Lekatt, a serious and sincere simple question:
“The quoted statement applies equally as well to my own beliefs as it does to the beliefs I was talking about.” Agree or disagree?
Examining such incidents is a worthy endeavor, but as I demonstrated when I debunked your version of this story several years ago, you are accepting as absolute fact only those conjectures that support your beliefs while ignoring every bit of evidence that contradicts it. Science needs to incorporate ALL the facts and you refuse to do so, since that might call into question your beliefs.
Now, you are allowed to spout your anti-science in this thread, but you will stop posting your little condescending claims that we are all going to be shown your “truth” at some distant date.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Of course, since none of those links actually said what you claimed that they said, it is difficult for people looking through those links to find what you claimed. It is not there.
I will not comment on “off board” interest, but you are utterly incorrect about board interest. In this thread, we are up to 223 posts, 62 of them by you, with a bit over 4400 views. Previous journeys into your beliefs have included threads with as many as 640 posts and over 10,000 views.
I don’t know, restate the beliefs you were talking about. Not sure which statements you are referring to.
Multiply this by a few thousand and you have nothing more than a few thousand unverified and anonymous anecdotes which are not equal to one double-blind study. No more stories, please.
You originally made that statement in post 189, in reference to a long post by Muffin. Those are the ones I was referring to. However, that’s really irrelevant, because what I’m interested in is whether or not you would agree that your own beliefs are “all opinion” and “not provable”, which is how you described Muffin’s statements.
I have stated that NDE research shows evidence, real evidence of the separation of brain and consciousness. So no, my beliefs, or rather my experience, does have evidence to back it up.
How does your experience of having an OBE correspond with your belief in NDEs?
What I find more condescending is your insistence that we have nothing to learn from the study of such “anecdotes”. If you are so sure of your beliefs, and that this subject is so unworthy of attention, what are you even doing in this thread? You are certainly not going to change lekatt’s mind
You have consistently dismissed scientific evidence, published and reviewed by the experts in the field, as nothing but opinion. Meanwhile, you repeatedly claim that your beliefs, backed up by nothing more than stories you appear to have collected from the internet and your own “experiences”, are good science, “shows evidence,” “real evidence”, and has “evidence to back it up”.
My next question is thus, do you genuinely not see anything inconsistent in holding to these stances simultaneously? Are you aware of the inconsistency and just comfortable with it? Or do you actually think that your beliefs are consistent? If the latter, can you point out where in my summary I have made a misstatement?
First of all, it is not my evidence, it is the evidence of qualified researchers, working at qualified universities, and published in scientific journals. Done by the book. Now please show me the scientific evidence that you claim to have that would show the brain produces the consciousness, and therefor the brain and consciousness are one. This could show any physical evidence of thoughts, emotion, or memory stored in the brain.
You could also show evidence of whether brain activity measured on the surface of the brain is coming from the brain, or going to the brain from some non-local source.
I couldn’t find any evidence. Please point to the link that shows actual evidence. Your links contained anecdotes, conjecture, assumptions, but no evidence that I could find that demonstrates that consciousness is separate from brain activity. Fact is, there is no study in your links that identifies and can measure consciousness. At least not the consciousness every one of us is actually familiar with (i.e., awareness and the ability to communicate that can be scientifically determinable and testable).
You have stated that, but again you still have not actually provided evidence, real measurable evidence. You know, not conjecture; and not anecdotal evidence.
These studies have not produced scientifically valid evidence. Are you familiar with the scientific method in which you start from an assumption, not finish with it?
First you say you can’t find any studies, then you say these studies have not produced any valid evidence. So you did find the studies and the research, you just don’t agree with it. It’s OK, if you don’t agree with it, that doesn’t make it invalid. These studies have been conducted for over 30 years now, and each year the more research is being done. I think it is rather easy to show the validity of the studies, after all, what else could be the conclusion. When someone who is clinically dead can accurately describle what happened while he was clinically dead after he came back to life. Pretty simple conclusion.
Please show me the scientifically determinable and testable research of awareness (consciousness) you are talking about so I can know also.
If you’re interested in the link between brain and conciousness there’s been a lot of research done, but a lot that is unknown. The brain is a very complex organ. This doesn’t mean ‘magic did it’ is a better explanation for concious thought in the brain. See the structure of the brain - without these structures conciousness as we know it cannot exist. We see this in cases of comas and suchlike.
In cases of brain injury from things like trauma the symptoms back up what we know about the brain being the ultimate source of ‘who we are’. For example;
http://ccm.psych.uic.edu/PatientInfo/TBIInfo.aspx
This does not make sense in your worldview where conciousness, or ‘what a person is’ resides somewhere other than the brain, but ever bit of sense in a scientific worldview.
Let me say that the research on near death experiences contain no anecdotes.
The hypothesis is simple: Can the consciousness of a person (therefor the person) live after the death of his brain and body.
In all the studies done on near death experiencers the results were yes, the consciousness can and does live after the death of the brain and body. Therefor the person can be fully conscious and observing the activity around him while his body and brain are clinically dead.
The ramifications of this research are huge, changing much of science. Science can accept it or reject it. The choice is simple also.
Please provide a direct link to one scientific study that shows that the consciousness can and does live after the death of the brain and body.
“Science” is not some monolithic entity which rejects or accept a hypothesis on a whim, or the fact that the conclusion is unpleasant. Science is a process which aims to increase our understanding or reality - the word comes from “scientia”, meaning knowledge.
The means we use to acquire reliable knowledge, for 300 years, has been the scientific method. Or more specifically, it has been described as a hypothetico-deductive model, a run down of which can be summarised thus:
This is an example of an algorithmic statement of the hypothetico-deductive method: [6]
- Gather data ( observations about something that is unknown, unexplained, or new )
- Hypothesize an explanation for those observations.
- Deduce a consequence of that explanation (a prediction). Formulate an experiment to see if the predicted consequence is observed.
- Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2.
If we can make repeatable, empirical observations that corroborate a hypothesis it eventually becomes a theory.
“In modern science the term “theory”, or “scientific theory” refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or “falsify”) it.”
Again, these are not made on a whim, they are made after years study to best define, describe and explain phenomenon.
If your hypothesis concerning conciousness surviving brain death, or being stored somewhere else other than the brain, can be shown in reality to be repeatedly demonstrable and testable it would be part of science by definition - it would be part of reality. I’m not sure you fully appreciate the beauty of the scientific method in sorting theory from conjecture, workable knowledge from wish-thinking and guesswork.
Your first link was not available. There is no problem explaning the results of brain injuries in another way. If we can show that consciousness can be separate from the brain and still live, which current research has shown.
I have written a number of “brain” articles under the catagory of “The Brain” on my blog that answers the injuries to the brain.
The Magic Brain - Lekatt Thoughtful Living
This is one of them, the brain is only an interface between the consciousness and the body. We already know through research that consciousness can live without the brain being alive.
Hmm, works for me. Go on Google Scholar, which searches academic publications, and search for “conciousness” and “brain” or “concious thought”, or any variant thereof to see a broad overview of current academic understanding.
Your blog assumes;
“Consciousness is not produced by the brain, but is a separate invisible entity that controls the brain and body.”
This is supposition, with no empirical evidence to support it. When the brain is damaged by injury or disease we know conciousness is affected. We see this in everything from concussion in sports, knock outs from boxing and serious brain injury from RTAs. If the injury is severe enough, or adequate care is not provided, the patient dies (PDF), but most are hospitalised.
From this we can draw the conclusion that the brain is responsible for conciousness. Occam’s Razor disposes with the idea that it is simply the ‘conduit’, and when the mechanism for conducting the conciousness is damaged we get the usual results. As opposed to these areas being responsible for conciousness in the first place. This is what the evidence points to. We don’t even have evidence that the signal itself exists, let alone the supposition that we have the means to receive it.