The Experience and Evolution of Consciousness: What are 'Levels' of Awareness?

[JackDaydream]

The main basis for this question is based on the writings of the psychology and philosophy of Ken Wilber. His initial theory of individual cognitive development was derived on the ideas of stages, described by Freud, Piaget and Kohlberg in psychology. He also looks at the emphasis on higher states of awareness in some systems of spiritual thought, including Christianity and Buddhism. I am aware that some people may see putting these two aspects together as unhelpful.

However, in his later writings he sees the emphasis on hierarchies of awareness as problematic philosophically. It may involve values about the superiority of the higher states of awareness in evolution. This leads to the underlying issue about whether development of consciousness in evolution and in individual awareness is also about increase, progression or ascent.

Jung's model of the human mind and consciousness involved integration of the lower and higher aspects of the self. Of course, this is bound up with a belief in the unconscious as a source of potential consciousness.

I don't wish to make this topic too obscure or theoretical at this stage. Initially, I am asking whether you this aspect of consciousness as important philosophically. I have put it into the section on metaphysics and epistemology because it is primarily about models of consciousness, but I am aware that it is both connected to spiritual models and those of science in thinking about the nature of conscious awareness in evolution. Is human consciousness the ultimate expression of it or not? Does the idea of 'levels' of consciousness make sense? It may come down to the question: what is consciousness?

[psyreporter]

I was just reading The Principles of Psychology by William James and the question is specifically addressed.

It is an interesting question since today a serious attempt is made to explain away intelligence in lower life forms which results in the question: is consciousness possibly anything other than a manifestation of the origin of life?

With teleonomy, it is posed that intelligent behaviour in lower life forms is a mere predetermined program.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5

In my opinion it is not logical to consider that lower life forms are bound by determinism and are ‘programs’ that perform a function that can be described empirically.

The problem indicated by the philosophical zombie theory, by which it is indicated that it isn’t even possible to know whether other humans are conscious, is abused in the concept teleonomy by completely ignoring that problem (the inability of empirical science to grasp or explain meaningful experience).

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

There seems to be no indication that animals or humans have a special substance that differentiates their ‘consciousness’ or experience of life from other life. From that perspective, any life is to be considered to posses of a gradation of subjective conscious experience.

To answer your question: when it concerns the question whether conscious experience can have gradations/levels, it would concern the question what is consciousness? since at question would be whether intelligence in lower life forms is possibly anything other than a manifestation of subjective conscious experience.

[UniversalAlien]

The Experience and Evolution of Consciousness: What are 'Levels' of Awareness?

1. Again I quote Physicist {Quantum Mechanics} the famous Max Planck:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck

This can easily lead to a "Panpsychism" philosophical viewpoint - which I accept.

2. But ' 'Levels' of Awareness?' though related to consciousness, however it is defined or understood, is another game.
Its hard to measure consciousness since there is no universal accepted definition of what it is. Levels of awareness on the other hand
is measureable and calculable. We can measure the awareness of a worm and compare it to other species. We can also measure the
awareness of AI which may at some point in the future be measuring us - Or is this already happening - Would we be aware of another species {hypothetical aliens from elsewhere} if they were viewing Man and his civilization and wanted to stay anonymous
- If AI continues to advance would Man be aware that his intelligent machines {computers} that he created have assumed supremacy over
him In today's World with the ever advancing AI paradigm, this is no longer a question left only for sci-fi.

[stevie]

... the psychology and philosophy of Ken Wilber.

Does the idea of 'levels' of consciousness make sense? It may come down to the question: what is consciousness?

There is no scientific evidence of "consciousness" in the first place.

[Angelo Cannata]

Discussions about consciousness are so intriguing today because it is ambiguous about the most basic and radical concepts of philosophy, religion, psychology, knowledge. This ambiguity consists of the following two aspects.

1) The objective aspect. We can measure consciousness, because it is able to show objective, external signs, that can be measured and counted. This way we can say that, for example, a horse, has a level of consciousness higher than an insect, because a horse, for example, is able to show an extraordinary ability to understand and interpret your personality, your mood, if you in a certain moment are agitated or peaceful, friendly or attacking, scared or confident. We don’t know if an insect is able to perceive these things, but the scientific evidence that we are able to get shows a difference of level of conscience. This is science: we don't know what we don’t know, but we can make some provisional statements based on evidence, until new discoveries give us different evidence. In this contest, that is scientific, we can say that a horse is able to show a level of consciousness objectively higher than an insect.

2) The subjective aspect. It seems that each of us humans, or at least most of us, have the experience of feeling “I” and, as such, unique in our conjunction of space-time: here and now, in this body, in this point of the universe, there is only me having the specific feeling of me bein "I”, that “I” that is me and nobody else, exclusive and unique, so exclusive that it is absolutely impossible to me to share this feeling with other people: whatever I say about it is just a hint, that invites the readers to pay attention to their own exclusive experience, hoping that we have something in common about this, as our discussions seem to confirm. Science is absolutely excluded form this aspect of consciouseness, it cannot at all reach it, because science is all about objectivity, while this second aspect is all about subjectivity.

The easy and the hard problems of consciousness meantioned by Chalmers match respectively these two aspects of cosnciousness and the description I have given explains why the first one is easy and why the second one is hard.

Once this is clear, we can realize that science is able to grasp only the first aspect of consciousness, but it seems to me that a lot of philosophers and people of any kind make just confusion and “fish in troubled water”, intentionally or unintentionally, by moving confusedly among the two aspects I said, without clarifying what they are talking about, mostly because they are just confused by the fact that we use just one word, the word “consciousness” for such different aspects of human experience, that are the two aspects I described.
The distinction I have made should help to put every kind of discussion about consciousness in its proper context, making things clear and discussions fruitful.

[JackDaydream]

I was just reading The Principles of Psychology by William James and the question is specifically addressed.

It is an interesting question since today a serious attempt is made to explain away intelligence in lower life forms which results in the question: is consciousness possibly anything other than a manifestation of the origin of life?

With teleonomy, it is posed that intelligent behaviour in lower life forms is a mere predetermined program.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5

In my opinion it is not logical to consider that lower life forms are bound by determinism and are ‘programs’ that perform a function that can be described empirically.

The problem indicated by the philosophical zombie theory, by which it is indicated that it isn’t even possible to know whether other humans are conscious, is abused in the concept teleonomy by completely ignoring that problem (the inability of empirical science to grasp or explain meaningful experience).

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

There seems to be no indication that animals or humans have a special substance that differentiates their ‘consciousness’ or experience of life from other life. From that perspective, any life is to be considered to posses of a gradation of subjective conscious experience.

To answer your question: when it concerns the question whether conscious experience can have gradations/levels, it would concern the question what is consciousness? since at question would be whether intelligence in lower life forms is possibly anything other than a manifestation of subjective conscious experience.

Thanks for your reply and, it does seem that the philosophy of consciousness is frequently focused on explaining the origins of consciousness. Gradually, in the context of neuroscience, there is so much emphasis on the brain and the focus becomes reductionist and what sometimes gets missed is the experience of consciousness itself, which may not be aided by being put into the laboratory.

I read the link on zombie consciousness and such arguments are becoming increasingly popular. It probably comes down to the knowledge of other minds because, there is an assumption that other people have similar states of mind to oneself on the basis of observation. Of course, it is not possible to know of others' mental states and a lot is based on inference. If a hollow machine existed programmed to behave and respond in a way similar to a person people may be fooled. Also, some, Daniel Dennett, have seen consciousness as an illusion.

It is interesting that you mention William James because he preceded behaviorism, coming from the standpoint of introspective discovery. For many aspects of philosophy investigation is seen as subjective, lacking in objective evidence but with consciousness it is an experiential reality, so to step outside it may miss the essential elements of it. In this way, the mental states are the direct evidence and meditational states may be an important source of exploration.

[JackDaydream]

The Experience and Evolution of Consciousness: What are 'Levels' of Awareness?

1. Again I quote Physicist {Quantum Mechanics} the famous Max Planck:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck

This can easily lead to a "Panpsychism" philosophical viewpoint - which I accept.

2. But ' 'Levels' of Awareness?' though related to consciousness, however it is defined or understood, is another game.
Its hard to measure consciousness since there is no universal accepted definition of what it is. Levels of awareness on the other hand
is measureable and calculable. We can measure the awareness of a worm and compare it to other species. We can also measure the
awareness of AI which may at some point in the future be measuring us - Or is this already happening - Would we be aware of another species {hypothetical aliens from elsewhere} if they were viewing Man and his civilization and wanted to stay anonymous
- If AI continues to advance would Man be aware that his intelligent machines {computers} that he created have assumed supremacy over
him In today's World with the ever advancing AI paradigm, this is no longer a question left only for sci-fi.

Yes, the issue of awareness as an aspect of consciousness is different from explanations like panpsychism. In some ways, it may involve the issue of intelligence, especially as human consciousness. It also involves degrees of awareness of surroundings, in the form of medical definitions of consciousness, like the assessment of the consciousness of pain of a pinprick.

The idea of AI measuring human consciousness is questionable. One most ridiculous aspect which does come on computers is where people have to complete some visual test to show 'I am not a robot.' It may involve being able to work out which pictures have busses on it. What I find is that the pictures are sometimes not clear on my phone and it seems such a ridiculous task. I am not sure why there is even a need to prove that one is not a robot because it is unlikely that robots are logging onto websites at this present time.

It AI assessments of consciousness are made it may end up in the form similar to IQ tests and these are open to criticism as to whether they are a true reflection of intelligence, especially with the biases of questions asked. Life may involve so many more intricacies than can be captured in tasks which are more like puzzles. Some of the aspects of success in such tasks may be more about having a particular mindset compatible with such questions.

One other aspect of objective assessment of consciousness is that the focus may be about quantifiable measures whereas consciousness as aware is about quality of experience. For example, the consciousness of the environment is bound up with the phenomenological experiences. such as the experience of music or colours. In this way, the arts may be important as evidence of the mental states of consciousness. But, also, one problem with the idea of levels is of assumptions of superiority of certain experiences of consciousness. For example, some people may be able to focus on the details of experiences but there may be psychological aspects to this and motivation is connected to what one perceives or focuses upon.

[JackDaydream]

... the psychology and philosophy of Ken Wilber.

Does the idea of 'levels' of consciousness make sense? It may come down to the question: what is consciousness?

There is no scientific evidence of "consciousness" in the first place.

The scientific evidence of consciousness is brain activity. Beyond that what evidence can there be aside from the scientist's mind itself. Without consciousness how could evidence be understood or interpreted?

[JackDaydream]

Discussions about consciousness are so intriguing today because it is ambiguous about the most basic and radical concepts of philosophy, religion, psychology, knowledge. This ambiguity consists of the following two aspects.

1) The objective aspect. We can measure consciousness, because it is able to show objective, external signs, that can be measured and counted. This way we can say that, for example, a horse, has a level of consciousness higher than an insect, because a horse, for example, is able to show an extraordinary ability to understand and interpret your personality, your mood, if you in a certain moment are agitated or peaceful, friendly or attacking, scared or confident. We don’t know if an insect is able to perceive these things, but the scientific evidence that we are able to get shows a difference of level of conscience. This is science: we don't know what we don’t know, but we can make some provisional statements based on evidence, until new discoveries give us different evidence. In this contest, that is scientific, we can say that a horse is able to show a level of consciousness objectively higher than an insect.

2) The subjective aspect. It seems that each of us humans, or at least most of us, have the experience of feeling “I” and, as such, unique in our conjunction of space-time: here and now, in this body, in this point of the universe, there is only me having the specific feeling of me bein "I”, that “I” that is me and nobody else, exclusive and unique, so exclusive that it is absolutely impossible to me to share this feeling with other people: whatever I say about it is just a hint, that invites the readers to pay attention to their own exclusive experience, hoping that we have something in common about this, as our discussions seem to confirm. Science is absolutely excluded form this aspect of consciouseness, it cannot at all reach it, because science is all about objectivity, while this second aspect is all about subjectivity.

The easy and the hard problems of consciousness meantioned by Chalmers match respectively these two aspects of cosnciousness and the description I have given explains why the first one is easy and why the second one is hard.

Once this is clear, we can realize that science is able to grasp only the first aspect of consciousness, but it seems to me that a lot of philosophers and people of any kind make just confusion and “fish in troubled water”, intentionally or unintentionally, by moving confusedly among the two aspects I said, without clarifying what they are talking about, mostly because they are just confused by the fact that we use just one word, the word “consciousness” for such different aspects of human experience, that are the two aspects I described.
The distinction I have made should help to put every kind of discussion about consciousness in its proper context, making things clear and discussions fruitful.

There is so much discussion about consciousness in philosophy and the ambiguity of the term may play a part in this, as well as experience itself being mysterious to understand. The subjectivity of consciousness certainly means that the objectivity of science is problematic. The scientist can only see the outward expression of it rather than the experience itself. Even if technology could capture thoughts consciousness is embodied so the actual consciousness is unique and bound up with the aspects of sensory experiences. So, even the study of the brain may be inadequate because consciousness may be processed through the brain but is distributed through other aspects of the nervous system and the senses, including touch.

Sometimes lack of clarity about specific usage of the term consciousness can lead to confusion or tangents. Some see consciousness as evidence of life with the question of whether one is alive or not. Even this can be complicated because there are degrees of consciousness, especially sleep being different to unrousable states. Some use the term to be about awareness. This can be about the mundane or about specific developments of consciousness, or higher states of awareness, such as the achievement of 'awakening' or 'enlightenment.'

In philosophy, the hard problem of consciousness is a central problem, with various people trying to solve it as a philosophical problem. Reductionist explanations may make it hard to analyse, but, at the same time, consciousness is at the core of all other aspects of philosophy because it is consciousness itself which does philosophy, even if scientific methods are being used. That is why it may come back to Descartes' proof, 'I think, therefore I am'. The 'I' of experience is connected with consciousness, and this is closely related to the concept of the self. However, it may involve stepping back from experience to the observation or witness of experience. In other words a person may perceive a sound and describe it, or interpret it on the basis of association or memories. However, this is part of a reflective process in being able to witness the feelings and thoughts, which make the 'I' and even 'the self' as elusive. Thoughts may occur, but it can be asked where do thoughts come from? The brain is the apparatus of thoughts but they are bound up with concepts of meaning. The way in which consciousness cannot be separated from meaning may be one of the reasons why consciousness is ambiguous, because it is understood on the basis of underlying meanings. There may be shared aspects of understanding but each person's consciousness is unique in its own right.

[Soulfurik]

Hello all,

I ve recently experienced a NDE, a 6 min cardiac arrest. After recovery, i ve done my fair share of research on the subject, finding common reactions and changes for all people having had NDEs.
To name a few, that i share too : Feeling disconnected from others, feeling more connected to life, nature, others plans, enhenced instincts, senses, spiritual awereness and quest, loss of the place of the EGO in everyday life : i m a lot more eager to let someone win, be right, or thing they are, avoid fights, debate to win. Also i finally feel the SOUL, not a intellectual concept anymore. I feel it, not always, but it's like being in love for the first time. you can't explain it. but it's something that has never been there before and know you know what it feels like.

Since my NDE, and the experience of the loss of EGO, i got to discover what's left after EGO loss : Your soul. Since then i can occassionally feel it. and know the difference between what i know or believe in my mind, and in my soul.

I ve gone through psy eval aftert the incident, QI test, Emotional Qi eval, and despite common concern, i ve gained points in all areas. Lack of oxygen didn't damage my brain. it altered it. my perceptions. My control over it and its sensitivity. I ve gained about 10 iq point (137), same for emotionnal, i ve been cured from a 10 yrs plus depression, just like that. i v even stoppped my AD with no adverse effect. i ve not had a dark thoughts since then. I ve had depressing day or moment, but no depression as a disease.

I ve had premonitions, mostly in dreams, enhenced perceptions of people, their deep and unconscious motivations and fears.

It all sounds wonderful, but the price to pay is loneliness. extreme loneliness. For starter i ve never had to speak about my experience of death with loved ones or friends. people just dont want to talk about it. because of fear, religion, whatever. It's very hard not to share such a defining moment of your existence. Be back like you just had the flu. Which worsen the disconnection. It feels like i m in a parralel universe. i can see them, touch hear, just can t connect. like the movie 6th sense.

I don t know if it pertains to a level of awereness per say, but if it does, i would say that we don't really want to access all of them. We think we do. until we really do. then we realize we were fine before.

What good is ultimate awareness if it turns you into a ghost ? Wisdoms with no ears to receive.

I was very in search of spirituality before it happened. I wish i knew what it really meant.

Why are we so sure there is no cost to pay to attain such thing ? What's our deepest and most honnest motivation ? What you have learn you can't unlearn

So as a love filled warning to you, i suggest that you ask yoursel theses questions. Is it worth it ? what am i willing to pay tro get it ? What if it is notr what expected ? If you have lives ,healthy, food on the table,friends, love, maybe ultimate awereness is knowing when you have enough.

And spiritual awakening is realizing how ignorant you are and were. And now that you are awake, you also have to pay the price . Nothing is free. You might have ultimate access to wisdom now, but no one to share it with. because that's the deal. that's why it s a quest. and Nobody alive has found it. since the dawn of humanity.

Surviving a 6 min cardiac arrest has come with a heafty price too. I ve had to bargain with death my second chance. You don't choose what you sacrifice. otherwise it's not a sacrfice. I don't regret it. but i pay it rebery single day. I m making the best out of it so it is worth the sacrifice. It s a everyday fifght

Dont fool yourself thinking anything in life should be any different : Free

[JackDaydream]

Hello all,

I ve recently experienced a NDE, a 6 min cardiac arrest. After recovery, i ve done my fair share of research on the subject, finding common reactions and changes for all people having had NDEs.
To name a few, that i share too : Feeling disconnected from others, feeling more connected to life, nature, others plans, enhenced instincts, senses, spiritual awereness and quest, loss of the place of the EGO in everyday life : i m a lot more eager to let someone win, be right, or thing they are, avoid fights, debate to win. Also i finally feel the SOUL, not a intellectual concept anymore. I feel it, not always, but it's like being in love for the first time. you can't explain it. but it's something that has never been there before and know you know what it feels like.

Since my NDE, and the experience of the loss of EGO, i got to discover what's left after EGO loss : Your soul. Since then i can occassionally feel it. and know the difference between what i know or believe in my mind, and in my soul.

I ve gone through psy eval aftert the incident, QI test, Emotional Qi eval, and despite common concern, i ve gained points in all areas. Lack of oxygen didn't damage my brain. it altered it. my perceptions. My control over it and its sensitivity. I ve gained about 10 iq point (137), same for emotionnal, i ve been cured from a 10 yrs plus depression, just like that. i v even stoppped my AD with no adverse effect. i ve not had a dark thoughts since then. I ve had depressing day or moment, but no depression as a disease.

I ve had premonitions, mostly in dreams, enhenced perceptions of people, their deep and unconscious motivations and fears.

It all sounds wonderful, but the price to pay is loneliness. extreme loneliness. For starter i ve never had to speak about my experience of death with loved ones or friends. people just dont want to talk about it. because of fear, religion, whatever. It's very hard not to share such a defining moment of your existence. Be back like you just had the flu. Which worsen the disconnection. It feels like i m in a parralel universe. i can see them, touch hear, just can t connect. like the movie 6th sense.

I don t know if it pertains to a level of awereness per say, but if it does, i would say that we don't really want to access all of them. We think we do. until we really do. then we realize we were fine before.

What good is ultimate awareness if it turns you into a ghost ? Wisdoms with no ears to receive.

I was very in search of spirituality before it happened. I wish i knew what it really meant.

Why are we so sure there is no cost to pay to attain such thing ? What's our deepest and most honnest motivation ? What you have learn you can't unlearn

So as a love filled warning to you, i suggest that you ask yoursel theses questions. Is it worth it ? what am i willing to pay tro get it ? What if it is notr what expected ? If you have lives ,healthy, food on the table,friends, love, maybe ultimate awereness is knowing when you have enough.

And spiritual awakening is realizing how ignorant you are and were. And now that you are awake, you also have to pay the price . Nothing is free. You might have ultimate access to wisdom now, but no one to share it with. because that's the deal. that's why it s a quest. and Nobody alive has found it. since the dawn of humanity.

Surviving a 6 min cardiac arrest has come with a heafty price too. I ve had to bargain with death my second chance. You don't choose what you sacrifice. otherwise it's not a sacrfice. I don't regret it. but i pay it rebery single day. I m making the best out of it so it is worth the sacrifice. It s a everyday fifght

Dont fool yourself thinking anything in life should be any different : Free

Hello, and welcome to the thread. The topic of NDEs is not one I expected but I am glad that your entry is on a thread which I have started because I am extremely interested in these kinds of altered states of consciousness. About a month ago I was writing on another thread about NDEs, admitting that I hadn't come across anyone who had actually experienced one, so I am pleased to read your testimony. I am not sure if you interpret your experience as suggesting that there is entry into a different dimension or not, or, perhaps, you keep an open mind.

I read a lot on altered states of consciousness, ranging from esoteric literature to writers like Aldous Huxley on his accounts of transformation of consciousness while on Mescaline, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell'. One particular book which you may have come across, or may find to be of interest is Robert Bucke's 'Cosmic Consciousness' which looks at particular individuals, including many writers like William Blake and Walt Whitman who had certain experiences outside of the perception of most other people.

There are many who are highly sceptical of 'unusual' experiences, including many in philosophy circles, as there is dominance by materialistic science. I have never subscribed to materialism because I have been aware of certain unusual experiences, including borderline sleep experiences which began in adolescence. So, I have read with a view to understand the 'unknown'. One of the writers who I have read for many years is Carl Jung, and the first book which I read by him was the autobiography he wrote towards the end of his life, ' Memories, Dreams and Reflections'. He describes many unusual experiences which he had, including premonitions and his whole theory of the collective unconscious is important for the consideration of dreams and the whole symbolic dimensions.

I am glad that Jung's writings were my first encounter with literature on aspects of consciousness which are different to the mundane. That is because there is so much literature on spirituality and the unknown and I have come across some individuals who get lost and confused with it. To be honest, I like to read all kinds of perspectives, but keep a foundation in rationality and that is why I find that philosophy is extremely important. A few years ago I was reading all kinds of unusual books on topics like kundalini awakening, and, then, I discovered a philosophy forum and do feel that it is has enabled me to think more clearly and ground ideas. I do still read some esoteric books but like to keep a balance through the reading of philosophy.

So, thank you for sharing your experience and I hope to interact with you again.

[JackDaydream]

Soulfurik,
When I read the post which I wrote I noticed that I wrote the name of the author of 'Cosmic Consciousness' as Robert Bucke, and it should have read as Richard Bucke, just in case you wish to find it. One other book which I would also recommend is Anthony Peake's, 'The Infinite Mindfield: The quest to find the gateway to higher consciousness', 2013. I found it to be a carefully written, balanced and fairly detailed exploration of the topic and, it does include some discussion of NDEs.

[Soulfurik]

The myth of mentall illness, by thomas sazz i think a classi

[Soulfurik]

Also, i remember hearing one day, you are dead way longer than alive, so don't discard the wisdom death has accumulated.

Our logos, and our very minds, are made to think and speak in symbols. so the anything spirituall is light like.. but do we know ?

[Sy Borg]

Soulfurik, did you experience being without a body in a void and then see the bright, warm, welcoming light?

Many who experience a NDE report a greater appreciation of life and reduced fear of death afterwards. Maybe those who didn't benefit don't talk about it? I wonder if there's a support group for people who've been through it? There might be a number of people who came away feeling disoriented but only the good news tales are filtering through.