I really don’t understand the whole NDE debate. NDEs are real, not real, etc? They seem obviously real. I’m inclined to trust that people who have been in near-death situations have had the experiences they claim. Being near-death is a pretty unusual and intense experience, and it doesn’t surprise me it produces unusual and intense emotions and visuals.
Perhaps what is being debated is whether near-death experiences are just like death experiences, and if we were to die, we’d continue through the near-death experience to other experiences. This is of course not true, because we all know that we experience things through our brain, and after our brain shuts down, there can be no more experience.
Or perhaps what is being debated is that the NDE’s represent a transition to something else that is outside brain experiences, and qualifies as soul experiences. I suppose if you believe in a soul, this might make sense. But to say that NDEs prove this scenario seems unsupportable, because NDEs are remembered, and therefore must be an experience of the brain.
TRhis is the point of the dispute.
An NDE might be
a mental phenomenon related to oxygen deprivation or the shutting down of various brain functions
or
a spirital phenomenon that permits experiences that occur outside the capacity of the senses to be recorded and transferred to the memory once the brain resumes functioning,
or, in extreme explanations,
the brain does not even play a role in consciousness and the spiritual mind simply uses the brain to make the body work to relate those experiences to the outside world.
None of those options have been “proven” to be true, although there are adherents of each position who will insist that theirs is the only possible true explanation. And those of us who are not committed to the proposition that we are the sole possessors of the Truth of the matter are still willing to indicate a strong preference for one probable cause or another–hence the endless wrangling.
Of course, something happened with my brain so that I perceived an experience of the totality. Your biochemical model defines that as the brain producing a specific type of brain chemistry that creates hallucinations that give one the impression of a NDE.
As an agnostic skeptic, weak atheist my self, I don’t rule out either possibility, unlike yourself.
My life stance can best be defined like this:
Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary,[1] is
a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reactions
a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining
So we obviously have different philosophical opinions. But I kind of like what this guy has to say about things like that: “Dawkins” - The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small.
Oh, and by the way as to your keys, Ocaam’s Razor would say that they are where you lost them.
A well respected member of Freud’s inner circle who contributed ground breaking works
the phase where he got into orgone energy and was called a crackpot.
godfather of mind/body therapies which has created many spinoffs and similar type therapys that were once poo hooed, which are slowly but surely gaining acceptance as an accepted part of psychotherapy and health care, a lot which can be paid with the good ole’ AMA type insurance. Don’t tell me they don’t because I’ve been there, done that. Rolphing, hellerworking, acupuncture, breath work, chiropractic, EMDR, meditation, etc.
Wait, let me guess. You’re probably rolling your eyed in your head thinking, “OMG, the Amazing one has already proven, beyond all shadow of a doubt that all of these are pseudoscience and anybody who disagrees is a mood making, placeboing, deluded fool, correct?
Dude, that’s not the internet, that’s neoatheism, a movement kick off by Sam Harris, Micheal Shermer, etc. It is a different breed of cat compared to the ghost of atheism past:cool:
Do you happen to have a reference that explains how Reich was the “godfather” of all those therapies–as opposed to just one more guy in the mid-20th century who happened to make a nod in those directions at some point?
Neo-Reichian therapy was not even begun until he had been dead for ten years (and never relied on orgasmitrons or the like). Even so, my memory is that it was mostly hocus-pocus well into the late 1970s when some folks began taking the general concept of working in a “mind/body” environment and applied it to a wide variety of therapy attempts. Some of those who did so had a Reichian background, but I don’t recall any of the serious ones doing more than giving lip service to his studies, actually developing their own processes, then using his name to attract a clentele.
As for your list, to the extent that chiropractic is not just fraud, it predated Reich by decades. Acupuncture also predated Reich by years, (even in the U.S., although limited to ethnic enclaves). Rolfing, like chiropractic, seems to work on a general level of massage with no further demonstrated benefits. Rolf may have actually had a tenuous connection to Reich from around 1930 through a rumored Czech doctor whom both Reich and Rolf might have known, but that merely indicates that body therapy for psychological issues was already being considered, (sometimes seriously, sometimes fantastically), long before Reich could have “godfathered” the movement. Reichian breathwork actually predates his weird descent into the orgone layer and appears to be part and parcel with the general movement to integrate physical manipulation into psych therapies from the early 20th century.
So what I see is a guy who was one of many exploring a particular direction for psychological therapy, moving away from the strict Freudian narrative method, who then followed any number of 19th century crackpots off the deep end, but got a sufficiently large name recognition that later people–some sincere, some looking for a buck–capitalized on it when they developed their own therapy attempts.
So, are you making this up yourself, or do you have some source for this?
And I might add, this is like saying that annoying Christians are NeoChristians - as though the annoying part is a change in the underlying theology or philosophy. Which is, of course, not true.
Haven’t been on the internet long, have you? “unrelenting, never ending foray into self-aggrandizement, debasement of one’s opponents, and ridicule of things one doesn’t believe in” is practically it’s defining condition, and is hardly restricted to the atheists therein.
I will say that it’s humourous that you accuse me of being part of some ‘movement’ started by folks I have never heard of, or in the case of Dawkins, only heard about on the SMDB and never read anything he’s written. It’s some kind of a movement if you can join it without ever hearing about it or its members or reading it’s materals, huh?
Face it, man: this is not a ‘movement’, and it is not philosophically or structurally different from ‘atheism past’ in any way, shape or form. The only differences are that the people with the same atheism as before, are now talking about it openly, more frequently, and in the case of some, more loudly.
Bioenergetics is a legit branch of psychology. It deals with what Reich calls “body armour” the holding of emotional stress in the muscles in various places in the body. http://www.ahpweb.org/aboutahp/whatis.html
Yes, bioenergetic is a respected branch of psychology. He was part of the “third wave” of humanistic psychology which deals with the whole person from a multi-dimensional perspective.
Reich is much like Tesla in that they started off with a bang but both of them started going off the edge. This was where the term ‘crackpot’ started coming into play. To call him a crackpot is the equivalent of calling Tesla a crackpot. Which is an ad hominem attack. People such as youself only focus on the negative aspect while completely ignoring the positive Reich aspect Initially, Reich was a respected analyst for much of his life, focusing on character structure, rather than on individual neurotic symptoms. Reich’s Character Analysis was a major step in the development of what today would be called “ego psychology”
The first wave was this:
Ivan Pavlov’s work with the conditioned reflex (induced under rigid laboratory controls, empirically observable and quantifiable) had given birth to an academic psychology in the United States led by John Watson which came to be called “the science of behavior” (in Abraham Maslow’s later terminology, “The First Force”).
The second wave was this: The “Second Force” emerged out of Freudian psychoanalysis and the depth psychologies of Alfred Adler, Erik Erikson, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Carl Jung, Melanie Klein, Otto Rank, Harry Stack Sullivan and others. These theorists focused on the dynamic unconscious - the depths of the human psyche whose contents, they asserted, must be integrated with those of the conscious mind in order to produce a healthy human personality .
The third wave was this: Humanistic psychology - the whole person, multi-dimensional perspective of the Third Force (humanistic psychology)ThApproaches embraced by humanistic therapists include: Bioenergetics (Wilhem Reich, Alexander Lowen), Sensory Awareness Through Movement ( Moshe Feldenkreis), Focusing (Eugene Gendin), Authentic Movement (Mary Whitehouse), Encounter (Carl Rogers, Will Schultz, National Training Lab, and many others at Esalen and elsewhere), Rational-Emotive Therapy (Albert Ellis), Reality Therapy (William Glasser), Analytical & Archetypal Psychology (C.G.Jung, James Hillman), Psychosynthesis (Roberto Assagioli), Gestalt Art Therapy (Janie Rhyne), Existential Analysis (Rollo May, James F.T.Bugental), Logotherapy (Viktor Frankl), Self-Disclosure (Sidney Jourard), Conjoint Family Therapy (Virginia Satir), and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Richard Bandler & John Grinder).e Humanistic View of Human Behavior
Bioenergetics is a dynamic form of therapy based on the teachings of Wilhelm Reich. It links physical pain, muscle tension, and postural disorders with state of mind, demonstrating that suppressed emotions, unhappiness, and anger can block energy-flow and cause physical distress.
Quick post on #308 - On the list of psychologists you will see the names Freud, Jung, Victor Frankl, etc. the Skeptiods allegedly debunked…NOT!!! There are a number of things the allegedly debunked such as alternative medicine, meditation, Rolphing, etc…NOT!!! They are practicing “Bunk Science” based on the psych -fallacy of “contemptio prior ut quesitio” (contempt prior to investigation.
I am using the term Godfather in a figurative sense, like you would say the Amazing Randi is the GodFather of psuedoskeptism. The term has been used by others because he was one of the key people in the Third Force Movement in psycholgy referred to as Humanistic Psychology that views the person from a multi-dimensional standpoint, holistically as mind/body duality therapy as opposed to "the brain is the mind, therefore, the mind is the brain. The concept behind bioenergetics is that people develop “body armour” emotional blockages in their musculature that hinder them psychically, mentally and emotionally. Using breathing techniques and body work releases these freeing up emotional energy.
Reich made significant contributions during the Freudian era and was well respected by his peers. He is like Tesla in that the both started going wacky near the end.
Emphasis mine - and I’ll bite: what is this “psuedoskeptism” supposed to be? Your making up of stupid words is an extra bullet to your credibility each time you invent them.
Let me guess: in the good old days, skeptics believed everything they heard, and “pseudoskepticism” is a radical new movement where skeptics take the radical new direction of being skeptical of farfetched and unsubstantiated claims?
(In sensible-land, the term “pseudo-skepticism” would apply to those people who claim to reserve judgement, but then leap onto new ideas without decent evidence anyway. But as that describes you, I doubt that’s what you mean.)
Pseudoskeptic is a word first coined by Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSIOP. He was skeptical of investigators and debunkers who determined the validity of a claim prior to investigation. He accused CSICOP of increasingly unscientific behavior, for which he coined the term pseudoskepticism.
members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion.
Neoatheism - means simply ‘new’ atheism. It is a different type of atheism than its predecessors in that is much more high profile, vocal and aggressive. Neoatheism it is the fundamentalist slice of the atheistic pie.
Mechanthropomorphize - ascribe mechanicalfeatures to something as opposed to
The above terms are neologisms - a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language and may take up to a generation to do so.
• Examples:
• x-ray, or röntgenograph (November 8, 1895, by Röntgen)
• radar (1941) from Radio Detection And Ranging
• laser (1960) from Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
• black hole (1968)
• meme (1976)
• prion (1982)
• beetle bank (early 1990s)
• lidar (late 90s) from Light Detection And Ranging
It’s stored in that Great Quantum Computer in the sky that uses the universe as its hard drive. :smack:
As religions will Anthropomorphise their god(s) by giving them human attributes. A neologism I have coined for what you are doing is to mechanthropomorphise, e.i. giving mechanical attributes to the universe. You are assuming there has to be a bigass hard drive somewhere that has physicality somewhere on the space/time continuum.
As noted before, no I am not. I am assuming that one of two conditions applies.
Case 1: The universe does not have sentience. In this case, obviously, there is no need for a “Great Quantum Computer in the sky” or “bigass hard drive”, because we are not entertaining the notion that the universe is anything other than a big mostly empty place occupied filled with assorted junk like stars and planets. Thus, we don’t mind that there’s no ‘brain’ anywhere, because there’s no thinking going on.
Case 2: The universe does have sentience. In this case, obviously, there is a need for the universe to have a ‘brain’ of some sort, because thoughts don’t wander free throughout the skies like little birdies; they exist inside a vessel capable of both routing thoughts around, and of receiving and routing sensory information to the mind so that it has something to think about.
Seriously speaking, I am not arguing for case 2; you are. So, you are the one arguing that the universe must have a brain with which to think, whether you like it or not. Your position requires it, not mine.
As for this ‘mechanthropomorphisation’ stuff, I hate to be the first to tell you, but the universe has been observed to operate in a mechanical manner. I mean, it has laws of physics and everything, making the little stars and planets spin around in little circles like clockwork. To accuse a person of interpreting it mechanically is about as brilliant as to accuse somebody of anthropomorphising a human - in both cases, the person is interpreting things correctly.
As for pseudoskeptics, it’s interesting how people who accuse others of being pseudoskeptics 1) forget that their new little claim is merely the tail end of a neverending stream of thousands of similar claims, which to a one have turned out to be as insubstantial as a baby’s fart, and 2) the weary skeptics will still listen to any decent evidence that the claimant can actually produce, except that the claimant never has any. They merely have mistakenly high opinions of their anecdotes and similarly worthless ‘evidence’, which the skeptics are really tired of trying to explain why it’s no good.
It’s already been pointed out that there is no philosophical or theological difference between “Neoatheists” and, er, ‘other’ athests; calling it a “different type” of atheism is retarded. But I suppose if it makes you feel more manly to use meaningless and foolish terms in an attempt to ad-hominem your opposition, go for it. It’s not like you’re going to get anywhere arguing from the strength of your arguments or your evidence, after all.
Hey, Jake. Welcome to the SDMB. About six years ago, I was where you are: trying to argue with these guys. It is a total waste of time. For some reason they never get tired of arguing the same stuff over and over, much as I never get tired of playing the King’s Gambit.
You will get very stale arguments from these guys, as well as the ridicule you’ve experienced.
I am curious about Czarcasm’s dream, however. Tell us more about that! And sorry to hear that you had such a bad experience with your health. I had not known about it.
I appreciate the input. It seems there’s not much room for any dissenting viewpoints here. It kind of like going to a liberal web site and and stating that you are for border control.
I’m going to start a thread soon entitled, "Bunk Science: Debunking the debunkers. Should be fun.
How do you know that the universe isn’t sentient? All you know for sure is that the SM hasn’t measured it so far. It might be because it isn’t capable yet or it might be that there is nothing to measure. You don’t know. When it comes to this subject, the only objective thing you can say is, the only thing I know for sure is that I don’t know anything for sure. The best you can say is, so far there has been no evidence to prove in a sentient universe. I like the way this guy views it:
Richard Dawkins
The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small.
You mechanomorphising again, projecting mechanical attributes to the universe. You are assuming that there has to be a vessel (computer/hard drive) that uses a router to send signals out on a network received by software, translated and then activated.
Sure the universe is mechanistic in nature and one could argue that it would be like a car that is mechanical, but without a driver to turn it on and drive it is just a machine.
Let’s do it this way: If physicist are able to figure out TOE and learn everything there is to know about life, the universe and everything then we would be omniscient, which, by default, would mean we were God. So there you go, we are the vessels and the scientific method is like a wireless router that sends back data. I hope they figure it out in my life time. I can hardly wait.
As for differences in atheist philosophy, look it up on wiki: Strong, weak, implicit, explicit, practical, theoretical, Apatheistic
Yes, I understand, you poor atheists have this terrible cross to bear and you are putting up with all the superstitious, misguided, deluded children much like a parent has to with a child. Hang in there, endeavor to preserve. As more and more sheeples are converted to your way of thinking things will only get better, no more wars, no more evil, no more deception. Everything will be coming up roses and life will be peaches and cream.
