galaxies), you will discover all Genesis’s symbols there: the system was a paradise for X and Y (Adam and Eve), in shape of an apple, with a systemic circuit in shape of a snake, the spiral galaxy seems a tree, etc. In fact, X convinced Y to eat the apple ( which means the selfish state of closed system). And attacked by entropy the system falls to planet’s surface, in shape of genes-photons, which guided the terrestrial atoms to build aminoacids, molecules, RNA, till the first cell, which is the exactly biological copy of our sinner ancestor… the Milk Way.

Genesis is all about metaphors describing the scientific complexity for lay man! But how any ancient man knew that? 2 theories: 1) our ancestor and those events are registered at our DNA ( the junk DNA) which are at the center of our neurons and altered mental states produces flashes from that memory. Since ancient man did not know nothing about astronomy, he found the way to explain it by metaphors. 2) Aliens were here and told it… I don’t see another alternative, since I can not believe that a God of a multiverse came here…

oz surveillance oz surveillance1 minute ago

Louis Charles Morelli – the problem with metaphorical ideas is they are subject to any kind of interpretation so you will always will be able to make them match with any scientific or metaphysical theory.

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli1 second ago

oz surveillance _ Ok, then, I will invite you to a challenge:
Find the scientific theory that matches with the following:
1) We built this modern city where humans will live as a paradise. But like the Brave New World of Huxley and under the Big Brother, humans will be stupid and stagnating in this shape forever. Take the red pill if you want living here;
2) Outside there are those humans cities in state of chaos, lots of problems, misery, diseases, etc. But, those people will be opened to their evolution, they could reach the galaxies. Take the blue pill if you want that.
This was the exactly situation the author described with Eve offering the apple: eat the apple, the red pill, standing forever in this “jungle” paradise I built for us; do not eat the apple and we fall in chaos far away from here…
We found that the vital principle is encoded in a light wave, like that emitted after the Big Bang. The code worked matter and built the atom system, the star system, and when went to build the galactic system… matter was reaching its supreme goal, which is to be a closed system at eternal termodynamic equillibrium.
The code could doing a choice, unifying with matter and living that paradise; or fighting matter, suffering at chaos but keeping the state of opened system, opened to its own evolution. The red pill or the blue pill?
The code choose the paradise, from the Universe came the Clausius Law, the entropy that produces the death of any system. The code falls at planets, here we are. Please, find the scientific theory that matches this metaphora like the Matrix/DNA Theory – a merely philosophical naturalist theory, matched it… Good look…
E um dia depois, retorno ao debate porque uma grande, espetacular descoberta cientifica foi anunciada ( Cientista tem notado uma explosão de luz quando um óvulo humano é fertilizado), confirmando varias teorias que eu tinha escrito no debate ( e acrescento abaixo a figura do espectro eletromagnetico interpretado pela Matrix/DNA que foi a base inicial dos calculos que me levou `as previsoes acertadas aqui).
To everybody debating with me in this thread: please, see how and why the Matrix/DNA world view during the last 30 years has confirmed hundreds of its previsions. Two days ago I wrote here: ” We found that the vital principle is encoded in a light wave, like that emitted after the Big Bang”. Today I am reading the news: ” Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins”. I have wrote here that in this Universe is occurring a natural genetic process of reproduction of the unknown thing that triggered the Big Bang as an act of fecundation. And I wrote here that evolution is expanding like waves in the water: each new wave carries own the dust of the last wave and reaches more dust ahead. So the second wave of evolution receives the systems from the first wave, aggregating new information, evolving it and throwing it to next wave. The last wave has repeated all step of all waves before, that’s why a new shape, like a human embryo, repeats all evolutionary shapes. It means that the first moment of human life repeats the first moment of the Universe when the “life” of a universal natural system is began. It was a genetic code encoded by photons, then evolved to an atom like the first cell; to a nebulae of galaxies like the blastula… and so on.

So,… every time that the universal system is recreated, the event of the Big Bang is repeated! What happens at the fecundation of the Universe, 13,8 billion years ago, happens at the fecundation of any animal ovule. It is light everywhere, because the universal code for life first came in shape of a light wave!


Why? Because this Universe is not a magician. It can not create new information than those inserted in it at the act of its creation. It can not creating things by another method than that it was created. Anther method would means ” never existed before new information”, and this would be magics

What you see and think is new information is merely the result of fuzzy logics, the mixing of two or more standard information generating the possible levels of sub-information between them.

I will research now what is the secret of zinc atom, it must have some property that something at the Big Bang had. But, as I said thousand times, the big secret of genome, or DNA, is that its electrons are occupied by photons with information of the life’s code. So, that light saw by scientists occurs when the male counterpart that contains the half of the code’s network meets the another half and the entire network flourishes… the mechanism is repeated when a supernova is born, as you can see at Matrix/DNA astronomical models. Three days ago another great prevision was conformed: #0 years ago when I got the copyright of this theory it contained that a star’s nucleus has a dynamics like the first frequency of light wave, which is the strongest. So, the nucleus should have a rotation fast than the above spherical rotations… This whole theory is results from calculations applying the most natural logic as I was studying the biosphere at Amazon jungle… and its right previsions has suggested that nature does not plays dice with its creatures, although we insist to play dices with her.
Light-The-Electro-Magnetic-Spectrum by MatrixDNA THeory
A little bit of information about this issue – how to interpret the graphic ( click the image for seeing bigger):

At the extreme right ( before the gamma ray), there is the source of the wave. At the gamma ray occurs the event of fecundation ( it can be fecundation for a new  universal system, like the Big Bang, or the fecundation of an ovule, or the gestation of anew astronomical body, which begins by the nucleus, that’s why I predict the strongest vibration, or rotation, at Sun’s nucleus). See that the wave is merely the process of life’s cycle, so, the genetic code that became very complex today, at its begining was too much simple, merely the process of life’s cycle. At another articles here I describe how this light wave becames the Matrix/DNA formula.

Lições de vida: O que só se descobre na hora da morte

terça-feira, agosto 8th, 2017


Bronnie Ware, uma enfermeira que durante vários anos cuidou de pessoas que eram muito idosas ou estavam enfermas em suas casas – escreveu “The Top Five Regrets of the Dying – A Life Transformed by the Dearly Departing”, que, como o título diz, trata dos cinco arrependimentos mais comuns manifestados pelas pessoas antes de morrerem.

No livro da Bronnie aparecem essas ideias, e os comentários dela:

  1. Eu gostaria de ter tido a coragem de viver a vida que eu quisesse, não a vida que os outros esperavam que eu vivesse.

“Esse foi o arrependimento mais comum. Quando as pessoas percebem que a vida delas está quase no fim e olham para trás, é fácil ver quantos sonhos não foram realizados. A maioria das pessoas não realizou nem metade dos seus sonhos e têm de morrer sabendo que isso aconteceu por causa de decisões que tomaram, ou não tomaram. A saúde traz uma liberdade que poucos conseguem perceber, até que eles não a têm mais.”

  1. Eu gostaria de não ter trabalhado tanto.

“Eu ouvi isso de todo paciente masculino que eu trabalhei. Eles sentiam falta de ter vivido mais a juventude dos filhos e a companhia de seus parceiros. As mulheres também falaram desse arrependimento, mas como a maioria era de uma geração mais antiga, muitas não tiveram uma carreira. Todos os homens com quem eu conversei se arrependeram de passar tanto tempo de suas vidas no ambiente de trabalho.”

  1. Eu queria ter tido a coragem de expressar meus sentimentos.

“Muitas pessoas suprimiram seus sentimentos para ficar em paz com os outros. Como resultado, ele se acomodaram em uma existência medíocre e nunca se tornaram quem eles realmente eram capazes de ser. Muitos desenvolveram doenças relacionadas à amargura e ressentimento que eles carregavam.”

  1. Eu gostaria de ter ficado em contato com os meus amigos.

“Frequentemente eles não percebiam as vantagens de ter velhos amigos até eles chegarem em suas últimas semanas de vida e não era sempre possível rastrear essas pessoas. Muitos ficaram tão envolvidos em suas próprias vidas que eles deixaram amizades de ouro se perderem ao longo dos anos. Tiveram muito arrependimentos profundos sobre não ter dedicado tempo e esforço às amizades. Todo mundo sente falta dos amigos quando está morrendo.”

  1. Eu gostaria de ter me permitido ser mais feliz.

“Esse é um arrependimento surpreendentemente comum. Muitos só percebem isso no fim da vida que a felicidade é uma escolha. As pessoas ficam presas em antigos hábitos e padrões. O famoso ‘conforto’ com as coisas que são familiares O medo da mudança fez com que eles fingissem para os outros e para si mesmos que eles estavam contentes quando, no fundo, eles ansiavam por rir de verdade e aproveitar as coisas bobas em suas vidas de novo.”

Existe evidencias de vida apos a morte? Melhor lista de evidencias

domingo, agosto 6th, 2017


Is There Evidence of Life After Death?

To listen to skeptics, only the gullible masses believe in an afterlife, desperate to be reunited with loved ones.

As we have shown, however, skeptics are so convinced of their intellectual superiority that they are incapable of examining evidence objectively that contradicts their strongly-held viewpoints.

Unlike the cases for ESP and UFOs, however, the evidence for survival after death is by its nature less measurable and more subtle and complicated.

Militant skeptics would have everyone believe that this is merely anecdotal and easily explained away by the biochemistry of the dying brain, pumped up by morphine and stress, with the particular hallucinations the result of a combination of wishful thinking and religious preconception. But as we shall see, this view ignores some inconvenient facts.

While looking at several types of relevant experiences, I will only focus on the issue of immediate survival after death, not theological assertions about what happens beyond that, such as whether there is a heaven or hell or reincarnation. Nor will we try to resolve here exactly what it is that may survive death.

One way to think about the larger picture of reality that the so-called supernatural presents is like the difference between the world of ordinary objects we interact with daily and the invisible quantum world that underlies everything. It is difficult for our minds to get around the fact that what seems like solid reality is mostly empty space. Skeptics are invited to imagine that the paranormal world is something like the theorized other dimensions of the “multiverse.”

Death-Bed Visions

Let us begin with something that should be a perfect test for the skeptical case about hallucinations of the dying: death-bed visions. It is not uncommon for people who are about to die to imagine that the heavens open up and relatives appear to welcome them to the other side.

In What They Saw at the House of Death: A New Look at Evidence for Life After Death by Karlis Osis, a noted physics professor, and Erlendur Haraldsson, a clinical psychologist. Between them, they had carefully examined 5,000 cases of death-bed visions for nearly two decades starting in 1959. These were culled from observations by 17,000 physicians and nurses. Most were medical personnel in the U.S., but some came in from a separate study about patients in India, to check to what extent cultural and religious beliefs influenced the experiences.

Investigative journalist Michael Schmicker, in Best Evidence, summarized the remarkable conclusions:

Biological-Pharmaceutical Factors

*Patients who were given painkilling drugs were not more likely to have such visions than those who were not.

*Brain malfunctions were more likely to reduce such visions.

*A history of using psychoactive drugs did not increase the likelihood of these visions.

*There was no evidence that a lack of oxygen induced the visions.

Psychological Factors

*Stress played no role in predicting which patients would see “the dead.”

*Whether the patient believed in an afterlife did not matter.

*In some cases, the death-bed visions came to people who did not know they were dying.

Cultural Factors

*The visions often did not fit with the religious preconceptions of the individuals. Christians saw no evidence of hell; Hindus had no visions that confirmed they would be reborn.

*There were 11 aspects to these visions that were shared by both American and Indian cases, so they are likely common to many cultures.

Schmicker cited a compelling example. In 1919, Horace Traubel, a friend and biographer of the poet Walt Whitman, was dying in Bon Echo, Ontario, Canada. With him was Lt. Col. L. Moore Cosgrave. Cosgrave reported that at 3 a.m., Traubel stared at a point in the room three feet above the bed.

“A light haze eventually resolved itself into the form of Whitman…wearing an old tweed jacket, an old felt hat, and had his right hand in his pocket,” which Cosgrave could see. The apparition nodded twice to Traubel, who said, “There is Walt.” As the ghost brushed by him, Cosgrave felt a slight electric shock.

Near-death Experiences

“Near-death experiences” (NDEs) was the term coined by Dr. Raymond Moody, a physician who wrote the first popular book on the phenomenon, Life After Life, in 1975. He studied cases of patients who were pronounced clinically dead, but claimed they could see and hear things that seemed impossible, according to the materialist understanding of reality.

A 1982 Gallup poll revealed that one out of seven Americans had at least once been close to dying and 35% of these reported having the NDE. These experiences would seem fairly common, but were not generally reported by physicians, which is explained by the fact that only 32% of doctors at the time believed in an afterlife vs. 67% of the public.

While the specific details of the experience would be interpreted by the person who was supposedly dead, based on his or her cultural and religious background, the most common stages occurred in this order:

*A sense of dying as a release from cares and pain.

*The patient feels he or she is rising from the body and able to look down on it and the attending medical personnel.

*This self or spirit is compelled to pass through a dark tunnel with light at the end.

*Beings of light greet the spirit at the end of the tunnel—often these are deceased family or friends and sometimes a person understood as a founder or leader of their religious tradition (atheists reported an abstract figure of light).

*As many as 29% recalled having their life’s events flash through their memories, as if reviewing them before judgment.

*Many wanted to stay in this disembodied state, but were told they needed to return.

*Consciousness returns to the body, startling medical personnel, who had pronounced the patient dead.

Moody’s initial report has been confirmed in thousands of cases investigated by others. The International Association for Near-Death Studies was founded in 1978 to encourage the serious study of the phenomenon.

Skeptics are quick to argue that all of these things can be explained by incorrect judgments about clinical death and by the combined effects of a sick brain and the drugs administered at the time.

Among the most notable books to take a more systematic scientific approach to anecdotal evidence were by medical doctors Kenneth Ring, in Life at Death, and Michael Sabom, in Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation.

Sabom in particular was skeptical. He accepted the critics’ theory that NDEs were hallucinations due to heightened brain activity and was surprised to realize that they occurred most commonly in patients who had been unconscious for at least 30 minutes, when neuroactivity was reduced.

He believed that claims that these “dead” patients had accurately described what was happening around them were easily explained by hearing medical personnel discussing them or that they were educated guesses.

Sabom set up a control group of cardiac patients who had not reported having NDEs. He found the NDEers’ accounts very accurate, while the guesses of cardiac patients were way off, and he was able to rule out the possibility in many cases of the “dead” picking up the information by hearing it.

Doctors at Southampton General Hospital studied 3,500 patients and concluded that cases of NDEs being reported involved “well-structured, lucid thought processes with reasoning and memory formation at a time when their brains were shown not to function,” contradicting the materialistic view of how the brain works.


Dr. Eben Alexander’s NDE

The most famous of modern NDEs was recounted in the 2012 bestseller by Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, in Heaven is Real: A Doctor’s Experience with the Afterlife (a good example if skeptics’ inability to state the facts in their rebuttals can be found in a response to an article in Esquire:…. He went into a seven-day coma after suffering from microbial meningitis in 2008 and had an experience that ran counter to his expectations. He recalled:

I did not believe in the phenomenon of near-death experiences…I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God and I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better.

When I entered the emergency room, my chances of survival in anything beyond a vegetative state were already low, but they soon sank to near nonexistent. For seven days I lay in a deep coma, my body was unresponsive, my higher-order brain functions totally offline.

All the chief arguments against near-death experiences suggest that these are the results of minimal, transient, or partial malfunctioning of the cortex. But mine took place not while my cortex was malfunctioning, but while it was simply off. This is clear from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations. According to current medical understanding of the brain and mind, there is absolutely no way that I could have experienced even a dim and limited consciousness during my time in the coma, much less the hyper-vivid and completely coherent odyssey I underwent.


A 2001 study reported in the British medical journal The Lancet reported that the NDEs could not be explained by reactions to medications, a lack of oxygen to the brain, or fear of death.

Perhaps most convincing is that patients are able to report events outside the room where their bodies were. For example, some claimed that their spirits went into the waiting room and heard conversations between family members, which they recalled accurately. Given the skeptics’ position on ESP, this should be impossible.

In 1990, Seattle pediatrician Melvin Morse’s Closer to the Light examined the cases of 120 children who had NDEs. In most cases, they would have been too young to have absorbed a well-grounded religious expectation of what might happen. He made a point-by-point refutation of the skeptics’ arguments about the biochemistry of death and hallucination, compelling enough to have persuaded some skeptics to take a more open-minded position.

In Beyond: On Life After Death, Fred Frohock attempted to weigh the evidence objectively and concluded:

The problem with the materialist explanation that NDEs are a purely neurological reaction to the stress of death is that we would have to stretch the powers of the brain to new and unproven levels of achievement. The weight of the likelihood, of possibilities, seems to be in favor of transcendent experiences, although NDEs could be both transcendent and part of the physical world.

The brain may be the instrument that guides the self into a realm of existence as real and empirical as the dimension we currently occupy. All we have to do is move the perimeters of physical reality out to more comprehensive dimensions. Death is as ordinary as birth, and may be the same kind of portal to another empirical stage of life. Physicists tell us there must be more dimensions to reality to explain the reality we sense and know.

In Dr. Andrew Newberg’s Teaching Co. course The Spiritual Brain, he cites the impact these experiences have on those who go through them: “People come away from a near-death experience with a radically altered set of beliefs about themselves, the meaning of life, relationships—everything. They no longer fear death and are more spiritual and less religious. Many say things like, ‘I don’t think there is a God; I know there is a God.’ One said that the experience was ‘bigger’ than religion, which was not sufficient to help encapsulate the NDE.”

Naturalismo,… não existe? (Vídeo criacionista)

sábado, agosto 5th, 2017


Ver video:

“Why there is no such thing as Naturalism” – HOWARD ROBINSON

Filosofos: Como Interessar o Publico no Seu Tema?

sábado, agosto 5th, 2017


Why Philosophers Fail to Influence Public Debate—and How They Can Do Better

We all know that philosophers are expert thinkers but most philosophers, and especially moral philosophers, want to change the world as well. As Plato noted, once one has ascended to the pinnacle of wisdom, or at least successfully defended a PhD thesis, it is hard to resist the temptation to come back down again and help to spread the light to others.

However, for most of us, the idea of actually succeeding at this is little more than a dream. Attempts to get heard often end up backfiring or simply proving a waste of time and energy. Even philosophers whose work is in areas of real public interest, such as applied ethics, can struggle to get a hearing above the noise of pundits, preachers and politicians whose views, though ill-considered and even inconsistent, are far easier on the ear and offer people a sense of certainty in a baffling world.

At a recent workshop on Personal Identity and Public Policy held at Oxford, we considered what to do about this problem. Our shared interest was in what makes people – well, people. In particular, what makes me the same person when I am young as when I am old. The answer to this question is vital to many issues, from health care to criminal justice, emerging technologies to the diagnosis of death. However, these are often issues on which people, including doctors, lawyers and scientists, have already made up their minds. So why should anyone care what philosophers think about them?

Whose problems are these anyway?

Here’s an example. Should people be punished for crimes they committed in the distant past? It seems pretty obvious that we should only punish a person for a crime if we are reasonably convinced that they are the same person who committed that crime. However, on many views of personal identity, once enough time has passed between the commission of the offence and the punishment, then, even if the criminal is still alive, they will no longer be the same person that they were and so could not deserve punishment.

One critical issue for philosophers is that having considered a problem like this for many years, we tend to think about it in fundamentally different ways to people coming to it for the first time. For us, there is nothing wrong with asking questions such as ‘is there really a moral distinction between punishing somebody many years after they have committed a crime, and punishing someone who never committed any crimes to begin with’. However, for many people such questions appear heretical at best and incomprehensible at worst.

Therefore, before we can hope to engage in genuine public debate, and still be taken seriously, we need to find ways of addressing problems that people actually have. To articulate views in a way that can have an impact it is necessary that they are located within an area of debate for which their relevance is clear and easy to understand. Furthermore, while philosophers like to deal with arguments and arguments alone, most non-philosophers deal mainly in conclusions. A view, no matter how well expressed and cogent it may be, whose implications are unclear or unacceptable to a mass audience may well be worth pursuing academically, but will not be of wider interest – at least not without a lot of hard work.

So, while, for philosophers, there is a simple matter of principle here, there is no chance of making any progress unless we recognise that the conclusion that rapists and murders should avoid being convicted of their crimes is probably a step too far. Best then to restrict oneself, at least in the early stages, to cases in which our conclusions appear less outrageous – for instance to crimes that depended more upon the identity of the criminal to begin with, such as fraud or conspiracy.

Making friends – in high places

The next problem philosophers face is that, much as we hate to admit it, we don’t have all the answers. Getting moral philosophy right is an important part of good decision making, but it is only one part. Public debates, however, tend to focus on a whole package, means, motivation and opportunity, and if philosophers cannot find ways of speaking to all these things our opinions will only ever play a marginal role.

A first question is whether philosophers tend to agree amongst themselves. Let’s return to the issue of criminal responsibility. As I mentioned earlier, some scholars take the view that one is simply not the same person in one’s old age as in one’s youth, one is merely a ‘successor self’. This view tends to be supported by those who believe that personal identity over time is a matter of ‘psychological continuity’, the degree to which our memories, intentions, beliefs, desires and personality traits vary over time. Given enough time almost all of us change psychologically, so philosophers who take this view find it easy to conclude that, in at least some cases, it is morally wrong to punish somebody for crimes from their distant past.

What of philosophers who do not share this view? The main alternative is ‘animalism’, the idea that personal identity consists in being the same biological organism over time. On this view, it is almost impossible, barring certain radical medical interventions, that somebody is not the same person in their old age as they were in their youth. However, many who take this view find, as a result, that personal identity over time is not so morally significant as we might think. Sure, punishing somebody for a historical offence is not the same thing as punishing an entirely different person, but why should their continuity as a biological organism matter to us when so many other morally interesting facts about them, such as their personality and behaviour, might have changed? So at least amongst philosophers, there is broad agreement about the conclusion that we should often not punish people for historical offences, even though there is less agreement on why this is so.

Building bridges outside of philosophy can be more difficult. While philosophers often find common ground with certain others groups, such as psychologists, sociologists and even criminologists, others who may have more of an impact on public debate, like economists and lawyers, have very well-defined conventions and norms.

It is invariably easier to influence a debate when someone is already interested in what you have to say, (procurar o publico certo), and more people are going to be interested in what philosophers have to say if this can easily express it in terms that are relevant to them and carry clear implications for the kinds of decisions they face. Often, it is only in trying to engage others that we find people who are prepared to listen and, through talking with them, find better ways to tell them what you have to say.

Getting one’s hands dirty

So, if philosophy is to live the dream of influencing public debate then philosophers must think a lot more about what we are saying, how we are saying it, who we are saying it to and why they might care. However, there is still one more thing that needs to be done, the hard bit, actually getting out there and saying it. This leaves philosophers with probably the biggest problem of all, where to start.

Is it better to write a book and become the ‘go-to academic’ on an issue in the hope that people will come and ask you about it, to talk to relevant policymakers and find out what they most want to hear or to take to the streets and shout at the top of one’s voice? Of course, this is not a question that can be answered once and for all. However, one useful proposal is often to find those people who one can influence most easily and who carry most influence over others. If this is a well-informed general public, then write a book, or better yet a series of blog posts. If it is a small group of specialist policy makers then go to them directly – sometimes it can be surprising how interested they can be (especially if they took a class or two in philosophy at university). Finally, however, if what one has to say is too big and too important to be left for others to help communicate it, then it’s probably time to get behind those barricades.

Anyone care to join us?