and my time also.
I doubt that more than one has and it did not say what you have claimed. You have not provided a citation to any of them, despite your bold claims of providing more links in this thread. (Mind you, I am not saying that nothing has ever been published in The Lancet regarding consciousness in situations that may or may not be considered “near death.” I doubt that any such study published in The Lancet has actually claimed what you are now claiming as a scientific study.)
In fact, after lying, repeatedly, that you had presented a Lancet study, already, the last time we went through this, another poster finally went out and found what you appeared to be talking about–which, of course, did not say what you had claimed it said.
He’s right, of course. We’re just lucky that the science of the 1900s has lasted as long as it has. After all, there can be no changes to science, even though that would make anyone with the right data potentially famous, probably accoladed, and possible rich. No, we must march forth, our blinkers firmly in place, and ignore anything we disagree with.
“Peer-reviewed” means* people get to see it and comment*. When people say they want peer-reviewed research cites, it means they want to see cites that have been *discussed * by many scientists. Does that really sound like people who want the topic ignored? On the contrary, it is those who refuse to submit their work for others to see that are blind - and are scared to risk the chance they might be wrong. No, better to just assume you are right. After all, one head is better than many.
You realize of course that you are positing a programmer (spirit) and a body/brain (program) that are not the same entity as each other, any more than I am the same as a computer program that I have written. Also note that your analogy is perfectly consistent with your opponent’s position that your mind, thoughts, memories, and personality are all housed in the electrochemical state of your brain; you have merely tacked on the notion of a separate little ‘creator-god’ to be responsible for the creation and occasional maintence of your mind, but who is not you.
Alcohol does an effective job of proving that we are our body/brain. Were we not, alcohol could not effect our personality while we were drinking it, and it could not have lasting effects on our memory. Unless you want to posit that our spirit pretends to be drunk and to forget things? That it’s just faithfully role-playing you, dedicatedly putting on an act, pretending to be effected by the physical world?
In this case, not only are the spirit or spirits who are puppeteering humanity remarkably consistent in playing out their roles, but you yourself and your personality are nothing but an act, a role that the spirit is pretending at. You are but your spirit’s sock puppet.
Hardly. I won’t pile on by participating in the usual futile attempt to get you to cite good sources (like Lancet) . Many scientists are religious,. and one would think that real science proving life after death would get a bit more play.
Of course a brain, using the tools at its disposal, can examine a brain. What else is happening when a doctor looks at an EEG?
When my kids were under a week old, they weren’t any more self aware than my very smart dog. Again I ask you why would this be if the spirit entered them at birth or before?
Our brains obviously are affected by our bodies, but I think the statement that we’re software running on our brains is fairly accurate.
The reason for “'science doctrine” is to ensure that the experiment is done properly, is well thought out, and truly demonstrates what it purports to demonstrate. No wishful thinking is allowed. Plenty of truly independent thought gets published (not enough) and it gets recognized. The more far out your thought, the better your evidence needs to be. I’ve published a bunch of peer reviewed papers which are generally taken to show independent thought myself (I’m sending the revision of one just accepted today.)
The reason 90% of the people believe in a spiritual realm is quite simple - most people either can’t or don’t want to imagine their own non-existence. That doesn’t make it true, and certainly doesn’t imply that 90% of people had true spiritual experiences.
Not to mention that those 90% of people aren’t going to have the same idea of a spiritual realm.
I went to the Lancet the read that first study by Pim there, including the paragraph of the patient out of body experience that started him on other studies. I didn’t bother to bring any quotes, no need. Here is what happened after the initial study.
http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/9278005cp.shtml
And here is another doctors’ study.
I don’t think anything will change any mind set. People generally believe what they want.
With millions of people reporting spiritual experiences every year, don’t you think those experiences just might have something to do with their beliefs.
Not a chance, huh. Has to be what you think up or nothing, right.
To tell the truth, I feel like I am in Church, the doctrine can not be questioned! But I am an eternal optimist and believe the doctrine of science will be found faulty just as the Church doctrine was, we humans are on the path to truth, nothing less can be accepted.
Science certainly hasn’t had any success with doing that.
Please be so kind as to write that expression on piece of paper and tape that paper to your mirror. So far, all you’ve managed to show is that you believe that your beliefs are either Science or better than Science.
Not at all. Of course those experiences are going to have something to do with their beliefs. That seems pretty obvious. I don’t know where you’re getting the impression i’d disagree with you on that from.
I’ll try and be clearer. My point was this and only this; if indeed 90% of people have had spiritual experiences, in all likelihood those experiences aren’t all going to be consistent. After all, people believe many things. If one person has an experience of meeting Jesus as the son of God, for example, and another meets him and he’s only a prophet - these two are pretty contradictory. Only one can be right at the most (and both could be wrong). Saying that 90% of people have had spiritual experiences doesn’t mean that those 90% all go towards supporting the existence of a particular belief. Because, as you say - those experiences have something to do with their beliefs.
While i’m here, I have some advice. Being open-minded doesn’t mean stubbornly clinging to one idea that most people disagree with. Being open-minded means considering all ideas and attempting to judge them fairly. If that’s a minority view - well, hey, that’s fine. But if you’re not honestly judging other views, well, that tends to make you closed-minded, and if you’re telling others off for it tends to make you a wee bit of a hypocrite.
A group of people from different fields came together to reminisce from a podium about the anecdotes they have collected and no further science has been undertaken.
OK. I can accept that.
What study? You have a Beeb story that some doctor is interviewing patients to collect anecdotes of their experiences–of whom 89% reported that they had no recollection of anything happening. Of the remaining seven patients, only four claimed to have had something the doctor would categorize as an NDE. So far, so good. However, as was noted in the article, there was no study to indicate at what point in the patient’s treatment they experienced whatever registred in their memories. They could easily have replicated the Pam Reynolds experience of catching sensations before and after the brief period of apparent brain death and then had those recollections arbitrarily assigned to the “brain death” period.
I am willing to consider that something real goes on in an NDE event. A scientific study would attempt to identify the moments when the memories were collected rather than relying on anecdotes from people who had no way to know when their memories were generated.
Yes, you demonstrate that phenomenon with every post you submit.
What is this doctrine of science you object to so much? Reproducibility? The assumption that anyone’s work can be wrong and needs to be checked by others? Falsifiability? Openness? A commitment to the truth? A willingness to admit mistakes?
Since the beginning of recorded history man has believed in a greater intelligence and an afterlife. There are logical reasons not all experiences are the same. These people did believe their experiences were real just as I know mine were and are real. These experiences had a lot to do with what they believed and how they looked upon the world they lived in. This is still true for today and those currently having spiritual experiences.
Enter the scientific method which somehow inparts omnisc
Sorry about the double post, my mistake.
Since the beginning of recorded history man has believed in a greater intelligence and an afterlife. These people knew their experiences were real just as I know mine were, and are, real. These experiences had everything to do with what they believed and how they looked upon the world they lived in. This is still true for today and those currently having spiritual experiences.
Enter the scientific method which somehow imparts omniscience to its devotees allowing them to judge the most private, personal experiences of all the world’s people. To judge them as hallucinations, self-deception, and nonsense because they do not follow the scientific method, the only one true path for mankind. These people must be reeducated out of their ignorance and self-deception so they too will follow the true path of science and only science. Amen
The world never changes save the names of the players and their organizations, all else remains the same, especially the hubris of mankind.
Such nice sounding words. Now when will this be implemented.
It already has, Can you point to an example of actual science where this is not happening?
They used to believe that the world was flat too. Just because ignorant people a few thousand years ago believed something doesn’t make it true. If history shows anything, it’s that the older a belief is the more likely it is to be wrong.
Not omniscience; we’re merely noticing that if a bunch of people report the same thing as being pillars, a fire hose, spears, large leaves, a beer barrel, and a rope, then maybe there’s actually an elephant in the room - and maybe the people reporting their experiences are not as ‘insightful’ as they think they are.
(This goes double if they decide that the beer barrel is some great and powerful thing that can also live forever, do miracles, knows everything, is everywhere at once, will punish those who do not beg it for mercy, and will build golden castles (with optional virgins!) if you only dedicate yourself and your tithing to its chosen organization. And it goes triple if somebody has developed the Church of the Fire Hose and is trying to get everyone else to stop using fire engines, ‘out of respect for the mighty nozzled one’.)