IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« | Main | Random noodlings »

Comments

Very interesting link. Thanks Michael. I suppose the remark could have been taken either way (ie simply an error) however the timing on their deaths was curious too.

I am inclined to think he meant 'survived death' otherwise the remark doesn't really make any sense to me; I would think most assume their friends last seen living would still be so unless they heard otherwise.

I love the Thomas Jefferson and John Adams story. Of course I interpret it as John Adams "saw" Thomas Jefferson on the other side because I am a huge believer in death bed visions and find them very comforting. There is no way to prove it of course so each individual has to read the story and then make up their own mind what it means. I lean decidedly towards the survival hypothesis.

Such a wonderful story. I also think Adams saw Jefferson on the other side.

"During the last twenty years of their lives, the two great founding fathers had grown to be fast friends, with many letters going back and forth between them." I think true friendship like this builds some sort of link between people that can transcend so much. I'm sure many people besides myself have experienced the telephone thing: it flashes through your mind that a friend is going to call you and in the next few seconds you receive a call from them.

Hello, Michael.

This is off topic, but have you thought about writing an article about the afterlife in defense of articles such as the article by K. Augustine flying around the Internet? Would be worth doing something similar:

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com.es/2013/10/further-reflections-on-rupert-sheldrake.html

I meant to write an article on the evidence for the afterlife to counter the materialist / pseudo-skeptical opinion so popular in Internet.

"Thomas Jefferson survives" may not be quite as convincing as Steve Jobs' "Wow,wow, wow!", but interpreting John Adams' experience as a vision makes sense to me. Here's why:

The content and timing of Adams' words indicate that he knew that he was beyond the deathbed watch stage, and was at the point of termination. He was ready to go. Why would he be worried about who was left standing? Why didn't he fret it at an earlier stage? Maybe Adams was worried about the future of the country with his expiring breath, but that seems awfully egocentric in my opinion.
Knowing what we know about deathbed visions, Jefferson appearing as a psychopomp for Adams makes the most sense.

But then, as Art points out, it comes down to ones belief system. Sort of a Rorschach test for the continuation of consciousness.

"have you thought about writing an article about the afterlife in defense of articles such as the article by K. Augustine ...?"

Not really. Arguing about the evidence isn't very interesting to me anymore. There's enough evidence to convince me, even if it fails to convince everybody.

I'm not sure which article by Keith Augustine you're referring to, but Keith has always struck me as one of the few skeptics willing to do a lot of serious research and to really engage with those on the opposite side of the fence.

There's enough evidence to convince me, even if it fails to convince everybody.

Ok, but I think we would have to convince the orthodox scientists on these issues.

I'm not sure which article by Keith Augustine you're referring to, but Keith has always struck me as one of the few skeptics willing to do a lot of serious research and to really engage with those on the opposite side of the fence.

I was referring to the article "The Case Against Immortality". If the afterlife deniers are highly publicized by Internet, afterlife proponents should also do it, as Jime wrote in your blog Subversive Thinking.

Why do we have to convince scientists of anything?

From what I've seen, people are not convinced by argument and debate, but by personal experience. If something happens to them that shakes up their worldview, they may start to explore viewpoints that were previously quite alien to them. In the absence of any life-changing event or epiphany, they will tune out discussions of things they regard as too speculative or implausible.

Why do we have to convince scientists of anything?

For we are all closer to the truths? For mortalists do not take ownership of the Internet? To make people aware of the reality of death and the afterlife can be comforting?

From what I've seen, people are not convinced by argument and debate, but by personal experience.

Not my case, but it will be because I am an exception. Anyway that left untreated the Jime point's in his blog Subversive Thinking.

On Coast to Coast AM Weds. night:

1am - 5am ET
10pm - 2am PT
Globalization/ The Afterlife
Wed 12-11
In the first half, editor of Investigate Magazine in New Zealand, Ian Wishart will discuss how people all over the world are waking up to the scary potential of abuse from centralized global control. He'll reflect on how hard-won freedoms are being chiseled away every day as a global bureaucracy emerges.

In the latter half, speaker, author and entrepreneur, Sandra Champlain, will discuss her passionate search for answers to some of life’s most perplexing questions and how this journey took her from skeptic to believer in the reality of surviving physical death.

...as one of the few skeptics willing to do a lot of serious research and to really engage with those on the opposite side of the fence.
------------------

True, but given that, I still think he took the 'Denture Man' case too far. Talk about logical possibilities vs realistic possibilities!

I've never been much of a joiner and prefer to make up my own mind about things. With the advent of the internet there is a wealth of information about any subject a person cares to investigate. If someone is truly interested in just about any subject they can google it and read articles, watch youtube videos, and discuss it for years if they want to. There seems to be no end to it. On some subjects it just boils down to what your heart tells you is true.

Art, have you ever come across any deathbed visions where the person was in distress at what they were seeing? (I for one don't believe it's going to be roses for everyone.)

I understand your point Juan and to be sure if we could come up with evidence that the scientific consensus accepted proved survival that would be good.

In the past eminent scientists have certainly investigated survival and reached the conclusion it is true. This doesn't seem to have made much difference to the body of accepted scientific knowledge. How many scientists need to be convinced?

I think people should form their own view by examining the evidence for themselves and, if possible, experiencing it directly, rather than taking someone else's word for it. Scientist not not.

"Art, have you ever come across any deathbed visions where the person was in distress at what they were seeing?" - Kathleen
------------------

A few. They are in distress. People who don't want to go or are terrified of dying. They say that there are people in the room that want them to go with them but they try and hold out as long as possible. They say they aren't ready or for some reason they are trying to hold on to life a little longer. A birthday or waiting for a son or daughter to visit before they cross over.

What is interesting is that they are similar to near death experiences.... if they last long enough eventually they turn positive and the person loses their fear and they become relaxed and want to go with the spirits that are their to escort them to the other side.

I believe that everyone is healed and becomes enlightened when they enter that light. The light is pure Love. Contact with that Light is a balm that heals the soul.

It is said that when Augustus Caesar lay dying, he suddenly became panicky and insisted that a crowd of apparently hostile young men had come to carry him away.

http://tinyurl.com/pkoqboz

Given the number of murders that Augustus was responsible for in his early years (as Octavian), it is certainly possible that he had some 'splainin' to do after he passed over.

On the other hand, our sources of info on Roman emperors are a mixture of fact and hearsay, so there is no telling if this story is true.

I just ordered Julia Assante's book.

I think I will enjoy this. I studied ancient history, so with Julia Assante I get both of my favourite subjects, history and afterlife studies, combined in one person! (She is a near-eastern history scholar)

Regarding Michael's last comment, most of our info on the early emperors comes from Suetonius's 'Life of the Caesars'. The problem is that Suetonius is basicaly a tabolid news journo. His biographies, while containing some facts, are spiced up with all manner of juicy gossip, scandal and outlandish antics which probably have no basis in fact. So while it's an entertaining read, I would take a lot of it with a pinch of salt.

The comments to this entry are closed.