Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Multifaith "Round-Up Views of the Soul": Wow this reading was amazing in the fact that all those religions have such different opinions about the soul and body!! I truelly believe that every living thing has a soul. I also believe that we can decide were we want our soul to go whether we want it to go to heaven with our body if we go to heaven. Or whether it will go into an afterlife and live on while he body is dead!! I really don't know but I tryed and I told you how I believe in the soul and how it is in everything around us!! I believe every living thing has a soul even plant life.

What is a Soul?: In this reading they talk mostly about matter and the mind!! I believe that the mind and matter can be quite simular!! The mind is matter just like the matter in the universe that keeps everything going in a circle and everything going from day to night!! I believe that the matter in the brain is the tissue and organs and all of that and the mind is the stuff your brain can think of for everything that is going on!! I just think it is very interesting the mind and matter in itself!! I don't really know what is so different between matter and mind they both think a like sometimes!!

Out-of-Body Experiences and the Soul: I totally believe in out of body experiences because I have had my own experience with that myself!! Where I was walking up the stairs of my house to my bedroom when all of a sudden I was floating above my body while I was walking and I floated right over my parents who I walked right by!! I went to my room and my body was back to normal it was very weird I felt like I was flying but really I just had an OBEs!! That is how I can relate to this reading in that aspect!! It scared me to no ends that I was floating and my parents didn't see me!!

Multifaith Round-Up: I think the soul is something incredibly difficult to define, and personally, I still don’t know if I believe in a “soul”. However, I do think your definition of what a soul is will greatly influence your opinion on cases like Terri Schiavo and the soul vs. body. A lot of people believe that a soul is a purely human thing and animals, for example, do not possess a soul. But in the Hebrew sense, soul is the same as breath. Animals undoubtedly breathe, plants sort of breathe, and so would they each have a soul as well? Or is the representation of a soul in the form of a breath based off limited medical knowledge, as Rabbi David Kraemer brought up. If you go with that, it kind of negates the need for animals and plants to have souls too. In short, I got the idea that a soul is a very human thing and to prolong life artificially, may not be the best idea when dealing with the soul. But that frame of mind only works if you believe that after death a soul has someplace to go.

What is the Soul?: It took me a while to figure out Russell’s point, but I think I got it (more or less) with, “Mind and matter were something like the lion and the unicorn fighting for the crown; the end of the battle is not the victory of one or the other, but the discovery that both are only heraldic inventions.” There is no mind, there is no matter, in the sense that one is physical and one is mental (and therefore could be immortal), it’s just two ways of looking at or organizing events.

Out-of-Body Experiences: This whole reading was seriously dense and I’m not quite sure if I got the same meaning the author intended. From what I got, out-of-body is sort of a flawed term. Nothing really goes out of your body; I think it’s just a result of something that happens in your brain and central nervous system. At the very beginning of the page, it related OBEs to a “globalized phantom-limb experience”. Studies have attributed phantom limb to plasticity of the brain in the somatosenory cortex. If you lose your hand, that corresponding part of your somatosenory cortex will be essentially taken over by the neighboring brain material, and in this case, it links your hand to your face. Your hand doesn’t exist, but you can still feel sensations (like pain or movement) in your “hand” because stimuli that normally go to the face part will now go to both. I don’t see why an OBE can’t be similar to this. As the article states, if you stimulate the right angular gyrus (whatever that is) with electrodes, you can essentially induce an OBE, which argues that an OBE is basically signals getting mixed up in your brain. Pair this with the fact that most people experience an OBE in some state of sleep, near-death experience, or some other traumatic and/or stressful time, in my opinion, it makes a convincing argument that OBEs are basically all in your head and has nothing to do with a soul or some other metaphysical reason.

Multifaith: Note on the Catholic response- she says "The soul lives before God throughout eternity." So does God NOT create the soul then? And if not, where does the soul come from then? This is not what I expected a Catholic to say. I thought somewhere along the lines of: God created souls and put them into people's bodies, or some such answer. Not that the soul exists before God! What else exists before God? Was there another God before God? Are souls responsible for the creation of God since they were around first?
The Terri Schiavo issue: Mr Witherington said "[so a] person is dead if we can't find sufficient brain waves?" In addition to other body parts no longer functioning-- yes. Essentially she is failing the basic criteria for life. Plus: I thought her parents were very religious? Don't they want their daughter to "be with God" or go on? Perhaps the state she is in is "a reflection of the will of God"? In addition, who would really want to live an existance like that? A drain upon loved ones and society, totally incapable of awareness or even one's own bodily functions--living dependent in a diaper and a feeding tube. It's easy to say what Mr. Witherington says as long as it isn't himself or someone he dearly loves. Talk is cheap.
I really enjoyed reading the other perspectives! yay for not just Christianity. It is really a nice development for the class to see that so many different views and beliefs are out there...

Russell: I really liked this article. And I do believe that he is right on the point that science cannot yet adequately explain how our brains work. As to the 'touch is not really touch' example he used, I have to say I would find it VERY difficult to accept the fact that the stone is not real. You can stand upon it and not fall to the ground (if it was just particles and not substantive, wouldn't we fall to the ground because of gravity?), you can feel the texture of it, smell it, and hear it (if you put your ear to the stone, and someone taps upon it we can hear the echos). I would certainly need a great amount of evidence to discount the empirical proof presented!

Out-of-Body: Interesting. What can distinguish the so called Out of Body Experiences from dreams or hallucinations created by the mind? Science has a lot of trouble in these areas, and it is unclear. To simply say 'well science can't figure it out-- therefore OBE!' is a bit premature. Also, if the above article is correct in classifying the body as having time and place, and the soul only as having time: wouldn't OBEs defeat that? The individual experiences described here have a reference of place: outside of the body. So, I again must refer to my above argument about dreams and hallucinations. Furthermore, your body can respond to dreamed or imagined stimuli. Waking up from a nightmare, with your heart pounding, gasping breaths and sweating is an occurane many of us have experienced. The situations described in this article do not meet the distinguishing criteria for something other than simple ordinary mind-induced imagination. The article even admits that these could be "lucid dreams". In regards to the paralysis: seek help from your local physician. Conditions like than can be a result of a GMC (general medical condition). I am not totally discounting OBEs, but I would like to see more evidence, with proof that these experiences are not originated by mental processes (and thus totally scientifically explainable). It will take awhile for science to reach this point tho, so I will have to be patient.

Multifaith: Note on the Catholic response- she says "The soul lives before God throughout eternity." So does God NOT create the soul then? And if not, where does the soul come from then? This is not what I expected a Catholic to say. I thought somewhere along the lines of: God created souls and put them into people's bodies, or some such answer. Not that the soul exists before God! What else exists before God? Was there another God before God? Are souls responsible for the creation of God since they were around first?
The Terri Schiavo issue: Mr Witherington said "[so a] person is dead if we can't find sufficient brain waves?" In addition to other body parts no longer functioning-- yes. Essentially she is failing the basic criteria for life. Plus: I thought her parents were very religious? Don't they want their daughter to "be with God" or go on? Perhaps the state she is in is "a reflection of the will of God"? In addition, who would really want to live an existance like that? A drain upon loved ones and society, totally incapable of awareness or even one's own bodily functions--living dependent in a diaper and a feeding tube. It's easy to say what Mr. Witherington says as long as it isn't himself or someone he dearly loves. Talk is cheap.
I really enjoyed reading the other perspectives! yay for not just Christianity. It is really a nice development for the class to see that so many different views and beliefs are out there...

Russell: I really liked this article. And I do believe that he is right on the point that science cannot yet adequately explain how our brains work. As to the 'touch is not really touch' example he used, I have to say I would find it VERY difficult to accept the fact that the stone is not real. You can stand upon it and not fall to the ground (if it was just particles and not substantive, wouldn't we fall to the ground because of gravity?), you can feel the texture of it, smell it, and hear it (if you put your ear to the stone, and someone taps upon it we can hear the echos). I would certainly need a great amount of evidence to discount the empirical proof presented!

Out-of-Body: Interesting. What can distinguish the so called Out of Body Experiences from dreams or hallucinations created by the mind? Science has a lot of trouble in these areas, and it is unclear. To simply say 'well science can't figure it out-- therefore OBE!' is a bit premature. Also, if the above article is correct in classifying the body as having time and place, and the soul only as having time: wouldn't OBEs defeat that? The individual experiences described here have a reference of place: outside of the body. So, I again must refer to my above argument about dreams and hallucinations. Furthermore, your body can respond to dreamed or imagined stimuli. Waking up from a nightmare, with your heart pounding, gasping breaths and sweating is an occurane many of us have experienced. The situations described in this article do not meet the distinguishing criteria for something other than simple ordinary mind-induced imagination. The article even admits that these could be "lucid dreams". In regards to the paralysis: seek help from your local physician. Conditions like than can be a result of a GMC (general medical condition). I am not totally discounting OBEs, but I would like to see more evidence, with proof that these experiences are not originated by mental processes (and thus totally scientifically explainable). It will take awhile for science to reach this point tho, so I will have to be patient.

Views of the Soul: I do agree with the idea that every person has a soul. Although we cannot physically prove it, I agree with Ben Worthington’s statement that, “when we are opened up and examined, no one can find love, or pain, or guilt, in there….” So why wouldn’t a soul exist as well? As for keeping people on life support as a means of survival of the soul – well – that can be debated. In my opinion, if a person has a VERY minimal chance of survival, it is not necessary to prolong their existence through life support and machines. By doing that, you are merely just prolonging their inevitable passing. Since the soul exists in the human “shell,” I would have to say that it remains there as long as it is still living and breathing – even if the person is not conscious of it. By letting go, and allowing a person to pass away when they are in the vegetative state, you are merely releasing the soul into a better afterlife.

What is the Soul?: I agree with Russel’s literal depiction of physicists, “Who ever heard of a cobbler saying that there was no such thing as boots, or a tailor maintaining that all men are really naked?” Of course there is matter on earth and of course there is such a thing as the mind. If I can see it, touch it, and comprehend it-that's good enough proof for me.

Out-Of-Body-Experiences: This was by far one of the most interesting articles to read this semester. However, I do not agree that these “out of body” experiences are actually our “spirits” floating away from our physical being. I’ll admit that I have never had an OUT of body experience – but I have experienced the feeling of paralysis where I am conscious but cannot move. Despite this, I still believe that OBE’s are all an experience entirely in the mind. Hasn’t everyone had a really vivid dream, where you could swear that you were in a different place – only to wake up in your own bed? It is the same thing. The mind was merely in deep thought, and perceived that it was in a different location, and nothing more.

I thought that the beliefnet article was rather interesting, not only because it took the time to explain how various religious groups view the soul, but also how those beliefs relate to a real-world situation, that of Terri Schiavo. But I was surprised to see how many ducked the real issue, should someone of their religion unplug Terri? My personal favorite is the answer from Kabir Helminski, the Sufi Muslim, who says that a persons spiritual development has a bearing on the ability of the soul to survive outside the body. A kind of if you don't use it you lose it type deal.

As to the Russell article, maybe I'm tired, but I didn't get it. Maybe that is his point, that science can't get it better then I can. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a soul.

Lastly, there has been anecdotal evidence for out-of-body experiences for millennial, and it's nice to see science trying to understand the phenomena. The human mind is so complex that it warrants this type of research and speculation. But I don't think we can use it to prove the existence of an afterlife, or Heaven, or God. After listening to Coast-to-Coast for a year, (it's a late night radio show, talks UFO's, OBE's, and all sorts of other stuff) I have developed a theory. That when, and if, your soul leaves your body, you see what you wanted to see. If you believe in a Heaven and God, then thats what you get, if you want to be reincarnated then you can do that too. If you prefer you could have a paradise filled with old pets, or strippers, or whatever. I think most near death experience survivors get the tunnel of white light, then someone they love telling them to go back because it is comforting, and it gives the person what they wanted to hear.

Bertrand Russell
I have read this author's work before in my philosophy classes and I guess he used to teach here at the U a while ago. This paper is about the reality of human mind and physical matter and how they impact science depending on what we accept. Physicists claim there is no such thing as matter, but yet they spend all their time trying to understand it. The same goes for psychologists who claim there is no mind, but just a human body that responds to needs by certain behavioral actions that vary depending on the person and situation. I think the main point Russel is trying to make here is that the mind and soul are both equal in their powers, but by calling the soul a soul we lose scientific value of the phenomenon. People prefer to study the mind, and they act as if it is less miraculous than the existence of a soul, when in reality there is no way to differentiate the two. If I get shot in the head my brain is dead, but whether or not my mind and soul continue to exist is a debate that will most likely never come to a conclusion.

OBE
Out of body experiences are hard to explain but this essay did a good job. For some reason OBE's seem to be associated with physical weakness, and by the descriptions of experiences people have with OBE's it seems like they are given temporary powers that help them get through that period of weakness. OBE's are usually associated with the human soul because people identify with themselves from outside the physical limitations of their body. People could sometimes experience an OBE while dreaming in sleep. Causes for OBE's are not clear but I believe they are linked to a higher power. The essay talked about people who are in a threateningly dangerous situation where they gain a burst of courageousness and feel they can do anything without physical limitations so they end up saving other peoples lives because of their bravery. If God wanted to save a person's life and not materialize Himself and shock the world, I think this is one way He could do it.

I find the concept of a soul to be so abstract that most people don’t bother defining it, but they believe it blindly. The Christian soul I find extremely hard to accept, based on the fact that only humans have it. They definitely have it, but it cannot be explained or proven. It is not physical, it is ageless, and it is the part of you that goes to heaven. Many people in our class at the beginning of the year were asked if animals have souls, and most replied quickly and said no. If the soul is so vaguely defined how is it that only humans have it. This blind faith in a human soul that is undefined has proven to be dangerous. Racism was driven by the beliefs that the populous of Africa, the Americas, and Asia were savages and did not have a soul, or a less developed soul. But Christian mainstream thought has changed and now all humans have souls, but all other life does not. This concept is outrageous, just because humans have a slightly more developed frontal lobe that means that they are the soul owners of this abstract concept of an essence of the divine. If humans have a soul then all things should, if animals don’t have souls then humans definitely don’t have them either. It almost seems more logical that humans don’t have a soul and animals do. Humans are lost and looking for their place in this world, humans are constantly searching either physically or mentally, and they always come up short. But animals know their exact place in their own world, and they accept their current state. Life and death are embraced, and the true nature of our universe can be seen whenever one is in nature. There is such a spiritual draw coming from nature, this is possibly because that is when the divine is represented, that is when the essence of the true nature can be found, in the bugs, the mammals, the birds, the trees, the life and death. This could be where the soul can be found, not in our busy schedules, and in our heated house, and in our processed food. These things can only be nurturing our unsoul, our unnatural state This argument could be silly but I find the Christian view of a soul to be much more silly.
I was impressed by the Russell piece. How he focused on impermanence applied to the vastness of time. As science gets bigger and vastness of time becomes infinite. How can the human soul exist that long? How can the soul be infinite also? The only constants in our universe is that entropy applies to all things and all things end, why would it be any different for the human construct of the soul? I liked how he started with the anecdote about his childhood, and how the idea of the soul was so common, but when this idea is applied to the laws of all things it falls apart.

What is the Soul: I would like to say that the line that said that tailors maintaining that all men are really naked?, I thought of Emperors New Clothes, and the tailor did say that he was wearing clothes when he wasn't so whose to say that we aren't really naked. I also thought the article brought up a good point, humans will not last forever. The human race will eventual die out and hopefully it won't be anytime soon so I really am not worried, I will be if there is such things as reincarnation then I will be worried for my future self.
Out of body experiences: I thought this article real main point was saying there was a soul because of OBEs, it you are out of your body what is out of you body, why a soul of course. I think that people do have souls, but my view of soul is more based on the person's morals and conscience in this soul. With this view I think that OBE are more like really complex dreams, where the mind reverts far back and by doing this the mind thinks they are somewhere else. This is true when you mind takes dreams and you really think that you are really in your dream and need to convince yourself you it was a really a dream.
Views of the Soul: I thought this article really addressed the differences between the different religions view of the soul. This I thought was different because I always thought the views of the soul were very similar if not completely the same. One point brought up in the article dealing with the Schiavo case was is it right to keep someone of life support because of the soul. This is what I say if there is little or no hope that the person will ever get better, then why are you keeping the soul trapped in a body that is dead, when the soul could be released and go to heaven or a better place (depending if you believe in heaven). Wouldn't you want you soul to be happy again when it might not be if it is in a defected/damaged body?

multi-faith round up-
this was basically a list of how various different religions and cultures define the word soul. its interesting that every religion basically shares a similar belief of what the soul is which is that it is neither the mind nor body, and it leaves the person upon death. from this definition, stories begin to vary a bit. after reading this, it becomes difficult not to question why the idea of a soul is unanimous with all religions and why the definition is so similar. if you ask me, it relates to the same reason i believe religion to exist in the first place which is that people have a strong desire to feel that they are an important part of a vast universe. at the same token, people don't want to believe that after they die they rot in the ground. its understandable why this thought would frighten many people, regardless of whether its true or not.

"what is the soul"-
i feel like this piece didn't neccessarily fully address the question that its title suggests. i do however think that it brings about some interesting questions in my mind, such as whether or not all of these material things such as mind and body are seen to exist. if some believe that they don't neccessarily exist and are only a categorization method, i think something completely untangible such as the soul should be a more likely product of human invention. this article is also faulted for obvious reasons which are that it is outdated when it speaks of knowing nothing of the sun or moon, and not being able to lengthen one's life. i also disagree with russell when he says that science creates more questions than answers. while this may be the current status, the long term effects of scientific discovery have proven to be progressive. an easy example is the previously mentioned ideas that are now outdated.

Out-of-body experiences-
this article addresses another unexplainable phenomenon being OBE's. similar to miracles, these are instances which apply only to a minority of the population and cannot be fully explained. i can't really help but remain skeptical about this topic only because it applies to small amount of people, many of them being people with psychiatric problems. although its impossible to deny the people who have claimed to experience them as being wrong. as far as trying to prove they exist, i'm not sure that this article does it for me. in discussing OBE's the article brings up the notion of a soul as being the means by which one observes themself from outside of their body, which is one the forms of OBEs mentioned. this is probably the most frequently mentioned form, and seems to be many people's proof that a soul does indeed exist. still, in my opinion, the science is lacking.

I thought this quote from the Jewish Rabbi was quite interesting and insightful: “The reason why the fight over end-of-life decisions is so nasty is because all spiritual traditions right now are sorely challenged by living in a moment where our technological and medical capacity far outstrip our ethical and spiritual awareness.” Perhaps this is one explanation for why science and religion so often seem to be out of sync: technology/science is advancing at a rate far faster than we are really ethically or theologically prepared to deal with. Maybe science and spirituality really are both components of a single truth and are simply not on the same page yet.

As for the soul, I’m not sure what I believe. To me, belief in a soul is less about belief in an afterlife (although that is obviously a significant component for many) than it is about belief in humans being more than the sum of our parts, consciousness being something greater than the byproduct of a large enough number of neurons being interlinked. I may be a skeptic in matters of religion, and a big proponent of science, but this is something I would like to really like to believe. Intuitively, it seems true. Scientifically, it has problems and defies current explanation.

I think it’s entirely possible, and maybe even likely, that consciousness interacts with the world in ways we don’t yet understand, some of which are entirely compatible with various spiritualities. I’m just not sure if this is something that science will ever be able to prove or disprove, or is even capable of addressing. Even with so much neurological research occurring, and so much of the mind-brain connection being explored, the essence (or even existence?) of our consciousness is still as much a mystery as ever.

I didn’t get Russell’s essay. It seemed a bit meandering and never really approached the issue of the soul to my satisfaction. I’ve never heard of a physicist claiming that matter “doesn’t exist” because it can be explained in terms of the interactions between atoms. Since when does breaking down a whole into it’s constituent parts invalidate the existence of the whole?

As for OBEs. I found the article very dense and a little disappointing because it focused solely on rather inconsequential OBEs for which possible scientific explanations exist. From what I’ve read, and from the experiences of people that I deeply trust, there is more than needs to be explained than that. For example, there are cases in which a heavily sedated patient undergoing surgery has had an OBE and later been able to describe details about the surgery, the surgeons, the room, etc. that they would have had no way of knowing. I think these cases are fascinating and wish the article had devoted some time to just describing their mystery.

Multi-faith: I enjoyed reading what each religion’s belief was on what a soul is. However, when I finished reading it, I began confusing what I had read. It was a lot of information for me to gather. I don’t know, I guess that I always thought that there was a body and a soul. When a person dies, the body stays on earth, and the soul goes up to heaven. I guess I get this belief from my religious background. However, it also makes sense to me that if humans have a soul, then animals would as well. But then I begin to question whether plants would have souls. I know they can breathe like animals and humans, it just seems to be an odd concept for me to grasp.

What is the soul? I find the entire concept of a soul intriguing. Although there are high beliefs in the science perspective that they are false, it cannot be proven. Yet, from a religion standpoint, it cannot be proven. So it comes back to relating to proving/disproving if there is a God. This is something that is very difficult to prove/disprove, or at least currently.

OBE: The examples given in this article were interesting to read. However, I am not sure what to think of it. It is another very odd concept to me. A person falls on the floor but cannot feel their head hit? I guess I have dreams where they can seem as almost real, but not to the point where I wouldn’t wake up if I hit my head

Multi-faith Round-Up - It was interesting to see the views of all the different faiths giving their two cents, and to see how greatly they differed. I personally can level with the buddhists and the Unitarian. The unitarian says that the soul is connected to the mind, which is completely understandable. It is our mind that sets us apart from the animals, and it could be that mind that creates our soul. When the mind fails, and a person can not maintain their own life, for an extended period without showing signs of improvement, it seems logical to believe that the soul is no longer there. Also, to go along with the Buddhists and Gandhi, a person/animal who is suffering can be put to death without it being a violent or heartless thing. The circumstances dictate the action, and in this case I believe that they did finally take the correct course of action.

Bertrand Russell - I came out of this reading confused, but with a general idea of what he was saying. It seems that he provides a case for both, and gives perspective into both, but does not believe totally in one extreme. I guess this is the agnosticism coming into play?

OBE's - I find the stories interesting and everything, but kind of unbelievable. I mean, in a lot of the cases the person was either in a subconscious state, or having a seizure, or experiencing a trick played by their eyes. When I was young I sleepwalked (is that a word?) walked to my window and came face to face with a person with a swirly eye and a scary mask. I dove under my bookcase to avoid seeing him anymore. When I woke up, I thought it was a dream, but I had fallen asleep in my bookcase. Weird? Yeah, out of body experience, I don't think so. The mind does weird things when you're not fully conscious, like when you're hypnotized. I don't find them to be anything to cause a fuss over.

Multifaith Round-up:

I found that Ben Witherington III’s statement that “when we are opened up and examined, no one can find love, or pain, or guilt in there,” felt oddly simplistic when I read it. When we split open a human, we also can’t find the senses of touch, smell, sight, feeling, and hearing, but like love, pain, and guilt, they are senses and sensations experienced by most on a daily basis. I feel the emotions that characterize the ‘soul’ can probably be linked in some ways to actions and reactions within the physical body. I of course don’t have much to back this belief up with…

I found that I actually agreed with Arvind Sharma’s general moral outlook the most (as pertains to the soul and the Terri Shiavo case). He states that “the Hindu position has been that you have to acknowledge the fact that life presents you with authentic moral dilemmas, meaning that you will only be able to follow one moral course, at the expense of another.” He points out that both Schiavo’s parents and her husband are doing what they think is truly best for her in this moral dilemma involving her ‘soul’. Overall, the rest of the writers had good, and often contradictory, moral assessments of the situation. It goes to show that the human understanding of soul/body interactions (or the notion of humans that a soul in fact exists) is inconsistent and highly variable.

What is the Soul?

Russell seems to be arguing that the way we characterize things as mind or matter is just that—characterizations by us. He discusses the deepening complexities that come along with increased scientific knowledge, and how the more we know, the less we are revealed to actually know. It seems, overall, that his discussion is focused on the definitions we apply to these different aspects of existence, and that they might not be so well-defined or different at all? I don’t know… maybe matter and mind are the same, maybe they are different, or maybe they are both just meaningless constructs…

Out-of-body experiences and the soul

I do not personally believe that out-of-body experiences are truly out-of-body at all. I do not have evidence to back this up… but I just have a hard time buying it. There have been members of my family (mostly extended family) who have such claims, but I have never, ever, ever experienced anything remotely like it (of course I also remember almost NONE of my dreams, so maybe my mind’s ability to conjure up such things is limited…).

It seems that out-of-body experiences are probably based on mental stimuli or triggers within the brain, and not representational of reality. Such examples as “feeling as if my body consisted of a substance constituted of a mixture between the gaseous and the liquid state” or “you have certainly seen how elegantly a jellyfish moves through the water… I could now move around with the same ease” or “my soul was floating somewhere above my body high enough to see the tops of the trees and the small hills” are examples that could EASILY be constructed in the mind of the average person. They, like dreams, possibly don’t require that the events be accurate or detailed, just represented in terms that the mind has the ability to characterize based on its stored contents. The image of oneself floating over trees and mountains is vague enough to be visualized in a manner that seems quite detailed and accurate to the person with the experience, but since the details are gained from the person’s mind, do the people really have the ability to identify when they conjure up inaccurate representations of these experiences? If a person with a near-death-experience could accurately describe seeing things that they had no preconceived notions about, then I might buy it.

Some good stuff...
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy biagra[/url]

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! uxksoncesazpi

Huge info collection --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]