Well, sure, we might be deterministic. But I thought the point of this thread was to discuss whether we have less “free will” to choose a belief than, say, to choose to turn right or left at an intersection.
If you have to play the determinism card, then I’d say that you’re arguing that beliefs are not a special class of decision, since you’re arguing we don’t decide anything. (Though I think it’s become more of a semantic argument at that point.)
My only point really was that we don’t get to choose what we believe. I do think it’s a special class of decision, since we can’t even “overrule” ourselves; if someone said “change your mind, go left instead of right at this intersection, and you’ll get this huge pile of cash”, I could do that. I’d probably be able to change my mind for less than that really, but hey, i’m cheap. I can’t do the same with my beliefs, though; no matter how big the metaphorical pile of cash is, or how much I might want to take it, I can’t change what I believe like that.
I don’t believe in free will, so certainly i’d say overall we don’t really have any control over what we do. But even so i’d say beliefs are still a special case within that.
Alrighty then; I think we can agree. I too think we’re deterministic (since uninfluenced random number generators in the brain would not cause ‘free will’ in any real sense of the term, and since even appealing to spirits merely moves the question of our thinking mechanism, but doesn’t solve it), but within the complex machine of our brain there are clearly a lot of sliders that are varyingly resistant to the effects of the internal state changes we percieve as our consciousnesses. Our beliefs in things (particularly in cases when our beliefs are strongly-held) are not something that can be altered at a whim of the cranial CPU, as some other decisions are.
(If you look close, you’ll notice that I actually never said that beliefs can be directly altered by decision; only that you can control and alter the flow of thoughts and information to your brain, which can have the indirect side effect of eroding or building up the foundations of your beliefs. )
You do realize that you’re pushing the wrong point? Nobody’s disputing that people can be made entirely unreceptive if you kill them hard enough. What we’re not buying is that anything interesting can be reliably shown to have happened during the brain-dead periods.
Why? So that you can continue to ignore that actual point I have made while continuing to post your misleading anecdotes and interesting but unproven speculations?
I will try to lay this out as clearly as I can.
Consistent timeline for every reported episode:
Pont A: Subject suffers trauma.
Point B: Subject enters flat-line state.
Point C: Subject exits flat-line state.
Point D: Subject regains consciousness.
Point E: Subject later describes an OBE.
We do not have any evidence that the OBE occurred between Points B and C and NOT between Points A and B or C and D (or even D and E).. None. Not one.
I accept all the discussion regarding the swiftness of flat-line onset after V-Fib cardiac arrest or any other experience. HOWEVER, there is no documentation of any event that occurred ONLY during the period of flat-line brain experience being reported later.
Pam Reynolds’s brain saw was first used before she was flat-lined (and there is no reason to believe that her surgeon had never shown her the saw that was used sometime between the first discussions of her surgery and her later recounting of her experiences. Memory is not so immutable that she could not possibly have been shown the saw and forgot that.
The nurse’s tale of the guy who was in and out of consciousness during his stay in ER covers a period of over 35 minutes during which other members of the ER staff said that he was conscious, either partially or completely.
Every other report follows the same pattern.
It is possible that this stuff has happened just the way you want it to have happened, but you keep claiming that all these researchers have seen it and that claim is false.
Practically speaking how would you get evidence of this? Perhaps the ‘monitoring’ machine (whatever they call it), should flash a random word if it detects a flatline condition. This was the person may see it and report it back? Would that be proof?
If you had read the research you would know the experiencers could see, hear, and move around while brain dead outside of their bodies. There are thousands of documented cases. We know this because the experiencers accurately described events and objects seen while brain-dead. The skeptics have lost the war. Sure there will be plenty more battles, but the outcome is settled by research.
Below is more evidence of the continuing consciousness after death. If you argue the experiencer was not brain-dead, it doesn’t matter he could still see and hear while unconscious. He was in fact out of his body clinically dead. Suggest you do some serious study of near death experiences. All that do come to believe, because it is truth.
Why is “see” bolded there? I don’t myself see anything that he would need vision to know. The patient himself said that he knew the names from when the called out to each other; I don’t see why he couldn’t recognise voices rather than faces.
You still don’t understand the term “skeptic”, by the way. Ironic, in that you are yourself the height of skepticism.
This doesn’t prove anything. The fact remains that even though he was not breathing on his own, he was still breathing via assistance. Blood was still pumping via assistance. He was not just laying there dead. I also don’t see any details regarding whether they were even monitoring brain activity at that time.
This is the sort of nonsense that you continue to repeat when I have already pointed out the serious flaws in pretending that it is proof. (All bolding mine.)
You ignored the first statement:
(I.e., an unverified personal anecdote with no controls for incorrect timing, poor memory, or faulty interpretation.)
In other words, the failure of the heart was being offset by external, mechanical means. The blood continued to be pumped to the brain even before the arrival at the ER.
Then you bolded this line (and I wonder if you capitalized the phrase that appeals to you) that relates the memory of a single participant:
while completely ignoring the later comment (including the portion I will bold since your effective filters continue to cause you to fail to read it:
In other words, in the general pandemonium of an arrest situation in ER, we have at least two conflicting views of what happened from the participants, themselves, yet you continue to insist that the memory of a single nurse that is not verified by any documents showing the actual status of the patient throughout the entire 40 minute event constitutes evidence (that you generally offer as “proof”) that your interpretation is correct.1
You need to read it again, he gave a detailed description of the doctors before he saw them. Yes, I am a skeptic, a real skeptic, one that doesn’t buy into what science, religion, or any other organization claims until I have personal experience with it. How do I do that, by **reserving judgment ** on claims until I have a chance to personally read up on them or investigate them in some other way. I do not think in terms of black or white, and I know that being strange doesn’t mean being wrong.
Could you quote that specific part? I’m having trouble finding it.
It’s also worthwhile to note that just as being strange doesn’t mean you’re wrong, just because people call out strangeness it doesn’t mean they’re wrong, either. And of course, you are an organisation of one.
This may be part of the problem. You do not appear to understand what a scientific study is.
It isn’t a good study. It isn’t a study at all. It’s a story told by some of the participants, after the fact. It has no relation to a scientific study. Where are the hypothesis, the observations, the data, the conclusions? What controls were put in place? Where is the formal write-up?
This report may well be convincing to you. But to continue to refer to it as a scientific study is absolutely, demonstrably wrong, and does you and your argument a disservice.
I can’t do the same with my beliefs, though; no matter how big the metaphorical pile of cash is, or how much I might want to take it, I can’t change what I believe like that.