It’s a vicious cycle, Lekatt. After you’ve failed to demonstrate any concrete argument, after you have been challenged dozens of times to show real evidence, you simply equivocate, take a side trip discussing the failings of science, and blithely repeat your original claims supported by a poor interpretation of scientific work done and of course your ever-present anecdotes.
On the topic of the supernatural in general you have failed to demonstrate any validity. On the more specific topics of OBEs and NDEs, your arguments (including the crude analogies) have been addressed and once again your conspicuous lack of supporting evidence has been highlithed. Mind you, I am referring to the work of other posters in the case of OBEs and NDEs, which I have not tackled specifically. Joe Random’s recent post put it rather well.
Demonstrate that there are additional components necessarily involved in NDEs and OBEs, specifically components that are non-neurophysiological, such as the “soul”. The evidence we have to date indicates that every state of consciousness and cognition we experience, whether it be waking, comatose, out of body, dreaming, hallucinating, etc. manifests itself due to neurophysiological changes in us such as fluctuating hormone levels, neurotransmitter release, neuron firing rates, concentrations of activity in certain organized brain structures, etc… We know that much because it’s been observed and tested.
You claim there is something more involved, like a soul or incorporeal mind or such. But that sort of thing has never been observed or tested in the reliable manner necessary to satisfy the requirements that will bring error down to acceptable levels (anecdotes, once again, are not acceptable because they introduce too much error).
If you think things stand otherwise, you will continue to crash in your arguments as you have done to date, though I wonder if you even realize it. If you can provide reliable studies and further demonstrate that you understand them (unlike the one you cited that Joe explained for you just above), then we’re all very happy to listen and consider. Too bad previous experience suggests that you will not take this approach.
The way you’re going now, you might as well save yourself time and quote Shakespeare, who put it rather better than you have thus far:
There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [science]
(Hamlet Act I, scene 5)
Which is fine as a suggestion that human knowledge would appear to be limited, but when this position is used (as you have) to argue in favour of the claims you advance it’s known as the Argument From Ignorance or Appeal To Ignorance fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam). That is a case in which you imply that because something has not been proved true --that neurophysiological changes are all there is to states of mind-- it must be false. But so far all we have is physical evidence, nothing whatsoever to do with the soul and so forth, which is why your argument is not standing up no matter how many times you keep propping it.
So it’s very simple: demonstrate components in addition to the neurophysiological ones for your NDEs and similar experiences and show us that there is something relevant in your arguments. Otherwise the logical conclusion regarding your many anecdotes is that you (or whoever) were dreaming, experiencing hypnagogic or hypnapompic hallucinations, had done too many drugs, or similar perfectly ordinary explanation.
You could continue to launch sloppy attacks against the scientific method, science as a body of work, and of course the characters of “stupid” scientists and sceptics, since I imagine that eventually you’d get dizzy and fall over from running in circles, thus saving us the task of explaining basic arguments in detail yet another time.
Or you could do the honourable thing and simply admit that you are unable to demonstrate your claims and argue in their support, and stop wasting time and energy.
)