No matter what, the research is valuable, if not worthwhile, even if we at first still know nothing, which at this point, is obviously not the case. No research yields true insight at its beginning, only what didn't yield results and what else to try instead. We know that even after the brain no longer transmits signals, patients are able to fully recollect whatever they perceived had happend to them "post mortem" and that many of these experiences are consistent with each other. That should be enough to get peoples attention, instead of dismissing it as lacking too great in tangible evidence, which it isn't. It obviously isn't. Something is happening, and saying that it's simply chemicals in the brain or post memory recall as a result of a traumatic experience isn't good enough an answer when the implications of an imminent discovery offer a greater possible reward than embracing what the easier answer is. A theory then. Here's mine, I'd like to see what can be added or taken away from it:
We know the body and we know the mind. Two intrinsic manifestations of being that we can readily observe, study and learn more about, but I propose a third category. The Spirit. Now can we observe the spiritual? No, but many claim to have witnessed it. Perhaps not empirically, but when there are piles of anecdotal evidence spanning centuries of surreal and supposed accounts of the apparently impossible, then it would be foolish to dismiss it. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. Worth giving attention? Absolutely. We know that the person itself has a completely vivid and lucid experience following death despite a lack of brain function, some experiences being claimed to feel more "real" than reality itself. With more conventional explainations aside, would one consider that the brain in all of its complexity isn't merely a complex computational machine allowing the person to perceive reality, but rather a "receiver" of sorts which sorts out the "signals" of something which is at first unseen? And if a radio receiver is damaged or destroyed, do the signals it once received cease to exist? Of course not. Would one consider that it is not the brain that merely perceives reality, but that the brain is actually a medium which instead *receives* reality?
Why then are the religious, the spiritual, and open hearted suppoedly experiencing the profound, but the researchers that bother to investigate these experiences are not? Perhaps it's much more complicated than a group claiming to experience something, and another group taking a deeper look and not observing anything. If you have, let's say, 1 million people witnessing or experiencing a supernatural instance, would it be honest to say that those 1 million people are either liars, embellishers, and/or mistaken? Convenient maybe, but perhaps it's not a matter of observation, but a matter of giving yourself over to its possibilities. It could be the case that the properties of the spirit are instead enigmatic instead of constant. Intelligence rather than static. Evading observance, yet manifested only under the proper conditions. It's interesting how a religion can be started because of a miracle or a string of miracles, then cease as soon as its adherents begin to pay too much attention to the phenomonas, dogmatizing it and putting it in a box; trying to figure it out. At that point, it seems to evade those who attempt to pursue it just like researchers. All the while under certain circumstances of perspective, some who consider themselves to be spiritual who loosely give themselves over to it, believing it without knowing it, seeking it without finding its source, origin or properties, putting full "faith" instead of full certainty into their desires, making them manifest. Who then is to say that the properties of the spiritual couldn't be likened to a particle that changes its properties once it's observed? Yet less containable, unable to be mastered in the physical, because whatever it is, it is its own master and reveals itself thusly.
Still today, the people of the spiritual world claim to see miracles, healings, sightings and manifestations of the impossible; puzzled doctors, turncoat skeptics, profound experiences that leave a person with either no explanation, or a perceived all-explanation.
The scientific community is at a loss for many unsolved mysteries of the human puzzle, junk DNA, human origin, and the probable miracle that is our own sentient existence, could opening our minds to that which we never considered lead us to a more concrete solution one day? And with this, it's okay not to know. To claim to know would be arrogant. Whether to say that you know that it *isn't* or it *is*. But to be able to admit to not know could be invaluable, critical, to opening ourselves to further understanding to what can be revealed.
Attached: download (5).jpg (327x154, 3.28K)
