alt.sci.physics

On Sep 7, 6:45 pm, George Hammond wrote:

> >But where's the evidence that anybody has ever experienced a longer
> >"life after death" than these heart patients?

>
> [Hammond]
> There is no such evidence... that's why "Life After
> Death" is considered a conjecture and always has been. It
> is only since the advent of modern medicine that people have
> actually 'died' and been resucitated and have reported
> 'dreaming' while they were 'dead' that there is any evidence
> at all that Life After Death exists.... and as you can see
> even that evidence is hotly disputed by the experts.

So why even consider the idea? Because it's a satisfying thing to
believe?


> in mankind. Some Stone Age wag was probably sitting at a
> campfire one night 10,000 years ago and said to one of his
> companions: "You know; dying is a lot like going to
> sleep... do you think it's possible that dead people are
> dreaming and that therefore there is another dream type of
> Life After Death"?

Yes that's pretty much the idea I had too. But combined with the worry
that "I like being able to think and walk around, I don't want to lose
that" so they start fantisising about life after death, and realised
that such thoughts make them feel happier and less worried about
dieing. Then when some influential person tells them the same story
that only confirms what they wanted to believe all along. With that
satisfaction in their minds, influential people can then say "ah but
if you don't do things like I tell you to you won't get the life after
death" and they start worrying again, until the follow their "pope"'s
or "prohpet"'s or "king"'s or whoever's instructions.

But that's all there is isn't it? Just people imagining. Nothing more.
So what? Is it even worth considering studying it?