# Lekatt's Thread: The \*only\* place to find out about Lekatt's beliefs! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273 "2010-04-07T14:05:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/321 "2010-04-15T09:29:24Z")
I (or whatever it is that is wandering about pretending to be my consciousness) am very much enjoying your posts, **Mr. Kobayashi**. Thanks for the effort you are putting into them. I’m learning a lot. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/322 "2010-04-15T12:12:01Z")
I believe we have come to an impasse. I can not accept suggested models, and opinions as facts, or even having some desirability no matter how voluminous they may have become. There is no way to test your suppositions of how the brain produces and supports consciousness. Theories are not reality. I have my first-hand up-front experience, that I have tested in reality for over twenty years. Then there is the research of thirty years showing evidence to the contrary of your models. Maybe the time will come when you will want to read it seriously. I hope so anyway. I have built my site with the knowledge learned from near death experiences and it has helped hundreds of people find their purpose and meaning in life. I have a large collection of letters to prove it. So I will not give up what I know to be true and helpful to many, I will not trade positive thoughts for negative opinions, it would be personally dishonest. So we can agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/323 "2010-04-15T12:16:55Z")
Then is this the last we will hear from you on the topic of NDE’s on this messageboard from this date forward? Because if you have more, this is your soapbox. Please don’t derail other perfectly good discussions with regurgitations of everything you have put forth here. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/324 "2010-04-15T12:18:18Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Theories are not reality. Please explain to us why you think there’s no difference between the scientific term _theory_ and the colloquial term. > [@](#): > > Then there is the research of thirty years showing evidence to the contrary of your models. Really? It would be cool if you could provide that evidence to us instead of referring us to your blog time after time. > [@](#): > > I have built my site with the knowledge learned from near death experiences and it has helped hundreds of people find their purpose and meaning in life. I have a large collection of letters to prove it. Ah, anecdotes. You wouldn’t happen to have any actual evidence, any actual _scientific_ research, would you? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/325 "2010-04-15T12:29:32Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Maybe the time will come when you will want to read it seriously. You have been told to refrain from posting this sort of faux condescension in these threads. Stop it. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/326 "2010-04-15T12:31:12Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Then there is the research of thirty years showing evidence to the contrary of your models. Where is this research? As I have already demonstrated, the stuff you have posted is not what you claim, so where is this research to which you keep pointing without providing a direct reference? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/327 "2010-04-15T17:47:43Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I believe we have come to an impasse. I can not accept suggested models, and opinions as facts, or even having some desirability no matter how voluminous they may have become. There is no way to test your suppositions of how the brain produces and supports consciousness. Theories are not reality. Nobody has suggested that they are (or, if they are, they are not speaking scientifically). Scientific theories are our best attempt at explaining reality based on evidence. Once a theory has been developed it is always open to repeated criticism and repeated review, this is the whole point of the peer review system. If someone can poke a hole in it by finding empirical evidence that contradicts the theory it must be revised. Otherwise it is pointless, it doesn’t help advance our understanding. I already mentioned Newton’s ideas or gravity being one theory that has changed, but there’s a [lot more](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories). On ways to test, if you read the extracts I made sure to mention the evidence that links conciousness to the brain. This means either this evidence is completely incorrect, in which case you need to refute the methods and therefore conclusions of the studies of neurologists, or your own hypothesis is undermined by contradictory evidence. As for having no way to test, this is not correct - researchers use a variety of techniques which inform their conclusions in regards to the brain. To name a handful that are relevant to this discussion; there’s MRI and fMRI, EEG, SPECT, PET, MEG, not to mention the mapping of the human genome. Pop any of these into Google and you’ll get a wealth of information about how they’ve enhanced our understanding of the brain. You also have a special pleading fallacy in regards to your own hypothesis, which I’ll get to in a second. > [@](#): > > I have my first-hand up-front experience, that I have tested in reality for over twenty years. Then there is the research of thirty years showing evidence to the contrary of your models. Maybe the time will come when you will want to read it seriously. I hope so anyway. I have built my site with the knowledge learned from near death experiences and it has helped hundreds of people find their purpose and meaning in life. I have a large collection of letters to prove it. You have a first hand experience and reports of individuals who have had the same experience, and point to your story earlier as compelling proof. I’ve given you my opinion on that as non-empirical evidence - and I was taking it seriously. **tomndebb** quite correctly pointed out that this story is no proof that the event even took place. I’d go as far as to grant you that, there’s empirical evidence for this phenomenon. But here’s where the special pleading comes in. The explanation you believe for this experience is that the conciousness resides outside the body. This is backed up by no empirical data whatsoever - the event doesn’t ‘prove itself’, which was the point I was trying to make with the LSD comparison. You don’t have a theory - you have an unsupported hypothesis. Run it through the scientific method and see how much sense it makes. I take the linear process from the wiki, cited: A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[35] 1. Define the question - I’ll define this as “How can we explain the phenomenon associated with ‘Near Death Experience’” 2. Gather information and resources (observe) - Here you have collected stories and memories from your first person experience, of people who think that they ‘leave the body’ and suchlike. 3. Form hypothesis - Your continued hypothesis has been that only a separate conciousness could possible explain this phenomenon. 4. Perform experiment and collect data - I’ve seen nothing like this, no scientific studies into this separate conciousness hypothesis - but others who _have_ performed experiments and collected data on the question have come up with data that contradicts your hypothesis. 5. Analyze data - Again, there’s nothing like this. You’ve offered no empirical data for analysis. 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - Your hypothesis remains unchanged. 7. Publish results - I’ve definitely not seen the hypothesis cited in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which speaks against it. Like **iophobon** said earlier, is this because there is some vast science-wide conspiracy against it, or the men and women that improve our lives and understanding in immeasurable ways are thick as two short planks. 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) - I’ve not seen the initial tests, let alone independent retests to confirm that the hypothesis you pose is the most likely explanation for the phenomenon, making it a theory. > [@](#): > > So I will not give up what I know to be true and helpful to many, I will not trade positive thoughts for negative opinions, it would be personally dishonest. So we can agree to disagree. Helpful, maybe, but that doesn’t mean that it is true. I could believe, to steal an example from The Simpsons, that I had a rock that keeps away tigers. That’s undoubtedly a very helpful thing to have. And true? Well the only reliable method we have for discerning the possible or likely truth - at least until new evidence comes along - you haven’t been through, so we don’t know whether it’s true or not. It remains an untested hypothesis. I’d also like your feedback on my above point - would you agree that, since your hypothesis (which you know to be true) contents that the answer is spiritual, that the studies and research into the brain I’ve posted are in your mind a complete waste of time? Oh, and thanks for the big-up, **Muffin** , much appreciated! ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/328 "2010-04-15T19:26:01Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > Nobody has suggested that they are (or, if they are, they are not speaking scientifically). Scientific theories are our best attempt at explaining reality based on evidence. Once a theory has been developed it is always open to repeated criticism and repeated review, this is the whole point of the peer review system. If someone can poke a hole in it by finding empirical evidence that contradicts the theory it must be revised. Otherwise it is pointless, it doesn’t help advance our understanding. I already mentioned Newton’s ideas or gravity being one theory that has changed, but there’s a [lot more](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories). > > On ways to test, if you read the extracts I made sure to mention the evidence that links conciousness to the brain. This means either this evidence is completely incorrect, in which case you need to refute the methods and therefore conclusions of the studies of neurologists, or your own hypothesis is undermined by contradictory evidence. As for having no way to test, this is not correct - researchers use a variety of techniques which inform their conclusions in regards to the brain. To name a handful that are relevant to this discussion; there’s MRI and fMRI, EEG, SPECT, PET, MEG, not to mention the mapping of the human genome. Pop any of these into Google and you’ll get a wealth of information about how they’ve enhanced our understanding of the brain. > > You also have a special pleading fallacy in regards to your own hypothesis, which I’ll get to in a second. > You have a first hand experience and reports of individuals who have had the same experience, and point to your story earlier as compelling proof. I’ve given you my opinion on that as non-empirical evidence - and I was taking it seriously. **tomndebb** quite correctly pointed out that this story is no proof that the event even took place. I’d go as far as to grant you that, there’s empirical evidence for this phenomenon. But here’s where the special pleading comes in. > > The explanation you believe for this experience is that the conciousness resides outside the body. This is backed up by no empirical data whatsoever - the event doesn’t ‘prove itself’, which was the point I was trying to make with the LSD comparison. You don’t have a theory - you have an unsupported hypothesis. Run it through the scientific method and see how much sense it makes. I take the linear process from the wiki, cited: > A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[35] > > 1. Define the question - I’ll define this as “How can we explain the phenomenon associated with ‘Near Death Experience’” > 2. Gather information and resources (observe) - Here you have collected stories and memories from your first person experience, of people who think that they ‘leave the body’ and suchlike. > 3. Form hypothesis - Your continued hypothesis has been that only a separate conciousness could possible explain this phenomenon. > 4. Perform experiment and collect data - I’ve seen nothing like this, no scientific studies into this separate conciousness hypothesis - but others who _have_ performed experiments and collected data on the question have come up with data that contradicts your hypothesis. > 5. Analyze data - Again, there’s nothing like this. You’ve offered no empirical data for analysis. > 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - Your hypothesis remains unchanged. > 7. Publish results - I’ve definitely not seen the hypothesis cited in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which speaks against it. Like **iophobon** said earlier, is this because there is some vast science-wide conspiracy against it, or the men and women that improve our lives and understanding in immeasurable ways are thick as two short planks. > 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) - I’ve not seen the initial tests, let alone independent retests to confirm that the hypothesis you pose is the most likely explanation for the phenomenon, making it a theory. > Helpful, maybe, but that doesn’t mean that it is true. I could believe, to steal an example from The Simpsons, that I had a rock that keeps away tigers. That’s undoubtedly a very helpful thing to have. > And true? Well the only reliable method we have for discerning the possible or likely truth - at least until new evidence comes along - you haven’t been through, so we don’t know whether it’s true or not. It remains an untested hypothesis. > > I’d also like your feedback on my above point - would you agree that, since your hypothesis (which you know to be true) contents that the answer is spiritual, that the studies and research into the brain I’ve posted are in your mind a complete waste of time? > > Oh, and thanks for the big-up, **Muffin** , much appreciated! To build models, theories, and opinions about something unknown is worse than just saying “I don’t know,” because the theories tend to become a point of judgement by which all new discoveries or concepts are compared. This makes building models, and theories worse than not building them. The word spiritual is a kind of “zap” word to scientists because of what they have been taught, and not because they hold any real evidence to the contrary. It was a benchmark to define science as better, smarter than religion. The research I have provided the links to does not measure anecdotes, nor stories, nor any events skeptics have falsely label the research to contain. The research is simple and straight forward. What is tested and observed is whether someone who is clinically dead can know the events happening around his body while he is clinically dead. The verifiers of this research are the surgeons, doctors, and staff in attendance while the patient is coded and after the patient is revived. Did they know what was going on while they were clinically dead, the research says yes they did. This is evidence of a non-local consciousness, plain and simple. But do to theories of science, this can not be, so the messenges are maligned and sent packing. While main-stream science has turned its back on the thirty years of research by qualified doctors working at qualified universities the general public has not. For the rest of my natural life I will ask others to read the research and study the near death experiences. Oh, yes, I do know about the scientific method, and most of the theories of the brain. I read everything new in the science field at well as the NDEs. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/329 "2010-04-15T19:34:25Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > To build models, theories, and opinions about something unknown is worse than just saying “I don’t know,” because the theories tend to become a point of judgement by which all new discoveries or concepts are compared. This makes building models, and theories worse than not building them. > > The word spiritual is a kind of “zap” word to scientists because of what they have been taught, and not because they hold any real evidence to the contrary. It was a benchmark to define science as better, smarter than religion. > > The research I have provided the links to does not measure anecdotes, nor stories, nor any events skeptics have falsely label the research to contain. The research is simple and straight forward. What is tested and observed is whether someone who is clinically dead can know the events happening around his body while he is clinically dead. The verifiers of this research are the surgeons, doctors, and staff in attendance while the patient is coded and after the patient is revived. Did they know what was going on while they were clinically dead, the research says yes they did. This is evidence of a non-local consciousness, plain and simple. But do to theories of science, this can not be, so the messenges are maligned and sent packing. > > While main-stream science has turned its back on the thirty years of research by qualified doctors working at qualified universities the general public has not. > > For the rest of my natural life I will ask others to read the research and study the near death experiences. > Oh, yes, I do know about the scientific method, and most of the theories of the brain. I read everything new in the science field at well as the NDEs. I’m not sure, but I _think_ he is espousing research that _doesn’t_ involve science. ---
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/330 "2010-04-15T20:25:49Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The research I have provided the links to does not measure anecdotes, nor stories, nor any events skeptics have falsely label the research to contain. The research is simple and straight forward. What is tested and observed is whether someone who is clinically dead can know the events happening around his body while he is clinically dead. The verifiers of this research are the surgeons, doctors, and staff in attendance while the patient is coded and after the patient is revived. Did they know what was going on while they were clinically dead, the research says yes they did. This is evidence of a non-local consciousness, plain and simple. Yes, we are well aware this is what you claim. You have repeated more or less these same sentences innumerable times. What everyone is poking and prodding you about is that we can’t simply _take your word_ for this. What we need is (preferably multiple) published results in a peer-reviewed journal, conference proceedings, or similar scientific method backed literature. I think you would agree that this does not exist because 1) your statements about mainstream science rejecting these notions and 2) you haven’t posted any, which would shut everyone up here. So I would like an answer to my previous question of, assuming everything you just said is true, why the lack of real published science? Conspiracy or stupidity? > [@](#): > > But do to theories of science, this can not be, so the messenges are maligned and sent packing. > > While main-stream science has turned its back on the thirty years of research by qualified doctors working at qualified universities the general public has not. These statements seem to lean towards the conspiracy side but you haven’t explicitly said that as far as I know. So let me reiterate that your hypothesis of a separate consciousness is a BIG DEAL. If it was true and scientifically verifiable, it would permanently alter our conception of the universe. And if it were true, and verifiable, AND scientists were both intelligent and honest in their investigations, there would be published results. To suggest that people simply ignore the evidence because it conflicts with current “theories, models, and opinions” is absurdity in the extreme. Can you imagine the level of reward someone would get for conclusively and scientifically showing that humans have an immaterial component that can interact with the physical world? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/331 "2010-04-15T20:34:05Z")
> [@iophobon](#): > > Yes, we are well aware this is what you claim. You have repeated more or less these same sentences innumerable times. What everyone is poking and prodding you about is that we can’t simply _take your word_ for this. What we need is (preferably multiple) published results in a peer-reviewed journal, conference proceedings, or similar scientific method backed literature. > > I think you would agree that this does not exist because 1) your statements about mainstream science rejecting these notions and 2) you haven’t posted any, which would shut everyone up here. So I would like an answer to my previous question of, assuming everything you just said is true, why the lack of real published science? Conspiracy or stupidity? > > These statements seem to lean towards the conspiracy side but you haven’t explicitly said that as far as I know. So let me reiterate that your hypothesis of a separate consciousness is a BIG DEAL. If it was true and scientifically verifiable, it would permanently alter our conception of the universe. And if it were true, and verifiable, AND scientists were both intelligent and honest in their investigations, there would be published results. To suggest that people simply ignore the evidence because it conflicts with current “theories, models, and opinions” is absurdity in the extreme. Can you imagine the level of reward someone would get for conclusively and scientifically showing that humans have an immaterial component that can interact with the physical world? There are published results, lots of them. Look them up from the research links I provided. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/332 "2010-04-15T20:56:01Z")
> [@iophobon](#): > > To suggest that people simply ignore the evidence because it conflicts with current “theories, models, and opinions” is absurdity in the extreme. I can’t see it being absurt to lekatt, for in his belief system it is appropriate to ignore evidence because it conflicts with his beliefs. That makes it a bootstrapping problem: lekatt will not or can not modify his beliefs because of what he believes in. His world view is faith based rather than scientific method based. I’m curious as to whether it is “will not or can not modify his beliefs,” for I suspect that the functioning of lekatt’s brain, including whatever physically caused his OBE, stands in the way of his being able to modify his beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/333 "2010-04-15T20:58:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m not sure, but I _think_ he is espousing research that _doesn’t_ involve science. I think he’s espousing **his** “models, theories, and opinions about something unknown” while rejecting all “models, theories, and opinions about something unknown” that disagree with him. It’s not about not involving science; he loves science that agrees with him. All his talk about science is a veneer for “I’m right, and things that agree with me are right, and anything that doesn’t must be wrong solely because it disagrees with me.” > [@lekatt](#): > > There are published results, lots of them. Look them up from the research links I provided. What makes you think people are going to like them any more this time than every other time they’ve looked at them and blown holes in them? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/334 "2010-04-15T21:34:10Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > To build models, theories, and opinions about something unknown is worse than just saying “I don’t know,” because the theories tend to become a point of judgement by which all new discoveries or concepts are compared. This makes building models, and theories worse than not building them. You think there’s no point attempting to explain reality using evidence? > [@](#): > > The word spiritual is a kind of “zap” word to scientists because of what they have been taught, and not because they hold any real evidence to the contrary. It was a benchmark to define science as better, smarter than religion. No, it’s because there’s no evidence for it. That’s how science operates. > [@](#): > > The research I have provided the links to does not measure anecdotes, nor stories, nor any events skeptics have falsely label the research to contain. The research is simple and straight forward. What is tested and observed is whether someone who is clinically dead can know the events happening around his body while he is clinically dead. The verifiers of this research are the surgeons, doctors, and staff in attendance while the patient is coded and after the patient is revived. Did they know what was going on while they were clinically dead, the research says yes they did. This is evidence of a non-local consciousness, plain and simple. But do to theories of science, this can not be, so the messenges are maligned and sent packing. Again, theories are formulated using **empirical evidence** , crucial to science and the scientific method: “A.D. de Groot’s empirical cycle: Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypotheses. Induction: Formulating hypotheses. Deduction: Deducting consequenses of hypotheses as testable predictions. Testing: Testing the hypotheses with new empirical material. Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing.” > **[Empirical research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research)** > > Empirical research is research using empirical evidence. It is also a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empiricism values some research more than other kinds. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with th... This is opposed to anecdotal stories. Your own blog admits that the anecdotal nature of your evidence does not matter for you: "Question: Are Near Death Experiences anecdotal? Answer: Yes. And so is most everything. You will see in the dictionary listing below exactly what an anecdote is defined to be. If this is an argument for or against the authenticity of near death experiences, I fail to see it. Anecdote is defined as an incident or fact. I find the word “anecdote” being used to argue against the realness of NDEs, useless and not an argument at all. " > **[Question 11 about Near Death Experiences.](https://aleroy.com/FAQz11.htm)** > > Question 11 about Near Death Experiences. Evidence does not work that way! If we accepted all anecdote as fact the lines between fact and fantasy blur and make any study useless. There’s a load of anecdotal evidence for UFOs, aliens and people who claim that they’ve been abducted and subjected to physical discourtesies by little green men. Just Google UFO abduction, there are thousands of anecdotal reports. I don’t believe them because there’s no empirical evidence for it. Do you believe them? By definition these anecdotes have equal validity as your NDE reports. If you disregard them and thing that UFO claimants are incorrect in their conclusions, you are once again engaged in special pleading for your conclusion on NDES. Wiki has a good overview of why anecdotal evidence isn’t used in proper science; > [@](#): > > In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: > > ``` > * "information that is **not based on facts or careful study**"[2] > * " **non-scientific observations or studies** , which **do not provide proof** but may assist research efforts"[3] > * "reports or observations of usually **unscientific observers**"[4] > * "casual observations or indications **rather than rigorous or scientific analysis**"[5] > * "information passed along by word-of-mouth but **not documented scientifically**" > > ``` > > … > Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but **never as supporting evidence.** What you’ve done is jumped the gun, taken it as the both the suggestion and supporting evidence for your hypothesis. Why does this matter? See the wiki link and scroll down to see how anecdotal evidence can support faulty logic and invalid conclusions. I’ve already given the example of the UFO abductees. Why does science prefer empirical evidence? “By contrast, in science and logic, the “relative strength of an explanation” is based upon its ability to be tested, proven to be due to the stated cause, and verified under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves.” > **[Anecdotal evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic)** > > Anecdotal evidence (or anecdata) is evidence based on descriptions and reports of individual, personal experiences, or observations, collected in a non-systematic manner. > The term anecdotal encompasses a variety of forms of evidence, including personal experiences, self-reported claims, eyewitness accounts of others, and those from fictional sources, making it a broad category that can lead to confusion due to its varied interpretations. Anecdotal evidence can be true or false but is not usually... It’s how we verify something as actually occurring, giving something to base a theory on. > [@](#): > > While main-stream science has turned its back on the thirty years of research by qualified doctors working at qualified universities the general public has not. > > For the rest of my natural life I will ask others to read the research and study the near death experiences. > Oh, yes, I do know about the scientific method, and most of the theories of the brain. I read everything new in the science field at well as the NDEs. I must say that if you know about it you show a remarkable contempt for it. In the disclaimer for your blog, for example, you write; "There are no guarantees, implied or expressed, **as to the accuracy** or usefullness of any material offered in this site. Near Death Experiences are personal spiritual events and **can not be authenticated by duplication.** The material comes to me through the message boards and is **assumed to be the true** experiences of the author. My writings come from my personal experiences and are solely my views. I am a student of life. I claim no expertise in this field or any other, and hold no academic degrees. " This is not evidence! You can’t “assume” something is true simply because it corroborates your hypothesis. Imagine the chaos if every scientist did that. I would also once again say that science doesn’t ‘turn its back’ on anything. If it manifests in reality it is by definition in the realm of science. Scientists don’t pick and choose based on personal preference, to ignore evidence just because they don’t feel like changing a theory. Theories are reviewed, tested, modified and disproven constantly. It’s why peer review is essential to the process. > [@lekatt](#): > > There are published results, lots of them. Look them up from the research links I provided. I haven’t found anything on your blog that links to an independent peer-reviewed academic journal, or any other credible source, that corroborates your hypothesis. The closest you get is Penrose saying we don’t know what conciousness is. But if you’re going to invoke his name, well, look above. Nothing in his published works agrees with you that conciousness necessarily lies outside the body, in fact he and Hameroff think microtubules might come into it. These are present in the cytoskeleton, in turn part of the cytoplasm present in a cell - including neurons, cells which are present within the brain. I found [one](http://aleroy.com/FAQz19.htm) unsourced story that doesn’t constitute proof for your conclusion. In fact the same bloke, Dr Sam Parnia, was linked to the recent study concerning CO2: > [@](#): > > In the UK, a large study is ongoing into **whether cardiac arrest patients genuinely do have out-of-body experiences.** The research includes placing images on shelves that can only be seen from above. The brain activity of 1,500 patients will be analysed afterwards to see if they can recognise the images. > > Dr Sam Parnia, who is leading the project at Southampton University, says **he hopes to establish whether** consciousness can in fact exist as a separate entity to the body. From very recent news: [BBC News - New light on near-death flashes](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8607660.stm) “Whether” - it is unknown, unproven. Likewise you cite ABC News [here](http://aleroy.com/FAQz19a.htm) (but don’t provide an external link. This is one of the studies in question, with the same Dutch fella: > [@](#): > > And yet, **neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE.** Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. > … > With **lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE** , the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 **NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.** > … > Research should be concentrated on the effort to **explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE.** Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences. > **[The Lancet: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest](https://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm)** We both agree that this stuff pushes the limits of our knowledge on the human brain. But the conclusion isn’t that conciousness must exist spiritually outside the brain, for lack of evidence. I actually did a search for “conciousness outside the brain”, but could find nothing to support your claim, and plenty that disagrees. The only thing close is the role of sense in conciousness. Things we detect using our senses (which are then interpreted by the brain and form part of are conciousness) are necessarily outside the brain. But that’s pretty far removed from your hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/335 "2010-04-15T21:40:57Z")
Back at the dawn of time, I visited a zoo in Buffalo, where a tapir was eating carrots. Every time it ate a carrot, it got a boner. Every time it got a boner it stepped on itself, causing itself discomfort. That didn’t stop it from eating carrots. It just kept on keeping on, so to speak. Its brain simply could not connect the dots between eating carrots and having a boner, and could not connect the dots between having a boner and stepping on itself. When it comes to deep rooted non-rational beliefs, I have to wonder if the way the person’s brain works prevents that person from connecting the dots between rational thought on one hand, and irrational belief on the other. Could it be that some people simply do not have free will when it comes to belief because their brain’s process will not connect the dots sufficiently to permit the compromising of a profoundly and deeply held belief? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/336 "2010-04-15T22:15:03Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I can’t see it being absurt to lekatt, for in his belief system it is appropriate to ignore evidence because it conflicts with his beliefs. > > That makes it a bootstrapping problem: lekatt will not or can not modify his beliefs because of what he believes in. His world view is faith based rather than scientific method based. > > I’m curious as to whether it is “will not or can not modify his beliefs,” for I suspect that the functioning of lekatt’s brain, including whatever physically caused his OBE, stands in the way of his being able to modify his beliefs. > [@Muffin](#): > > Back at the dawn of time, I visited a zoo in Buffalo, where a tapir was eating carrots. Every time it ate a carrot, it got a boner. Every time it got a boner it stepped on itself, causing itself discomfort. That didn’t stop it from eating carrots. It just kept on keeping on, so to speak. Its brain simply could not connect the dots between eating carrots and having a boner, and could not connect the dots between having a boner and stepping on itself. > > When it comes to deep rooted non-rational beliefs, I have to wonder if the way the person’s brain works prevents that person from connecting the dots between rational thought on one hand, and irrational belief on the other. Could it be that some people simply do not have free will when it comes to belief because their brain’s process will not connect the dots sufficiently to permit the compromising of a profoundly and deeply held belief? First define “free will”, and whether you have it. Personally I think that none of us have libertarian free will and that as for non-libertarian free will he’s got just as much as the rest of us. Which may not be much - try talking yourself into liking the taste of fecal matter sometime. He’s got strong opinions to be sure, based on the most self-serving filtering of evidence possible. But whatever else this may be, you’re going to be hard pressed to sell it as brain damage. He just doen’t like the taste of disagreement, is all. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/337 "2010-04-15T22:33:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > First define “free will”, and whether you have it. Personally I think that none of us have libertarian free will and that as for non-libertarian free will he’s got just as much as the rest of us. Which may not be much - try talking yourself into liking the taste of fecal matter sometime. > > He’s got strong opinions to be sure, based on the most self-serving filtering of evidence possible. But whatever else this may be, you’re going to be hard pressed to sell it as brain damage. He just doen’t like the taste of disagreement, is all. I was thinking of free will in the context of whether or not a person has the ability to accept, reject or modify a theory based on a rational analysis, or if instead a particular person’s brain function is sufficiently different from most folks’ brain functions that that person is unable to accept, reject or modify a theory based on a rational analysis. Yes, I agree that for each of us our free will is restriced by the function of our brains. You could argue for years with me, and produce endless volumes of authoratatively, scientifically proven data, but there are some things that I will never sway on because that is the way my brain works – for example, that I have two arms, two hands, ten fingers. If the rest of the word was telling me that I only had one arm, I would think they were nuts, despite my opinion being outnumbered six billion to one. That brings me to wonder if such unshakable belief as lekatt has is unshakable because of how his brain works. Brain damage? I don’t know, but I think that it could be. Or perhaps short of brain damage, the OBE lekatt had was dealt with by his brain in a normal process – trying to explain the unexplainable to himself – but the result was an “explanation” that was so profound that lekatt can no more shake himself of it than I could believe that I do not have two arms. The one thing this thread has brought me to conclude is that lekatt really does believe what he says he believes. I do not doubt his sincerity, despite my not being able to accept his CU belief system. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/338 "2010-04-15T22:45:06Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > There are published results, lots of them. Look them up from the research links I provided. _H. Potter, et al._ ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/339 "2010-04-15T22:49:12Z")
Why do some people believe in god, while other people do not? Of the people who believe in god, why is it that some believe with an unshakable fervency, whereas others believe in god but are willing to modify what they believe to some degree. Why is it that the people of one culture/geographic locale who believe in god tend to belive in a particular god, whereas the people of another culture/geobraphic locale who believe in god tend to believe in a different particular god? When people have visions of god, why is it that the god they see is the god that they already believed in or that they already had been broadly exposed to (Persinger’s god helmet has come up with some interesting things on this.) I expect that our brains create our own realities for us, and that we share realities because our brains function very similarly. When a person’s brain functions significantly differently, I would not be surprised that the reality of that person differs significantly from the reality of most people. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/340 "2010-04-15T22:50:15Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I was thinking of free will in the context of whether or not a person has the ability to accept, reject or modify a theory based on a rational analysis, or if instead a particular person’s brain function is sufficiently different from most folks’ brain functions that that person is unable to accept, reject or modify a theory based on a rational analysis. > > Yes, I agree that for each of us our free will is restriced by the function of our brains. You could argue for years with me, and produce endless volumes of authoratatively, scientifically proven data, but there are some things that I will never sway on because that is the way my brain works – for example, that I have two arms, two hands, ten fingers. If the rest of the word was telling me that I only had one arm, I would think they were nuts, despite my opinion being outnumbered six billion to one. > > That brings me to wonder if such unshakable belief as lekatt has is unshakable because of how his brain works. Brain damage? I don’t know, but I think that it could be. Or perhaps short of brain damage, the OBE lekatt had was dealt with by his brain in a normal process – trying to explain the unexplainable to himself – but the result was an “explanation” that was so profound that lekatt can no more shake himself of it than I could believe that I do not have two arms. > > The one thing this thread has brought me to conclude is that lekatt really does believe what he says he believes. I do not doubt his sincerity, despite my not being able to accept his CU belief system. I know too many theists to think that **lekatt** has something special going on his head - he just has garden-variety faith-with-defensive-mechanisms. It’s quite common for people to reject evidence that disagrees with their pet theories, and to attack the credibility of sources of such information, while simultaneously elevating things that _support_ their thesis to unjustified levels of credence. All that distinguishes **lekatt** from the masses is that the subject of his beliefs has recieved _just enough_ scientific interest to make it worth his while to try and claim scientific support for this theories, whereas your average Christian just gets burned if he tries to prove Eden or the flood or whatever. So **lekatt** ’s in the fun place of trying to pick and choose amongst which science we’re supposed to believe is true, rather than just claiming to reject it unilaterally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273.md?page=18)