Rubbish, Quote where I said that the number of people who believe in something reflects the truth.
I said that lots of people believing is evidence of reason to believe, and we both accept that evidence adds to truth value.
Either quote where I said that the number of people who believe in something reflects the truth or stop with the strawman.
I quoted you. Perhaps I misunderstood you and if so, I apologize. However, you talk about “truth value,” and I’m not sure what you mean. It doesn’t matter if 6 billion people believe in something if it’s not factually correct. Sheer numbers won’t suddenly change reality. I recognize a difference between “truth” and “fact.” Facts are documentable as data, truth is philosophical in nature. However, just because something is true for some people doesn’t make it factual.
Blake, if I understand you correctly, I don’t understand you correctly.
(Mobius Logic 101)
IWLN, the link to the earlier discussion is appreciated and a similarity in reaction is noted. I think I will just make a copy of your exchange with blowero there, stick it on the frig and avoid any future discussions with my husband on this very topic. We can just point and nod and know that we have had an argument.
It’s refreshing to read something fresh on the subject – especially with the added incentive of wit.
How would we know when the input in these experiences has anything to do with unconscious preconceptions?
My experience was different from anything I could have imagined. I don’t even have normal depth perception. At first the experience seemed to have nothing specific to do with Christianity – it was all encompassing. It was in retrospect that it made some sense of parts of the NT that had seemed completely out of reach before.
That leads me to wonder what the “peak experiences” and NDE of the totally blind are like.
Are you suggesting that these drugs induce supernatural experiences? If not, then the novel modes of perception you experience are linked to existing declarative and implicit memory.
See, the thing here is that you don’t know that. You don’t know what you can imagine until you imagine it. What you’re able to imagine at any point of time depends on your mood, your environment, your state of brain stimulation, your conscious expectations…etc You can’t consciously control them to the extent that you think you can. The book I’m reading right now deals with how humans think and how meaning is constructed. The book explains how we instinctively try to map new experiences and assign meaning to them in terms of our perceptions and grasp of past experiences, via the process of ‘conceptual blending’. In other words, it is impossible to go from raw sensation to perception to meaning without the context of existing meaning and biases.
Photopat: One implication of that statement is that because “everyone” who has an NDE says they’re real, that’s good enough for proof. Wrong. It may be a reason to do more research, but by itself it means nothing.
Ah, but if 50% of experiences said they were fake, you would certainly hold this up as evidence against the afterlife hypothesis. Hence, the converse–that 100% insist that they are real–should mean at least something more than “nothing.”
**Gyan: There’s a difference between having a experience and deducing the cause of the experience. One weak implication the non-skeptics in this thread make is that any “non-conventional” experience is a result of supernatural forces. **
Not I. To the contrary, I hypothesize that the afterlife is not something “rigged” by God but is simply a part of the natural world like anything else. Again, NDE experiencers do NOT (according to what I have studied) come back saying, “Hey, I met Jesus, and he told me how this whole thing worked.” No, the world Over There is a natural world like ours, and even the advanced spirits do not have all the answers. (This is obviously a simplification, but I hope the basic point can be grasped that the Afterlife is not a “creation” per se but an environment with its own rules and laws, like ours. Although experiencers report meeting a Being of Light, etc., and indeed a great deal of information normally unavailable [e.g., a life review] is transmitted, it is not a “supernatural” system per se.)
Plenty of people experience NDEs without being close to death. They use certain drugs in certain doses like Ketamine - 3mg/kg of body weight (sends you into the “K-hole”) or Dimethyl-tryptamine or even LSD at sufficient doses (like 600+ micrograms). Users report “transcendental out-of-body spiritual” experiences. And these drugs aren’t doing anything supernatural.
That’s true. And the Afterlife is not a “supernatural” system, either. It is a part of the natural universe, albeit on a different dimension. BTW, the guy who did some of original work on ketamine no longer believes in a matter-over-mind explanation.
My guess is when the brain’s dying, the neural circuits responsible for self-coherence and higher-level cognition start to break down and one goes through these same kinds of experiences (probably of greater intensity). The input in these experiences has more to do with one’s (often unconscious) preconceptions and notions.
Well, this is the standard skeptic hyphothesis. It really doesn’t have much to recommend it, since NDE experiences are exceptional coherent–they are not mixed-up, wacked-out experiences like a dream or hallucination. Why the brain would be able to produce so clean and coherent (and otherwise not experienced in daily life) an experience even as it is being ripped apart by death is something the hypothesis does nothing to explain. Oh, and let’s not forget the vericidal transmission of real information of events ocurring even as the brain is showing no brainwave. Hmm
Close-minded skeptics: always such extreme and poor use of logic.
*Originally posted by Aeschines *
To the contrary, I hypothesize that the afterlife is not something “rigged” by God but is simply a part of the natural world like anything else.
Does this different dimension interact with our dimension? If so, how?
**Well, this is the standard skeptic hyphothesis. It really doesn’t have much to recommend it, since NDE experiences are exceptional coherent–they are not mixed-up, wacked-out experiences like a dream or hallucination. **
But some of my dreams are coherent as well. A clear flowing chain of events, with some sense of consistent internal logic to them. It’s possible to have a coherent NDE then.
**
Why the brain would be able to produce so clean and coherent (and otherwise not experienced in daily life) an experience even as it is being ripped apart by death is something the hypothesis does nothing to explain. **
The problem here is you don’t know if the experience is coherent. Describing a experience as coherent doesn’t necessarily make it so. I can relate my incoherent dreams in formalised prose, making you think that my dreams were coherent. And it’s like one of those mental quirks. Once you see the hidden spotted dog in the picture, you can’t help NOT* seeing the dog whenever you look at the photograph from then on. Same with experiences. Assigned meanings get imprinted.
Another problem here is we don’t know what exactly happens to the brain when it is dying. It’s hard to speculate on what is and isn’t possible in those special circumstances.
*subject to lack of more compelling interpretations.
It appears that we have another lekatt.
Aeschines, you’re making a lot of assertions about the “afterlife” without actually citing a shred of evidence. Are you going to acytually provide any cites for this stuff or are you just going to keep spouting off?
(The Zammit site is a joke, btw. Why don’t you produce a real shred of empirical evidence)
Blake, I’m sorry but your argument is nonsense. The “truth value” of any given hypothesis is not remotely affected by the number of people who believe it. It’s not evidence. Sorry.
Er… that’s an attack on Gyan, not a reason that your “100% of NDE people” thing is real evidence. Not that you have any real data, you just said “I’ve never heard anyone who’s had an NDE say it wasn’t real, so they all think it’s real.”
That’s your opinion, I’d love to see support for that contention.
You’re overgeneralizing again. If the brain can produce dreams while you’re unconcious, why is this such a bizarre idea?
To add to Gyan’s comment, if you read the Straight Dope column on the subject, you’ll see that people having brain surgery (and also doing certain drugs) can experice the same sort of thing. Any problems with the hypothesis as repeated there? If it’s an experience that can be duplicated due to brain stimulation, I don’t think it requires “other dimensions” or the supernatural - or un-supernatural, whatever.
You and lekatt are gonna get along great. (Now I’m off to bang my head into a wall.)
My husband believes me. Or he is a wise man, who lies well. This was before we met. When I told him about it, he told me I was very lucky.
Hard not to have a sense of humor about knowing something so unbelievable is true. And just in case, delusional isn’t a bad place to be either. You get used to it.
I would have to agree with Gyan9 to a large extent that an event like that has to do with unconscious preconceptions or at least the interpretation of the event does. During my experience I immediately gave it an interpetation that fit with my religious beliefs and only recently realized that it wasn’t necessarily true, that the label I gave it at the time was the only way I could make sense of what I was feeling. I still don’t doubt that I was in G-d’s presence, but am skeptical about the picture my mind made for me.
I can’t fly either, but my mind will fill in the gaps my lack of experience has, during a dream about flying. I can imagine a lot that is out of my experience. What it all boils down to is whether the experience is real or not, it is caused by electro-chemical stimulus in the brain and interpreted with all parts of your conscious and subconsciuos. It may be an experience that was produced by only your brain or it may be an actual supernatural type experience that your brain is forced to interpret. I am completely certain my event was true, but ever mindful of the fact that the part of me I’m using to determine that certainty is the same part that could have just as easily shown me something that didn’t exist at all. Using my mind to decide if I was briefly losing my mind.:eek: I am aware of the limitation that involves. I had a great experience, G-d was there. But just because I believe in G-d doesn’t mean the experience had to be real or it means something negative if it wasn’t real. There’s no way to further assess it. It’s not necessary to.
Gyan: Does this different dimension interact with our dimension? If so, how?
Yes, spirits can exist at intermediate vibrational levels and affect our world (ghosts, etc.). The idea is that the vibrational level of the afterlife is different; it is not in a different “place.”
But some of my dreams are coherent as well. A clear flowing chain of events, with some sense of consistent internal logic to them. It’s possible to have a coherent NDE then.
Yes, the hypothesis that an NDE is a type of dream or hallucination is a reasonable one. But people insist that these experiences are as “real” as everyday experience. Hence, they are unlike dreams. I too have had very realistic dreams; there is always the mark of “dream” on them, however.
That’s your opinion, I’d love to see support for that contention.
Certainly, it’s my personal interpretation of the data derived from NDEs and elsewhere.
You’re overgeneralizing again. If the brain can produce dreams while you’re unconcious, why is this such a bizarre idea?
Because there is no brainwave; the brain is not functioning at all!
To add to Gyan’s comment, if you read the Straight Dope column on the subject, you’ll see that people having brain surgery (and also doing certain drugs) can experice the same sort of thing. Any problems with the hypothesis as repeated there? If it’s an experience that can be duplicated due to brain stimulation, I don’t think it requires “other dimensions” or the supernatural - or un-supernatural, whatever.
The Straight Dope, despite its general excellence, jerks the knee any time a so-called paranormal phenomenon is the subject. Certainly, nothing else is “required” if you accept materialism as a first principle, a postulate as it were. But there are phenomena to be explained, and too bad if the current scientific worldview can’t explain them very well. To say, “Aw that ain’t nothin’” any time a phenomenon that doesn’t fit occurs is not good science, nor good reasoning.
Diogenes: Aeschines, you’re making a lot of assertions about the “afterlife” without actually citing a shred of evidence.
I cited the Lancet study.
Are you going to acytually provide any cites for this stuff or are you just going to keep spouting off?
I cited the Lancet study. Don’t make me type this again.
(The Zammit site is a joke, btw. Why don’t you produce a real shred of empirical evidence).
Look up the word “empirical” in a dictionary before you use it again. I’d hate for you to continue to demonstrate your ignorance of its meaning.
Blake, I’m sorry but your argument is nonsense. The “truth value” of any given hypothesis is not remotely affected by the number of people who believe it. It’s not evidence. Sorry.
It depends on the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is related in some way to phenomena that can only be examined through introspection, then the rate of belief should be taken seriously. (If this were not so, every experiment in psycology would be worthless.) As the whole question of the afterlife concerns the survival of consciousness, the fact that the vast majority of consciousnesses believe that they will survive counts for something. No, it is not a proof by any means. But it is a form of evidence.
Gyan: Does this different dimension interact with our dimension? If so, how?
Yes, spirits can exist at intermediate vibrational levels and affect our world (ghosts, etc.). The idea is that the vibrational level of the afterlife is different; it is not in a different “place.”
But some of my dreams are coherent as well. A clear flowing chain of events, with some sense of consistent internal logic to them. It’s possible to have a coherent NDE then.
Yes, the hypothesis that an NDE is a type of dream or hallucination is a reasonable one. But people insist that these experiences are as “real” as everyday experience. Hence, they are unlike dreams. I too have had very realistic dreams; there is always the mark of “dream” on them, however.
That’s your opinion, I’d love to see support for that contention.
Certainly, it’s my personal interpretation of the data derived from NDEs and elsewhere.
You’re overgeneralizing again. If the brain can produce dreams while you’re unconcious, why is this such a bizarre idea?
Because there is no brainwave; the brain is not functioning at all!
To add to Gyan’s comment, if you read the Straight Dope column on the subject, you’ll see that people having brain surgery (and also doing certain drugs) can experice the same sort of thing. Any problems with the hypothesis as repeated there? If it’s an experience that can be duplicated due to brain stimulation, I don’t think it requires “other dimensions” or the supernatural - or un-supernatural, whatever.
The Straight Dope, despite its general excellence, jerks the knee any time a so-called paranormal phenomenon is the subject. Certainly, nothing else is “required” if you accept materialism as a first principle, a postulate as it were. But there are phenomena to be explained, and too bad if the current scientific worldview can’t explain them very well. To say, “Aw that ain’t nothin’” any time a phenomenon that doesn’t fit occurs is not good science, nor good reasoning.
Diogenes: Aeschines, you’re making a lot of assertions about the “afterlife” without actually citing a shred of evidence.
I cited the Lancet study.
Are you going to acytually provide any cites for this stuff or are you just going to keep spouting off?
I cited the Lancet study. Don’t make me type this again.
(The Zammit site is a joke, btw. Why don’t you produce a real shred of empirical evidence).
Look up the word “empirical” in a dictionary before you use it again. I’d hate for you to continue to demonstrate your ignorance of its meaning.
Blake, I’m sorry but your argument is nonsense. The “truth value” of any given hypothesis is not remotely affected by the number of people who believe it. It’s not evidence. Sorry.
It depends on the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is related in some way to phenomena that can only be examined through introspection, then the rate of belief should be taken seriously. (If this were not so, every experiment in psycology would be worthless.) As the whole question of the afterlife concerns the survival of consciousness, the fact that the vast majority of consciousnesses believe that they will survive counts for something. No, it is not a proof by any means. But it is a form of evidence.
“Phenomena which can only be examined through introspection/”
In other words, thoughts. Thoughts are not substance. There is not a shred of empirical evidence for an afterlife. You obviously don’t have a clue what empirical means.
I would expect a lot of the recent statements in this thread to have IMHO every other word.:rolleyes: There’s no “truth value” here or in any other anecdotal event, even if thousands say the same thing. Thousands can be having the same unexplained physical or psychological reactions. It should be easier for me to believe because of my experience, but only if I just want to believe, not because there’s a valid reason to. There isn’t yet. I’ll wait.
Diogenes,
Did you read that dictionary entry yet?
BTW, not all evidence is “empirical.” Go back to school, chum.
I’ve been over and over that ridiculous Zammit site and I can’t find anything like an objective case for NDEs, only a bunch of raving and links to other crackpots. (You are aware that people like John Edward and Sylvia Brown are total frauds are you not? You are familiar with cold reading?)
Please clue me in as to what the objective evidence is but please be warned that personal anecdotes carry zero empirical value. I don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone’s personal story. I want to see physical, observable evidence. Why don’t you start by proving there’s a soul.
Empirical evidence is that which observable. It’s simple. It’s also a fact that no NDE has ever been observed. As a matter of fact, noyhing like a soul has ever been observed.
And yes, all evidence is empirical or it isn’t evidence. A bunch of stroke victims burbling about tunnels doesn’t prove dick.
Diogenes,
Lancet article. You made me type it again. Now I’m pissed.
Like most close-minded skeptics (er, at least the amateurs on the web), everything you write is replete with mockery and disdain.
All you’re engaging in is intellectual stonewalling. It’s just like the creationists repitition of “There are no missing links!” No matter how much you cite, no matter how much you reason, no matter how carefully and gently you debate, they’ll just come back with the bald assertion that there’s no evidence, nothing has ever been proved, and it’s all just a hypothesis.
Disingenous and childish.
Diogenes,
Empirical evidence is that which observable. It’s simple. It’s also a fact that no NDE has ever been observed.
Yeah, and no dinosaur has ever been observed. I guess they never existed. No proof! The creationists must be right!
“Wait!” you say, “fossils!” How do we explain them? Indeed.
And how do we explain those aspects of NDEs that we can observe?
BTW, NDEs are “observed” by the people who experience them. No, it’s not objective, empirical evidence, but you’re assertion that
“A bunch of stroke victims burbling about tunnels doesn’t prove dick”
proves that you are not taking the base data seriously. For that reason, I don’t take you seriously. This will be the final time I respond to your childish posing. G’bye.
Aeschines You know, nobody is telling you not to believe all the anecdotal crap you want to. Just stop trying to assert that it’s empirical. Trust me, it won’t work here. I tried. They were right. I couldn’t prove a damn thing. Now you’re just making assertions about the people who have the right to not accept anything without real evidence. Not stonewalling, just being rational. “Chum” is incredibly well educated. Attacking doesn’t make your cause look stronger. Empirical evidence is not something just once personally observed. If I look in the mirror and believe that I see Jesus Christ staring back at me. Hey, that doesn’t really make me JC.
Type it all you want. It proves nothing except that a lot of people have hallucinations when they are near death. The main problem with this study is that none of the subjects were actually dead.
The brain wave thing means nothing. People can hallucinate a lot in a short period of time. The NDE hallucination simply occurs before the cessation of brainwave activity (if it really ceases at all which I doubt it does completely). People will also fill in deatils with their imaginations after they wake up. And the study has no way to distinguish between those who actually had the hallucination and those who are lying.
With good reason, Dawg. Give us some actual evidence and we won’t mock it.
You still have yet to cite anything. Prove there’s a soul and I’ll quit mocking you.
(Psst…are you Victor Zammit? Tell the truth. Did lekatt put you up to this?)
Got a cite for that soul thing. Prove a soul exists and then we can talk about what happens to it.