I’d bet that for all thse questions between 80 and 100% of the answer is “they were raised that way.”
And it’s not like religion is the only thing that varies. Some people like watching sports, and some don’t. Do we need to fall back on differing brain structure to explain this?
I think that people’s realities can differ quite far without any abnormality in the brain structure whatsoever.
That is not an accurate description of Science. I do notice, though, that you are now admitting that you belive Science is bad. You are dismissing Science out-of-hand.
That, also, is not accurate. There are plenty of scientists who happen also to be religious. And, by that, I certainly do not mean what you take it to mean, i.e. the Scientists’ religion is Science itself. I mean that there are scientists who are believing and practicing Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and so on. They are not afraid of spirituality and are not afraid of Science. You, on the other hand, have just admitted that you think Science is “worse than nothing.”
Your links (well, it’s really all one link–your blog–but let’s give that a pass for the moment) boil down into two categories:
[ol][li]Anecdotes[/li][li]Statements from others that do not say what you assert they say[/ol][/li]
That’s kind of odd. The general public is learning Science, especially the Scientific Method, as we type. Science is taught in all levels of education and all around the world.
Nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is your dismissing actual evidence, actual Science, in favor of something you wish you had experienced. If it’s such an important event for you and for everyone else, as you claim, perhaps you should answer the other poster’s question on how they can go about having a near death experience (without actuallly dying or suffering brain damage, of course)*. Who knows? Maybe the two of you could conduct an actual experiment into the matter*****.
The evidence on this board is that you do not know either. Sorry if that bursts your bubble but your continued beating the drum of anecdotes and what you wish had happened does not constitute any part whatsoever of the Scientific Method.
How does reading something that you apprently don’t really understand–and have never actually experienced–qualify you as an authority on the matter?
*Mods: I am not advocating anyone at all pursue such a course of action!
You of all people should know better, begbert2. Math is not physical. As a materialist, you cannot therefore claim that beings are math.
So you can either take it back, or turn in your materialist badge 
It is when it is time to do taxes. That’s when math is very physical. It kicks the shit out of me every year about this time.
Ah, taxes. I got many hundreds of dollars!
I understand science well, it’s the scientists I have trouble with. In order to understand the research being done on near death experiences, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist. No need to check in the Bible to see if it’s ok to read them, nor to check with the scientific method. The research is very simple, either they can tell what happened while they were clinically dead or not. Even a cave man can understand it.
So, where is it that scientists have been “checking with the Bible to see if it’s okay” to read your blog?
It’s clear **lekatt **is not interested in the scientific method and participating in a scientific debate. Just as religion and superstition, lekatt is dealing in the currency of faith. He is unable to look critically at that which he believes out of fear that his faith is based on an illusion. He has no business on a website that claims to be fighting ignorance. He is not interested in fighting ignorance and has no interest in eliminating his own. He is willfully ignorant.
Not to say this thread was as waste of time. After all, Mr. Kobayashi contributed a great deal of fascinating discussion and an illuminating variety of links.
I put that in there because the religious people give me as much hell as do the skeptics. Seems no one likes to be positive these days. But it really is the doctrine of religion and science that I don’t adhere to that makes people dislike what I have to say. But not all people, the large majority agree at least somewhat with me. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
I am not interested in any method, whether it be science, religion, politics, etc. I am interested in truth and reality. My knowledge comes from experience not faith, but because someone has faith in God does not make them ignorant. Blind belief in any method is still blind belief. This particular thread has been great. I have learned from it and I hope others have also. BTW if you kick everyone off the board that you don’t agree with, how can there be any debates at all?
If you had even attempted to provide any evidence whatsoever of what you claim, you might have found that people are interested in discussing it rationally. But, no, all you seem to be capable of is rejecting any evidence that conflicts with your belief system.
If you were interested in truth and reality, you would take an objective look at your beliefs, but you’ve refused to do that repeatedly. You are right about blind belief. Except what you fail to recognize is that the scientific method exists specifically to eliminate blind belief.
Out of curiosity , what have you learned from this thread?
I learned that what science has concerning the consciousness being created by the brain is all theory, models, and opinions. You are the only one that called it evidence. Theories that can not be tested.
Only the other hand I did show research that did provide evidence of what I believe. Simple, and easy to understand research.
Could it be that the blind are leading the blind?
I think you’re very, very confused about what science is and what it isn’t.
Science is, to a very large degree, theory, models, “opinions” (actually the same as theory in your vocabulary).
What you have, on the other hand, are some scattered data points. Which, if interpreted and validated against a mode,l can become part of a scientific endeavor to understand if a NDE involves extra-corporeal activity at all.
Which demonstrates that you have not bothered to read or even attempt to understand anything that **Mr. Kobayashi **posted wrt the scientific method. Without rehashing the entirety of it, a theory is born out of on tested and repeated evidence of a hypothesis. You have a hypothesis, but no evidence that can be tested and repeated, therefor, your hypothesis that consciousness is separate from brain activity is utterly weak and proves absolutely nothing. Further, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that your hypothesis can easily be refuted with actual evidence that contradicts your hypothesis. Hence, the theory (as reinforced by tested and measurable EVIDENCE) that consciousness is directly linked to brain activity is much stronger than your hypothesis that it is not.
Because you put so much faith in anecdotal evidence, I could easily say that I, too, have experienced an NDE, and as long as I describe in well-known terms that you accept, you would be unable to disagree with me in the same manner you are asking everyone else to accept your experience as fact.
Repeat after me: research is not the same as evidence.
Well, you should know, given the fact that you refuse to think critically about anything you read so long as it matches what you believe.
Acupuncture does seem to work. Here is an article from the Annals of Internal Medicine which describes some of the findings:
Point is, then and now, people were on to something with these ideas, but seem to have had the wrong idea regarding the mechanism at work. They thought it was prana, could develop a whole theory and get some results… but that was before microscopes and modern science came along. So, the guys weren’t fools to believe in prana, as long as they are intellectually honest enough to accept a better explanation when one comes along.
Personally I think it is interesting that they could develop something effective without full understanding of the body.
Oh, he’s gone one step beyond that, Brown Eyed Girl. He’s accused anyone who doesn’t agree with him of being stupide than a caveman.
I am not confused about science, I studied science growing up like anyone else did. But over 50 years ago science was not to a large degree made up of models, and theories. There were some, of course, but not much emphasis placed on them. Today it seems that is all there is to science. Science used to go after truth and reality with a passion. During my childhood new breakthroughs in medicine, and physics were common. Today I see little being done. Lots of talk about fusion, stem cells, genes, and other things, but no real benefits being produced. If there had been the thousands of near death experiences happening then they would have been first priority research. Today they are labled as ancedotal, whatever that is supposed to mean. Means nothing to me. I believe in my personal experiences, and I think most other people do also.
Yes, there is good evidence of consciousness being non-local, simple, easy to understand evidence. When someone dies can they still observe their surroundings. Yes they can, the evidence says in a strong voice.
But since your personal experience, at best, involved you having an OBE, I don’t think you can personally relate to those who had an NDE.
Er. “Stupider than a caveman.” Please forgive the misspelling above.
This is patently false. Science has been made up of models, hypotheses, and theories for a quite considerable time, far longer than 50 years. There’s a reason that the methodology is called the Scientific Method, after all.