Both Cryptoderk and Lekatt first believe in something (God / NDE), then try to find evidence for it.
Consciousness is fascinating.
But why should it lead you to an undetectable God? (who allows all sorts of mistaken religions to flourish.)
Nonsense. It’s been well established that people can have “NDEs” when they only THINK they are dying or about to die. Furthermore, you are simply ignoring all the cases in which people have met people in the “afterlife” who are not in fact dead yet. Or have elaborate visions and predictions that aren’t true and don’t come true.
The key word is NDE-like, sure there are numerous experiences of all kinds. These experiences are brought on by death or a belief death is imminent. But all are not near death experiences. As for Susan Blackmore, we debated the issue personally through email for some time. It finally ended when she wrote “we can agree to disagree.” Her conclusions have been refuted by many. I have also had a similar debate with Karl Jansen of Ketamine fame. If you have time, you may want to read this:
What is missing in these so-called NDEs is the element of death. This research is on very good grounds. Over 90% of the world believe they will live after death, and they are correct.
Believe me: we all know how she felt.
That’s exactly the point: the experiences don’t include an actual death. Just like Pam Reynolds case didn’t yet involve her death when her supposed “NDE” began.
Um, all NDEs lack the element of death. That’s why they’re called NDEs and DEs. If you die, it wasn’t an NDE. If they bring you back, you didn’t die. When a person gets near death, or has an event that can cause death, like a heart attack, certain physical symptoms also happen. Oxygen deprivation is one. These symptoms can be reproduced accurately without the lethal event. Or am I wasting my time trying to explain this?
Big claims require big evidence, so lets see some.
And the so-called “evidence” for the survival of consciousness after actual death has been refuted many more times over, and by actual scientists using actual science. Go figure.
You can toss around statistics all day long about how many people believe this or that, and it won’t make a whit of difference because lots of people believe weird things. Millions of Catholics believe that the Eucharist is ACTUALLY, PHYSICALLY, and TOTALLY transformed into the REAL body of Jesus Christ and that the wine ACTUALLY, PHYSICALLY, and TOTALLY becomes his blood. Are they right, just because a lot of them believe it to be so? What about the MANY other people in the world who do NOT believe that to be true? If there are MORE who disbelieve in these things, does that automatically make THEM right? Isn’t the better method of investigating such claims scientific; take a portion of the host and wine and test it to see if it has physically changed into flesh and blood? Simply because a belief is held by a majority does not in any way prove that it is correct.
You are off the point. The evidence shown was done by real scientists using real science. You can expect a lot more of it in the future. Seek truth, forget about theories.
Not really.
I doubt it; I see no reason to think there’s anything to find. Unless you mean empty claims; I expect to see lots of those.
You should take your own advice.
I do take my own advice very seriously. It could be that denial is the last refuge of skeptics who have had their favorite theories refuted.
What do you think the word “theory” means, anyhow?
No, I’m afraid you don’t, judging from this thread and others where you’ve brought up NDEs.
No, it’s not, or they aren’t skeptics. Denial is the last refuge of believers.
I said it first!
:dubious: What ?
Why do you believe in NDEs, lekatt, when by your own definition you haven’t had one yourself?
I still don’t see why lekatt gets to completely dodge the issue of the Reynolds case. He made all sorts of claims about it, from her being clinically dead for 2 hours, to her supposed NDE recollections being from the period when she was completely flatline. As I’ve shown, none of those claims are supported even by the source he cited as authoritative. All of this is very material to the case he has tried to make about NDEs and consciousness, and yet he flees one thread to repeat the same material in another as if nothing had happened.
It’s funny how when someone wants to believe in something, they can find, bend and twist all sorts of anecdotal “evidence” and weakly contrived science into supporting what they so hope to be true. I deal with this sort of desperate reality-making everyday. I was taught to believe in something when I was very young, that I later figured out (through my own curiosity and open mindedness) to be highly suspect. But everyday I see this sort of flailing that lekatt has exhibited here in my own friends and family. I’ve become very sensitive and attuned to this sort of rhetoric. I believe you believe in what you’re trying to prove. But you must understand that you believe in something that cannot be proven through the scientific method. Good for you. Seriously, I wish I could do the same. But please, let’s not fool ourselves. I’ve grown really weary of the people in my life that try and prove God or the afterlife through science. Let me put it this way: The whole point in believing in God, or a spiritual realm, is by using a human facility called “faith”. Which means believing without seeing. You have faith in lieu of proof. So why implement the scientific method in an area we all know full-well is out of the scope of science? It’s futile and unnecessary for those attempting it, confusing or misleading for those who don’t understand it, and frustrating for those of us who do.
You have your faith. Your mind is made up. You can stop now. Leave the things of faith for those who have it. If anyone really needs hard, cold evidence in the afterlife, then I question their faith to begin with.
Science is only a process. It allows for theories to get stronger in proportion to the amount of nonconflicting, empirical and reproducible evidence that it can accrue. And that’s about it. Amazing things can and have been discovered, derived and conceived of using this process. But you’ll never be able to prove something where science cannot reach. Please, lekatt, explain to me how the process of science can be used to verify that humans have a spirit? If you can’t convince me of a testable hypothesis in this regard, then the only way I can hear what you’re trying to say is to take it on faith. And now we’ve come full circle.
Sure, there are certain elements of the near death experience that can be looked at in a scientific manner. It is these elements that are under scrutiny. These are called veridical NDEs. They are experiences that show the experiencer was conscious and able to accurately describe the events around, and in the vicinity of his clinically dead body and brain. The research being done in this area is being done by qualified researchers at qualifed institutions and published in qualified scientific journals.
It is estimated that over 12 million people in the US has had a near death experience. Thousands of these experiences have been published in print media, broadcast media, and on the internet. There are many things about near death experiences that defy medical explanations. So I won’t list them here, those interested can put “near death experiences” in google and find more reading than they will have time. Please read both sides of the debate fully.
Main stream science is not yet ready to give up its prejudices concerning the spiritual nature of man. But the experiences will continue and some scientists will continue to research them. The debate will not go away.
About two months ago I got an email from a doctor, a surgeon, he wanted to talk on the phone with me about near death experiences. We talk about the experiences that had happen in his presence, and his reading of NDE material. The conversation ended with him saying: “it has got to be true, there is just no other explanation.” So, little by little, man’s spiritual nature will come into vogue with science as well as the general public.
Which prejudices? You mean the insistence on testable theories and actual evidence instead of hearsay and anecdotes and faith? Yup, and if “main stream science” ever abandons those “prejudices” it will no longer be science.
So one surgeon, who sought you out specifically to talk about NDEs, becomes convinced (in all liklihood he was already convinced before he called you) that “it has to be true” (what has to be true? You don’t specify the “it” here. Is it that consciousness survives death? That there is an afterlife in another realm? That God is real? What?) and all of a sudden that’s evidence that “man’s spiritual nature will come into vogue with science”? non sequitur
Ok, I’ll do some further reading on the subject. But considering these people may have been clinically dead, the fact remains they were revived. It’s well known that the perceptions and experiences we perceive as humans are blatantly unreliable. You’ve got way more research in this than I do, but it’s apparent to me just how readily the mind is susceptible to hallucinations in extreme situations. We are nothing more than our perceptions, so when our mind is in an aberrant state, such as that of low-oxygen, what ever is perceived will feel just as real as anything else.
When the doctor says things like, “there’s just no other explanation”, what exactly is he/she referring to?
Believe me, I would love to believe man has a spirit that lives on after our death. It’s a much happier thought than winking out of existence forever. But if we’re looking for scientific evidence, and if you put so much stock in the principals of science, what makes you think science can delve into the spiritual realm? Of this I am most curious.
That and if you can answer this from my last post:
I appreciate your willingness to do some reading on the subject. I am confident it will not be disappointing. Every scientist that has seriously researched near death experiences have had their minds changed by the material. The experience has caused many atheists and agnostics including me to look at the world with a different perspective.
I don’t share your disregard for personal experiences, seeing as how that is all we have to go by. I don’t believe thousands of experiencers are wrong. I started studying NDEs right after I experienced one. It totally changed my belief system and my goals here in the physical.
The doctor was talking about the existence of a spirit. If one can show that consciousness continues after the death of the physical body, then there is an implication of consciousness being something greater than a brain. something of the nature of spirit, for lack or a better word. Some call it a vitality.
This is shown also in out of body experiences which are a beginning part of near death experiences. Once you have experienced yourself out of your body and feeling better, seeing better, and understanding more, there is no doubt in your mind about the spiritual nature of man.
As for science and the spiritual realm, I don’t think science has any place at all in telling spiritual people their beliefs are nonsense, especially since they can’t prove what they say.