lekatt's recent hijacks (removed from original threads)

[lekatt]

@Mangetout

Science uses that ‘negative thinking’ positively. An absolutely fundamental part of the scientific method is that assumptions are to be actively doubted - ideas are to be assailed by any and every honest means available - that’s how science achieves meaningful results - by winnowing away the rest.

(emphasis mine)
Aren’t you just saying here that the term ‘science’ means something different to you than it does to everybody else?

So you doubt everything until you can prove its value, and the method for determining its value is “made up” by you. So who determines the value of the scientific method? How do you know the method is absolutely accurate?

[Czarcasm]

If, according to lekatt, science is a poor way to study NDEs, then we must assume that any and all links he provides to what he claims are studies and scientific evidence are totally useless.

[Cervaise]

@lekatt

This research has shown consciousness lives on after the death of the brain and body.

No it doesn’t.

Prove me wrong.

[DiggitCamara]

@lekatt

So you doubt everything until you can prove its value, and the method for determining its value is “made up” by you. So who determines the value of the scientific method? How do you know the method is absolutely accurate?

Why talk in absolutes? The scientific method has been, so far, a very good way to find out how things work, what things exist, and so on. As such, it has produced very much of the technology that surround us, the food that sustains us and the medicine that cures us. It has evolved over time and thus is “made up” by Humans, but it is far from arbitrary. It can’t be, because it has to work.

But maybe, just like Zoe pointed out, it won’t prove to be absolutely accurate in all respects. But nothing you have said in this thread points at a limit of Science so far. The NDE can be investigated and has been investigated.

It’s just that you don’t want to wait for the actual results of the investigation and want us to acknowledge your preconceived notions about the phenomenon.

[lekatt]

@DiggitCamara

Why talk in absolutes? The scientific method has been, so far, a very good way to find out how things work, what things exist, and so on. As such, it has produced very much of the technology that surround us, the food that sustains us and the medicine that cures us. It has evolved over time and thus is “made up” by Humans, but it is far from arbitrary. It can’t be, because it has to work.

But maybe, just like Zoe pointed out, it won’t prove to be absolutely accurate in all respects. But nothing you have said in this thread points at a limit of Science so far. The NDE can be investigated and has been investigated.

It’s just that you don’t want to wait for the actual results of the investigation and want us to acknowledge your preconceived notions about the phenomenon.

There is no way to ascertain if the scientific method is accurate or not. What do we compare it with. It has not been used in all possible situations, we don’t even know all possible situations. So what we have is an unknown (scientific method) trying to invalidate an unknown (NDEs). Then we have people arguing that it does not show consciousness is non-local, which it does, and these people can’t prove that consciousness is local or anything elso for that matter. Not a pretty picture.
Another one:

Cool website. I agree, the lasting impression from an NDE is profound.
When I was 11 years old, I got a sore throat that didn’t go away and because I come from a family of 10, going to the doctor was a luxury. The sore throat, left untreated, was discovered to be strep and since it cannot go away with antibiotics, the strep infection settled in my kidneys and I then had a kidney infection/diseased called Nephritis (Bright’s Disease). The second night in the hospital, I started to cry when my Mom and Dad were going home after visiting, because instinctively, I knew I would never see them again. Because I was a kid, I knew they were keeping this from me; however, the body and the mind KNOW. They left wondering why I was acting so strange. Eleven year olds don’t cry like that when Mommy and Daddy leave. Well, at 11 p.m. that night, the hospital called to tell my parents that it wasn’t likely that I would survive the night. Last rites were given and they monitored me all night, every 15 minutes.

In between the blood pressure monitorings, I remember being in the corner of the room, near the ceiling and looking down at my body as the nurse took my blood pressure. I wondered, hmmmmmmmmm, what the heck am I doing down there? I’m obviously up here! Seemed strange, but I didn’t worry about it. All of a sudden, there was a suction and I was moving through a tunnel at very, very, very high speed. When I came to an abrupt halt, I noticed 8 lighted beings off to my right and a big, beautiful white light directly in front of me.

Wow, I thought, and started heading towards that white light. I remember feeling a lot of peace, not sick, and the light seemed to have a “personality” or “essence” to it. It wasn’t just a big 'ol floodlight. Felt great and I loved it. Just as I was walking towards the light, the lighted beings (angels–no wings) called me over to the side and told me to wait for a more superior being to arrive. I waited. The being arrived and then showed me part of my past and some of my future.

In particular, my little brother, Tim. Well, Tim is very hyper and a bit of a brat, so my response to the angels when shown some “footage” of Tim acting up and not being nice to me was, “Well, yea, Timmy’s a brat.” as if everyone in the Universe already knew that and there was nothing more to know. I was told by the angels, “Do not make their problem, your problem, Dear One.” OK, I thought and thoughts are how you communicate here, not voice. It didn’t make much sense, but OK. I was then asked if I wanted to go into the light or back to the body. This seemed like Sophie’s Choice to me, so I looked back down the tunnel and then turned my head and back to the light, back down the tunnel, back to the light, back and forth, back and forth.

I understood that there were boundaries there and that if I went into the light, I could not come back and visa versa. I also understood that what I could have there I couldn’t have here and what I could have with my body, I couldn’t have there. I was told that I would be ill and that was not negotiable. I was also told that they would never leave me and all I had to do was ask for their help and help would arrive. At that point I said, “I want to live.” and as I finished the thought, I felt that same strong suction grab me again and carry me back down the tunnel. I did not re-enter the body gently. It was like a big BAM! and I opened my eyes and the nurse was standing next to me taking my blood pressure … again or still? Well, I looked up at her and said, “I’m going to be OK, now.” She looked at me as if I was delusional, but then I started healing in leaps and bounds leaving the docs and staff with their heads spinning.

I remember they wheeled me downstairs to get an EKG the next day and I thought, “You’re a day late and a dollar short. It has been decided. I’m fine now.” Well, the doctor didn’t really understand why I was healing all of a sudden, but attributed it to the penicillin shot I got. I’m sure it helped, but well, no. He kept me there for 2 weeks and then released me. I healed completely, but at 31 years old, almost exactly 20 years later, I was diagnosed with a form of Muscular Dystrophy, which is incurable.

I remembered that I came back because in the moment I decided, I thought even if my body doesn’t work quite right, I will always have the help of these angels and I want to come back for my shot at love. I understood that everything was worth it for love. I wanted it that much. Even though love was in the tunnel, clearly and abundantly, love with a body and in the physical world was a gift and I knew it and was willing to do so with a body that wouldn’t work right. This was not negotiable. It was dictated to me and I needed to choose if I would return, not what kind of body I could return to.

Ironically, even though I was cured of the kidney disease one year later, the diagnosis 20 years later meant my family would be tested in ways I couldn’t imagine. I always asked for help from my angels and I did not hide the fact that I believed in angels. This labeled me as “nuts” for my family to ridicule and my brother Tim and sister Jenny has refused to allow me to see their children. They don’t want them to have “my influence.” On Christmas, when I was in the hospital for surgery, they all brought me a figurine of an angel to the hospital, but then refused to let me see their kids.

Strange. So, the advice that the angels gave me, “Do not make their problem, your problem, Dear One.” now makes sense to me, many, many, many years later. There have been days I have regretted choosing to come back, but overall, I am challenged to discover my place in this world and yes, I have been asked to marry. I have said no to all. They would have provided security, etc., but not the love I stood in when I went to that white light. I know that it is out there and I am not afraid of my family members telling me that I am some loser for not marrying.

When I go back to that tunnel with a white light, I do not want to have to say, “Yes, I know you taught me what love is when I was here last, but I had a little peer pressure, so I married Mr. OK. I didn’t want to be the last kid to get married, you know.” I can handle the ridicule. I want what I experienced in that tunnel with a white light or nothing at all. I was a kid though, and acceptance of my illness and my body in this culture has been brutal. I have been told many reasons why I am ill ranging from “got myself sick (and supported by the Bible).” to I must have eaten the wrong foods, been depressed, or am trying to get attention.

None of the above are true and I don’t feel the need to prove that to anyone. My values are different from my family’s and when people meet me and my family, they swear I was not raised in the family I have. Some other guidance has been there … healing me and loving me.

Love and Light, mnspiritsoars.

[lekatt]

@Cervaise

No it doesn’t.

Prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong.

[FinnAgain]

Am I ever going to get an actual answer, and not an evasion, as to why my experience of being in communion with Goddess isn’t a refutation of others claims? It was certainly a true experience, and I’ve posted about it far before this thread. So obviously I neither invented it, nor am I using it only for this thread’s context.

It’s true, it happened.

What mechanism, if any, do you have for determining whether my experience of being in communion with Goddess is more or less valid than someone who has an experience of being offered a choice between life and death? If personal experiences can be ‘evidence’ for non-local consciousness, why is my experience not ‘evidence’ against non-local consciousness?

If, as you suggested before, you really have no means of winnowing wheat from chaff, and you just believe whatever you want to believe? Then two things should happen.

1. You should stop arguing on a board dedicated to logic, epistemology and proper research methodology, all in the context of fighting ignorance. At least stop arguing about this topic. If you admit that you don’t like the only stable system of proof and falsification that humanity has ever created, and you admit that you just believe whatever the heck you want, because you want to, there’s no debate. If you steadfastly denegrate the only possible logical system which could prove your claims, and then attempt to use that very same system to prove your claims, your argument will look flailing and spastic, at best.
   And you really shouldn’t expect to convince normal, rational people if all you can really offer is “I believe it because I want to.”

2. You should not act as if science is acceptable to you as a framework of proof (it isn’t), you should not act as if you have scientific studies that do anything other than raise interesting questions (you don’t), you should not get into debates whose function is to debate an idea where all you really seem interested in is repeating unproven, unverified, unsupported claims that you only hold because, as you’ve said, you just choose what you want to believe and then you go and believe it. You certainly should immediately stop inventing your own definitions of proof and acting as if you have peer reviewed research that supports your claims, when you don’t. A charitable interpretation of such behavior is that you are confused.

If all your posts were just “I believe this. I have no rational reason to believe it, I just want to believe it. You have no rational reason to believe it, I just want you to believe it.”

Well… you’d get a lot less flack, and responses.

Bah. Unless you actually want to debate, and give an actual answer as to why my experience does or doesn’t trump yours, instead of just pablum about “truth”, then I’ll just mentally change all of your posts to “I believe this. I have no rational reason to believe it, I just want to believe it. You have no rational reason to believe it, I just want you to believe it.”
I’m not holding my breath.

[Guinastasia]

Beautiful, beautiful, FinnAgain. But I doubt you’ll get a response.
I would also add:

3. You trash science and the scientific method when it disagrees with your beliefs-but then embrace it when it does agree. You can’t pick and choose there.

And perhaps, lekatt, it might be better to raise your questions and post more in MSPIMS, or IMHO. You probably won’t feel so, I dunno, “martyred” there?

[FinnAgain]

Thanks much Guin.

And to the OP: just to prove my claims about not making up such an experience to mess with the ‘OP’ of this thread, I’ll provide what I believe is the original link. At least, I’m not aware of having mentioned it earlier on this board. Note, I first mentioned it in 2006. That’s a long, long time to have set it up as some sort of ‘untrue’ trap for this thread or its OP. It really happened. I really had that experience. I’m not even addressing its underlying reality, just trying to determine whether or not it can serve as a basis to refute your (or others’) experiences. And most importantly, why or why not.

I am now, however, compelled to post something.

[

A PRIMER FOR ERISIAN EVANGELISTS by Lord Omar

    The SOCRATIC APPROACH is most successful when confronting the

ignorant. The “socratic approach” is what you call starting an argument by
asking questions. You approach the innocent and simply ask “Did you know
that God’s name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?” If he should answer “Yes.”
then he probably is a fellow Erisian and so you can forget it. If he says
“No.” then quickly proceed to:

    THE BLIND ASSERTION and say "Well, He Is a girl, and His name is

ERIS!" Shrewedly observe if the subject is convinced. If he is, swear him
into the Legion of Dynamic Discord before he changes his mind. If he does
not appear convinced, then proceed to:

    THE FAITH BIT:  "But you must have Faith!  All is lost without 

Faith! I sure feel sorry for you if you don’t have Faith." And then add:

    THE ARGUMENT BY FEAR and in an ominous voice ask "Do you know what

happens to those who deny Goddess?" If he hesitates, don’t tell him that he
will surely be reincarnated as a precious Mao Button and distributed to the
poor in the Region of Thud (which would be a mean thing to say), just shake
your head sadly and, while wiping a tear from your eye, go to:

    THE FIRST CLAUSE PLOY wherein you point to all of the discord and

confusion in the world and exclaim “Well who the hell do you think did all
of this, wise guy?” If he says, “Nobody, just impersonal forces.” then
quickly respond with:

    THE ARGUMENT BY SEMANTICAL GYMNASTICS and say that he is absolutely

right, and that those impersonal forces are female and that Her name is
ERIS. If he, wonder of wonders, still remains obstinate, then finally
resort to:

    THE FIGURATIVE SYMBOLISM DODGE and confide that sophisticated people

like himself recognize that Eris is a Figurative Symbol for an Ineffable
Metaphysical Reality and that The Erisian Movement is really more like a
poem than like a science and that he is liable to be turned into a Precious
Mao Button and Distributed to The Poor in The Region of Thud if he does not
get hip. Then put him on your mailing list.

](The Principia Discordia)

[FinnAgain]

And as long as I’m at it:
[From Joel Cohen’s “A Random Walk in Science.” ]

Lemma 1: All horses are the same colour.

Proof by induction: It is obvious that one horse is the same colour. Let us assume the proposition P(k) that k horses are the same colour and use this to imply that k+1 horses are the same colour. Given the set of k+1 horses, we remove one horse; then the remaining k horses are the same colour, by hypothesis. We remove another horse and replace the first; the k horses, by hypothesis, are again the same colour. We repeat this until by exhaustion the k+1 sets of k horses have been shown to be the same colour. It follows that since every horse is the same colour as every other horse, P(k) entails P(k+1). But since we have shown P(1) to be true, P is true for all succeeding values of k, that is, all horses are the same colour. Q.E.D.

Theorem 1: Every horse has an infinite number of legs.

Proof by intimidation: Horses have an even number of legs. Behind they have two legs and in front they have fore legs. This makes six legs, which is certainly an odd number of legs for a horse. But the only number that is both odd and even is infinity. Therefore horses have an infinite number of legs. Now to show that this is general, suppose that somewhere there is a horse with a finite number of legs. But that is a horse of another colour, and by the lemma that does not exist. Q.E.D.

Corollary 1: Everything is the same colour.

Proof: The proof of Lemma 1 does not depend at all on the nature of the object under consideration. The predicate of the antecedent of the universally-quantified conditional “For all x, if x is a horse, then x is the same colour,” namely “is a horse” may be generalized to “is anything” without affecting the validity of the proof; hence, “for all x, if x is anything, x is the same colour.” Q.E.D.

Corollary 2: Everything is white.

Proof: If a sentential formula in x is logically true, then any particular substitution instance of it is a true sentence. In particular then: “for all x, if x is an elephant, then x is the same colour” is true. Now it is manifestly axiomatic that white elephants exist (for proof by blatant assertion consult Mark Twain’s The Stolen White Elephant). Therefore all elephants are white. By corollary 1 everything is white. Q.E.D.

Theorem 2: Alexander the Great did not exist and he had an infinite number of limbs.

Proof: We prove this theorem in two parts. First we note the obvious fact that historians always tell the truth (for historians always take a stand, and therefore they cannot lie). Hence we have the historically true sentence, “If Alexander the Great existed, then he rode a black horse Bucephalus.” But we know by corollary 2 everything is white; hence Alexander could not have ridden a black horse. Since the consequent of the conditional is false, in order for the whole statement to be true the antecedent must be false. Hence Alexander the Great did not exist.

We have also the historically true statement that Alexander was warned by an oracle that he would meet death if he crossed a certain river. He had two legs; and “forewarned is four-armed.” This gives him six limbs, an even number, which is certainly an odd number of limbs for a man. Now the only number which is even and odd is infinity; hence Alexander had an infinite number of limbs. We have thus proved that Alexander the Great did not exist and that he had an infinite number of limbs. Q.E.D.

By the way (don’t hit me tom), neither are directed at Lekatt personally. They just illustrate A) the inability reason to support faith and B) the inability of faulty logic to prove a point, even if it’s cast in the most meticulously observed formal language.

[DiggitCamara]

@lekatt

There is no way to ascertain if the scientific method is accurate or not. What do we compare it with. It has not been used in all possible situations, we don’t even know all possible situations. So what we have is an unknown (scientific method) trying to invalidate an unknown (NDEs). Then we have people arguing that it does not show consciousness is non-local, which it does, and these people can’t prove that consciousness is local or anything elso for that matter. Not a pretty picture.

Wrong again. It’s fairly easy to ascertain if the scientific method is accurate: It’s predicated on the increasing certainty of its predictions. And, indeed, with time (at least since the industrial revolution), its predictions are more and more accurate.

Medicine has increased the expected lifetime of people.

We can explain all kind of natural phenomenons with increasing accuracy.

Meteorology, even though by now it’s known to be far more difficult to use, is pretty reliable, for days if not weeks.

NDE’s are, it’s true, mostly unknown. But even there, like you yourself have pointed out, there are chemicals which come very close to simulating the condition. Give it time, lekatt, one day you might even have a virtual simulator of an NDE!

[Jackmannii]

@lekatt

It is a matter of survival, negative thinking people live with more negative experiences. Positive thinking people live longer, happer, and more successful lives.

Sorry, it’s not that simple. For instance, being Mr./Ms. Positive doesn’t help you survive cancer.

*"Having a positive attitude may help cancer patients deal with their disease, but it doesn’t directly affect survival, according to one of the largest and most rigorously designed investigations ever to examine the issue.

The study included more than 1,000 people treated for head and neck cancer; the emotional state of patients was found to have no influence on survival.

The findings add to the growing evidence showing no scientific basis for the popular notion that an upbeat attitude is critical for “beating” cancer, says University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine behavioral scientist James C. Coyne, PhD, who led the study team.

“I wish it were true that cancer survival was influenced by the patient’s emotional state,” he tells WebMD. “But given that it is not, I think we should stop blaming the patient.”*

I wonder what the overall survival disadvantage is of being extremely gullible (“positive thinking” taken to the extreme level of accepting whatever one is told, if it fits in with one’s worldview). I don’t know of any large-scale clinical trials in this area, but anecdotal evidence suggests that one’s health and economic fortunes can be severely damaged by a Forrest Gump-like attitude of childlike trust.

[Guinastasia]

@Jackmannii

I wonder what the overall survival disadvantage is of being extremely gullible (“positive thinking” taken to the extreme level of accepting whatever one is told, if it fits in with one’s worldview). I don’t know of any large-scale clinical trials in this area, but anecdotal evidence suggests that one’s health and economic fortunes can be severely damaged by a Forrest Gump-like attitude of childlike trust.

I know you were directing this to lekatt, but I hope you didn’t think I was saying that positive thinking could help someone survive a fatal illness. Just that being calm and not so pissed off all the time could make a person healthier, stress wise.
(As for Forrest Gump, I prefer being Daria Morgendorffer, at least in real life.)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@lekatt

I have given you numerous posts that show a non-local consciousness. For me they are good science and honest reporting. I know, I have been there.

“For you”? No, there is no “for you” in this matter. That’s akin to my asking you to post a sentence in grammatically correct French, your posting the sentence, “I am suis French,” and then claiming that for you, that’s grammatically correct French. All you indicate by doing so is that your definition of “French” (or, in this case, “good science”) is so radically different from the definition used by the rest of the world that you’ve effectively rendered the word useless as a tool of communication. Choose a different phrase, please, one that allows “good science” to retain its widely-understood meaning.

But, alas, for you they are only anecodotal material that is not scientific. So I give up, you win. I just can’t logically think thousands of people are lying or too stupid to know what they experienced. So again, you win.

I don’t win, I lose. After all, you promised to do something that I wanted you to do. You didn’t keep your word.

On the other hand, we can at least move on now, having established that your position is fundamentally weakened in a way that you originally agreed it would be. Now we can look at what you have offered as evidence. I don’t have time now, but I’ll try to summarize what i’ve seen as evidence later, and we can discuss that evidence then.

Daniel

[Cervaise]

@lekatt

Prove me wrong.

Waiting for you to die will accomplish that nicely.

[Fear_Itself]

@lekatt

To doubt personal experiences is to doubt self and all of mankind. I see that as a mental problem.

But you said you take most things at face value* until proven different*. This established that you do have a method for disproving what people say. All I asked is what that method was; what does it take to prove someone wrong in your eyes? We have already established that you can be convinced that some people’s personal experiences can be proven to be false; I just want to know what that takes.

[Czarcasm]

@Fear Itself

But you said you take most things at face value* until proven different*. This established that you do have a method for disproving what people say. All I asked is what that method was; what does it take to prove someone wrong in your eyes? We have already established that you can be convinced that some people’s personal experiences can be proven to be false; I just want to know what that takes.

Something beyond parroting your own beliefs, that is.

[Mangetout]

@lekatt

So you doubt everything until you can prove its value, and the method for determining its value is “made up” by you. So who determines the value of the scientific method? How do you know the method is absolutely accurate?

Can you just tell me what it is that you understand the scientific method to be? - I ask because ‘how do you know the method is accurate?’ isn’t a question that makes any sense. It’s a method, not a measurement.

[lekatt]

@FinnAgain

Am I ever going to get an actual answer, and not an evasion, as to why my experience of being in communion with Goddess isn’t a refutation of others claims? It was certainly a true experience, and I’ve posted about it far before this thread. So obviously I neither invented it, nor am I using it only for this thread’s context.

It’s true, it happened.

What mechanism, if any, do you have for determining whether my experience of being in communion with Goddess is more or less valid than someone who has an experience of being offered a choice between life and death? If personal experiences can be ‘evidence’ for non-local consciousness, why is my experience not ‘evidence’ against non-local consciousness?

If, as you suggested before, you really have no means of winnowing wheat from chaff, and you just believe whatever you want to believe? Then two things should happen.

1. You should stop arguing on a board dedicated to logic, epistemology and proper research methodology, all in the context of fighting ignorance. At least stop arguing about this topic. If you admit that you don’t like the only stable system of proof and falsification that humanity has ever created, and you admit that you just believe whatever the heck you want, because you want to, there’s no debate. If you steadfastly denegrate the only possible logical system which could prove your claims, and then attempt to use that very same system to prove your claims, your argument will look flailing and spastic, at best.
   And you really shouldn’t expect to convince normal, rational people if all you can really offer is “I believe it because I want to.”

2. You should not act as if science is acceptable to you as a framework of proof (it isn’t), you should not act as if you have scientific studies that do anything other than raise interesting questions (you don’t), you should not get into debates whose function is to debate an idea where all you really seem interested in is repeating unproven, unverified, unsupported claims that you only hold because, as you’ve said, you just choose what you want to believe and then you go and believe it. You certainly should immediately stop inventing your own definitions of proof and acting as if you have peer reviewed research that supports your claims, when you don’t. A charitable interpretation of such behavior is that you are confused.

If all your posts were just “I believe this. I have no rational reason to believe it, I just want to believe it. You have no rational reason to believe it, I just want you to believe it.”

Well… you’d get a lot less flack, and responses.

Bah. Unless you actually want to debate, and give an actual answer as to why my experience does or doesn’t trump yours, instead of just pablum about “truth”, then I’ll just mentally change all of your posts to “I believe this. I have no rational reason to believe it, I just want to believe it. You have no rational reason to believe it, I just want you to believe it.”
I’m not holding my breath.

I believe you said it was a liminal experience or “In speculative fiction and, loosely applied, in mythology, a liminal being is a fantasy character.”

I think you have your answer, I don’t do “what if” discussions if I can avoid them. I believe they are a waste of time.

[lekatt]

@Guinastasia

Beautiful, beautiful, FinnAgain. But I doubt you’ll get a response.
I would also add:

3. You trash science and the scientific method when it disagrees with your beliefs-but then embrace it when it does agree. You can’t pick and choose there.

And perhaps, lekatt, it might be better to raise your questions and post more in MSPIMS, or IMHO. You probably won’t feel so, I dunno, “martyred” there?

Yes, of course I can pick and choose, everyone on this board does the same.