Physics of the Afterlife

[Cortes]

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]

How did they do that?
[/quote]

By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]

Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]

There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]

Oh come on you are not that dense are you? I can see my dead Aunt in a dream, or I could actually die and see her. Same with that experiment. Just because they see their dead relatives when a certain part of their brain is stimulated does not mean that they didn’t see their dead relatives by having an NDE.

Proving one does NOT disprove the other.

Got it?[/quote]

You only concentrated on the first two lines of my post, which were in relation to recreating a NDE in the lab. The rest of my post was not in relation to lab NDEs but ACTUAL NDEs that have occured.
The only one who is dense here is you. It is painfully obvious that NDEs are hallucinary and hopefully you will eventually realise it one day.
Of course you can see your dead aunt in a dream but you don’t wake up thinking that you actually met her because your senses of touch etc were disorientated. Subjects who have had NDEs recreated in the lab are in a severe state of shock after the experience. It feels 100% real and had they not been told what to expect, then they may have been convinced they saw the afterlife. Comparing a dream to A lab NDE is quite simply retarded.[/quote]

No. You are wrong. You are welcome to form whatever opinion you like from the data you have, but it is in no way “obvious” that NDEs are hallucinatory. Still disagree? Try making a syllogism from the information you have and post it up here, if you are still willing to after looking at what it actually looks like when reduced to its logical core.

[Think_tank_fish]

Pat,

I read the argument in the link you provided about infinite regression being a fallacy. The only proof in the argument is that numbers eventually repeat themselves so its circular therefore not regression.

All that convinces me of is that the human mind is incapable of handling the concept. Nothing else.

Many philosphical statments work on the same principle. Its ultimately just mind games.

A few examples:

Amphiboly: ‘Save soap and waste paper’. The sentence is only problematic because of the american wording. ‘Save soap and toilet paper’ makes perfect sense.

Zenos Achiles paradox:
http://www.truthawakens.com/zeno.asp

Shows how you can word something or even use maths in such a way to prove something that is ultimately and obviously incorrect.

[Cortes]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,

I read the argument in the link you provided about infinite regression being a fallacy. The only proof in the argument is that numbers eventually repeat themselves so its circular therefore not regression.

All that convinces me of is that the human mind is incapable of handling the concept. Nothing else.

Many philosphical statments work on the same principle. Its ultimately just mind games.

A few examples:

Amphiboly: ‘Save soap and waste paper’. The sentence is only problematic because of the american wording. ‘Save soap and toilet paper’ makes perfect sense.

Zenos Achiles paradox:
http://www.truthawakens.com/zeno.asp

Shows how you can word something or even use maths in such a way to prove something that is ultimately and obviously incorrect.
[/quote]

You are making things out to be more complicated than they have to be. Try and think of it this way: at its core, what you are asserting is that something came from nothing. But wait, before you continue, you need to really understand what NOTHING is. It is NOTHING. Like, way more nothing than the nothing in that movie The Neverending Story. We are talking not just no matter, no particles, no energy, but beyond that, there isn’t even any space, no time, no vast dark empty boundless void. We are talking N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

If you are going to start arguing that something, ANYTHING came from that, then you might as well just hop over to the theist’s side of the argument, because there is absolutely NO evidence, logical or empirical, for something so audacious, so unimaginable, to occur.

[forlife]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,

I read the argument in the link you provided about infinite regression being a fallacy. The only proof in the argument is that numbers eventually repeat themselves so its circular therefore not regression.

All that convinces me of is that the human mind is incapable of handling the concept. Nothing else.

Many philosphical statments work on the same principle. Its ultimately just mind games.

A few examples:

Amphiboly: ‘Save soap and waste paper’. The sentence is only problematic because of the american wording. ‘Save soap and toilet paper’ makes perfect sense.

Zenos Achiles paradox:
http://www.truthawakens.com/zeno.asp

Shows how you can word something or even use maths in such a way to prove something that is ultimately and obviously incorrect.
[/quote]

More to the point, the guy actually admits that he doesn’t have an argument once you consider the possibility of multiple dimensions. Also, he misses the point that an infinite regress doesn’t necessitate that all possible precedents exist; it only necessitates that all actual precedents exist.

The second link came from Conservapedia, which admits to placing a conservative spin on everything. For a more balanced reference, check out Wikipedia, especially the reference on turtles all the way down.

[supa_power]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]

How did they do that?
[/quote]

By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]

Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]

There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]

NDEs are not a necessary pillar of my faith. That said, you realize that no, the experiments you are describing indeed do NOT prove that there are NO real NDEs. All they prove is that the subjective experience collectively referred to as an NDE appears to be replicable. The subjects in the experiment were not actually killed. So of course they are not going to display supernatural abilities.Therefore at best all you can say is that we can replicate something similar to the experience described by people who have been declared clinically dead and were then revived.

Whether or not those people who were actually, measurably dead were experiencing a hallucination or an actual supernatural encounter will not be provable anytime in the near future. So claim what you will, but in the end, your opinion has no more empirical weight than any theist’s.[/quote]

Denial is a funny thing. I don’t give two fucks if NDEs are not a pillar of your faith.
When will you get it into your head that the greatest amount of evidence that NDEs are hallucianry has come from REAL NDEs, people who were clinically dead and revived. The fact that every component of a NDE can be recreated in the lab is just the final nail in the coffin.
The following are based on reports from REAL NDEs (even though there is no difference to a lab NDE as far as your brain is concerned):

Discrepancies between what is seen in the out-of-body component of an NDE and what’s actually happening in the physical world.

Encountering people who are still alive in the NDE.

The greater variety of differences than similarities between different NDEs, where specific details of NDEs generally conform to cultural expectation.

NDEs where the experiencer makes a decision not to return to life by crossing a barrier or threshold viewed as a ‘point of no return,’ but is restored to life anyway.

Hallucinatory imagery in NDEs, including encounters with mythological creatures and fictional characters. This is particularly evident in young children.

The failure of predictions in those instances in which experiencers report seeing future events during NDEs or gaining psychic abilities after them.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,

The problem I see with most of your logic is that it goes something like this:

“You can’t prove X is true, therefore Y must be true.”
[/quote]
Uh what? That’s not the logic at all. That is the antithesis of logic. If you think the cosmological argument is doing anything of the soft, them your proving you don’t know it at all.

The logical flaw is just because X hasn’t been definitively proven to
be true doesn’t mean X is not true.

If by ‘X’ you mean causation, causation has been proven true inside and out. Go look it up. Now, since you love science so much, you better damn well hope causation is true, because if it isn’t all science would be invalid, little more than hopeful guesses.

My point in presenting scientific theories and evidence that offer a
different explanation than the comological argument is not that they
PROVE the comological argument is false. They don’t, and I’ve never
claimed that.

What scientific explanation does that? None exist that do that. They may have different theories as to the start of this universe, and I don’t dispel those theories. What the theories don’t do is explain ‘from nothing, something’. Further, all those theories rely on causation and contingency, ALL of them. There is not one that does not.

The point is that they prove it is POSSIBLE the cosmological argument
is false. There are other POSSIBLE explanations, which are not 100%
proven to be true, but which science suggests MAY be true based on
what we have observed to date.

Oh dear…Please show me one theory, you think proves the cosmological argument false and I will show you why it does not. Even the paper you linked to says that the argument has not been refuted even if people have some issues with it…There are several fails in the paper I can get into in a little bit by the way.

Given that, claiming that the cosmological argument, or any other
argument, MUST be true is logically fallacious. It is the equivalent
of burying your head in the sand, because it refuses to acknowledge
other possibilities that are out there.

The other possibilities you have put forth rely on infinite regress which begs the question which is therefore invalid. Do you have any other possible explanations that aren’t circular?

[quote]
I don’t want to regurgitate everything we’ve already discussed on
this, but you are simply incorrect that an infinite regress is an
impossibility. Your argument that “you can’t remove forever” is based
on a false assumption: that regressing is the equivalent of “removing”
something. That isn’t the case. You are only moving to an earlier
point in the causal chain, and that causal chain continues forever.

If you want a better understanding of my thinking on this, you can
check out Paul Edwards:

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/edwards.pdf[/quote]

An infinate series is not a regress, you end up at the same point you started. Second, to say cause A precedes result b does not necessarily be true. Causation can happen in any direction so long as causes necessitate their effects. You cannot regress up a chain of necessities and end up at the place you started…That is the logic fail of applying infinite series to infinite regress, these are two different things not one in the same. An infinite series must end up at the place it started. But it doesn’t explain it’s contingency or indeed why it’s a series and why it’s infinite. Indeed, those factors ‘series’ and infinite are themselves caused. Edwards fucked that up. An infinite series does exist, but it’s not causal, because it, itself is caused.
Because of this misunderstanding between a series and a regress, he also makes the mistake of stating that there can be multiple uncaused-causes. No they cannot, like I said ‘reciprocating infinate series’ are the results of something that caused them. Circles exist, infinite series’s exist, infinite regresses do not.

Proof of Infinite Regression's Fallacy

An example of a errant question is: What caused the ‘Uncaused-cause’? It’s actually unanswerable, because if something is uncaused, it by definition cannot be caused. Further it’s not necessary to know how or what the Uncaused-cause is to know it exists. We know gravity exists, we don’t know what the hell it actually is.
It’s kind of like asking “What’s your name, Charlie?”

I am glad you finally brought some references and such. That link I gave you ta trillion times have the same counter arguments though. You could have just trusted me and read it, I told you it had counter arguments built in.

Answer this question please, what properties must something have to both be uncaused and be able to cause, but yet is not the Prime mover. Explain how multiples of these things exist.

Part deux, Describe something that is uncaused and does not cause.

No these aren’t traps, or loaded questions. These things must be real if the cosmological argument is false, at least the first one must be…

[Cortes]

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]

How did they do that?
[/quote]

By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]

Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]

There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]

NDEs are not a necessary pillar of my faith. That said, you realize that no, the experiments you are describing indeed do NOT prove that there are NO real NDEs. All they prove is that the subjective experience collectively referred to as an NDE appears to be replicable. The subjects in the experiment were not actually killed. So of course they are not going to display supernatural abilities.Therefore at best all you can say is that we can replicate something similar to the experience described by people who have been declared clinically dead and were then revived.

Whether or not those people who were actually, measurably dead were experiencing a hallucination or an actual supernatural encounter will not be provable anytime in the near future. So claim what you will, but in the end, your opinion has no more empirical weight than any theist’s.[/quote]

Denial is a funny thing. I don’t give two fucks if NDEs are not a pillar of your faith.
When will you get it into your head that the greatest amount of evidence that NDEs are hallucianry has come from REAL NDEs, people who were clinically dead and revived. The fact that every component of a NDE can be recreated in the lab is just the final nail in the coffin.
The following are based on reports from REAL NDEs (even though there is no difference to a lab NDE as far as your brain is concerned):

Discrepancies between what is seen in the out-of-body component of an NDE and what’s actually happening in the physical world.

Encountering people who are still alive in the NDE.

The greater variety of differences than similarities between different NDEs, where specific details of NDEs generally conform to cultural expectation.

NDEs where the experiencer makes a decision not to return to life by crossing a barrier or threshold viewed as a ‘point of no return,’ but is restored to life anyway.

Hallucinatory imagery in NDEs, including encounters with mythological creatures and fictional characters. This is particularly evident in young children.

The failure of predictions in those instances in which experiencers report seeing future events during NDEs or gaining psychic abilities after them.
[/quote]

The above are true for ALL NDEs, right?

I’ll be waiting on that syllogism.

[pat]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,

I read the argument in the link you provided about infinite regression being a fallacy. The only proof in the argument is that numbers eventually repeat themselves so its circular therefore not regression.

All that convinces me of is that the human mind is incapable of handling the concept. Nothing else.

Many philosphical statments work on the same principle. Its ultimately just mind games.

A few examples:

Amphiboly: ‘Save soap and waste paper’. The sentence is only problematic because of the american wording. ‘Save soap and toilet paper’ makes perfect sense.

Zenos Achiles paradox:
http://www.truthawakens.com/zeno.asp

Shows how you can word something or even use maths in such a way to prove something that is ultimately and obviously incorrect.
[/quote]

No your stuck in the same rut as FL…Infinite series can exist, but they are caused to both be a series and infinite.
Zeno’s paradox is only a statement about motion, which is related to time which is not related to an infinate regress; it’s infinite division…Everything is infinitely divisible. Regression is a simplification process, you cannot divide an effect by it’s cause that makes no sense.

Let’s do an example of regression:
You have an atom, it’s an atom because it has electrons, protons and neutrons. There is no difference between the subatomic particles in a bar of gold or a piece of shit, these subatomic particles are depended on other subatomic particles which are dependent on ‘weight’ motion and charge. The sub-sub atomic particles, like quarks. Now your dealling with some that is common to all subatomic particles. Let’s regress down the to string level if indeed they do exist. So now we’re dealing with a single thing that is the make up of the entire physical universe, BUT it’s still contingent. A string must be a one dimensional singularity and it must move. So now you have components of every single string in existence…As you regress though, there is less and less stuff to deal with. It is sufficent to ask, where did the singularity come from, why does it move or have charge, etc. What’s beyond that is what scientists have lovingly referred to as information…They don’t have an explanation of what it is, but it is less than a string. But as you can see you are running out of stuff, eventually you come to a cross road, your either end up at something, or nothing. That’s why it cannot continue infinitely.

[ZEB]

[quote]supa power wrote:
Of course you can see your dead aunt in a dream but you don’t wake up thinking that you actually met her because your senses of touch etc were disorientated.[/quote]

I was not comparing dreams to reality. I was comparing the ability to cause similar occurrences in two different ways. Think about it.

Subjects who have had NDEs recreated in the lab are in a severe state of shock after the experience. It feels 100% real and had they not been told what to expect, then they may have been convinced they saw the afterlife.

And what you fail to understand is that you cannot disprove NDE’s by proving that you can create a similar experience in the lab.

You are not using sound logic my friend. You have not disproved something by proving something else. You must actually disprove the thing that you are attacking by an independent means. In this case you are saying that since a similar occurrence can happen in a lab that this IS what’s happening to those who have NDE’s. Do you follow?

Let me give you one final analogy. I turn on my faucet and water comes out. I then claim that water comes from my faucet. You then bring me down to a stream lower a cup into the lake pour the water over my head and say “water does NOT come from your faucet it comes from this stream.”

You have NOT disproved that water comes from my faucet by proving that water comes from a stream.

Aside from any disagreements that we may have about God and the afterlife this much we should be able to agree on. Please think it over.

[Think_tank_fish]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,

The problem I see with most of your logic is that it goes something like this:

“You can’t prove X is true, therefore Y must be true.”

The logical flaw is just because X hasn’t been definitively proven to
be true doesn’t mean X is not true.

My point in presenting scientific theories and evidence that offer a
different explanation than the comological argument is not that they
PROVE the comological argument is false. They don’t, and I’ve never
claimed that.

The point is that they prove it is POSSIBLE the cosmological argument
is false. There are other POSSIBLE explanations, which are not 100%
proven to be true, but which science suggests MAY be true based on
what we have observed to date.

Given that, claiming that the cosmological argument, or any other
argument, MUST be true is logically fallacious. It is the equivalent
of burying your head in the sand, because it refuses to acknowledge
other possibilities that are out there.

I don’t want to regurgitate everything we’ve already discussed on
this, but you are simply incorrect that an infinite regress is an
impossibility. Your argument that “you can’t remove forever” is based
on a false assumption: that regressing is the equivalent of “removing”
something. That isn’t the case. You are only moving to an earlier
point in the causal chain, and that causal chain continues forever.

If you want a better understanding of my thinking on this, you can
check out Paul Edwards:

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/edwards.pdf[/quote]

I just read through this whole link. Very interesting stuff and I can’t fault any of its logic.

[Sloth]

The first one of us that kicks the bucket just needs to make a post and settle this. Look for ice cream. I really hope there’s ice cream.

[Think_tank_fish]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,

I read the argument in the link you provided about infinite regression being a fallacy. The only proof in the argument is that numbers eventually repeat themselves so its circular therefore not regression.

All that convinces me of is that the human mind is incapable of handling the concept. Nothing else.

Many philosphical statments work on the same principle. Its ultimately just mind games.

A few examples:

Amphiboly: ‘Save soap and waste paper’. The sentence is only problematic because of the american wording. ‘Save soap and toilet paper’ makes perfect sense.

Zenos Achiles paradox:
http://www.truthawakens.com/zeno.asp

Shows how you can word something or even use maths in such a way to prove something that is ultimately and obviously incorrect.
[/quote]

No your stuck in the same rut as FL…Infinite series can exist, but they are caused to both be a series and infinite.
Zeno’s paradox is only a statement about motion, which is related to time which is not related to an infinate regress; it’s infinite division…Everything is infinitely divisible. Regression is a simplification process, you cannot divide an effect by it’s cause that makes no sense.

Let’s do an example of regression:
You have an atom, it’s an atom because it has electrons, protons and neutrons. There is no difference between the subatomic particles in a bar of gold or a piece of shit, these subatomic particles are depended on other subatomic particles which are dependent on ‘weight’ motion and charge. The sub-sub atomic particles, like quarks. Now your dealling with some that is common to all subatomic particles. Let’s regress down the to string level if indeed they do exist. So now we’re dealing with a single thing that is the make up of the entire physical universe, BUT it’s still contingent. A string must be a one dimensional singularity and it must move. So now you have components of every single string in existence…As you regress though, there is less and less stuff to deal with. It is sufficent to ask, where did the singularity come from, why does it move or have charge, etc. What’s beyond that is what scientists have lovingly referred to as information…They don’t have an explanation of what it is, but it is less than a string. But as you can see you are running out of stuff, eventually you come to a cross road, your either end up at something, or nothing. That’s why it cannot continue infinitely. [/quote]

You dont need a beggining to an infinite series. The uncaused cause is not needed if you believe in infinity.

Both the idea of infinity and an uncaused cause are impossible for the human mind to fully comprehend.

But if you have one you dont need the other. You could have both I guess.

From my understanding you believe in the uncaused cause and forlife believes in infinity.

I think they are equally problematic but for some reason inifinity sits better with me.

[Think_tank_fish]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The first one of us that kicks the bucket just needs to make a post and settle this. Look for ice cream. I really hope there’s ice cream.[/quote]

LOL. I will try my best!

[Cortes]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The first one of us that kicks the bucket just needs to make a post and settle this. Look for ice cream. I really hope there’s ice cream.[/quote]

That post will immediately be followed by a counter-post stating that what he’s experiencing is just a hallucination.

[supa_power]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]

How did they do that?
[/quote]

By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]

Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]

There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]

NDEs are not a necessary pillar of my faith. That said, you realize that no, the experiments you are describing indeed do NOT prove that there are NO real NDEs. All they prove is that the subjective experience collectively referred to as an NDE appears to be replicable. The subjects in the experiment were not actually killed. So of course they are not going to display supernatural abilities.Therefore at best all you can say is that we can replicate something similar to the experience described by people who have been declared clinically dead and were then revived.

Whether or not those people who were actually, measurably dead were experiencing a hallucination or an actual supernatural encounter will not be provable anytime in the near future. So claim what you will, but in the end, your opinion has no more empirical weight than any theist’s.[/quote]

Denial is a funny thing. I don’t give two fucks if NDEs are not a pillar of your faith.
When will you get it into your head that the greatest amount of evidence that NDEs are hallucianry has come from REAL NDEs, people who were clinically dead and revived. The fact that every component of a NDE can be recreated in the lab is just the final nail in the coffin.
The following are based on reports from REAL NDEs (even though there is no difference to a lab NDE as far as your brain is concerned):

Discrepancies between what is seen in the out-of-body component of an NDE and what’s actually happening in the physical world.

Encountering people who are still alive in the NDE.

The greater variety of differences than similarities between different NDEs, where specific details of NDEs generally conform to cultural expectation.

NDEs where the experiencer makes a decision not to return to life by crossing a barrier or threshold viewed as a ‘point of no return,’ but is restored to life anyway.

Hallucinatory imagery in NDEs, including encounters with mythological creatures and fictional characters. This is particularly evident in young children.

The failure of predictions in those instances in which experiencers report seeing future events during NDEs or gaining psychic abilities after them.
[/quote]

The above are true for ALL NDEs, right?

I’ll be waiting on that syllogism. [/quote]

The above points are based on the experiences of people who were clinically dead and then revived. The above points have also been reproduced in the lab. The above points are true for the MAJORITY of NDEs, there will always be exceptions and I have discussed this in my previous posts.

Syllogism??? Am I talking to a riddle master here. I have given you more than enough info to show that NDEs are very very likely hallucinary(Seeing that I cannot prove it 100% then it must be wrong). No need to complicate things. Complex words are a fools language… syllogism LOL.

[Cortes]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
Of course you can see your dead aunt in a dream but you don’t wake up thinking that you actually met her because your senses of touch etc were disorientated.[/quote]

I was not comparing dreams to reality. I was comparing the ability to cause similar occurrences in two different ways. Think about it.

Subjects who have had NDEs recreated in the lab are in a severe state of shock after the experience. It feels 100% real and had they not been told what to expect, then they may have been convinced they saw the afterlife.

And what you fail to understand is that you cannot disprove NDE’s by proving that you can create a similar experience in the lab.

You are not using sound logic my friend. You have not disproved something by proving something else. You must actually disprove the thing that you are attacking by an independent means. In this case you are saying that since a similar occurrence can happen in a lab that this IS what’s happening to those who have NDE’s. Do you follow?

Let me give you one final analogy. I turn on my faucet and water comes out. I then claim that water comes from my faucet. You then bring me down to a stream lower a cup into the lake pour the water over my head and say “water does NOT come from your faucet it comes from this stream.”

You have NOT disproved that water comes from my faucet by proving that water comes from a stream.

Aside from any disagreements that we may have about God and the afterlife this much we should be able to agree on. Please think it over.
[/quote]

There are all sorts of confounding factors.

What if recollection of the event gets all screwed up on the trip back?

What if some of the NDEs are real and some are hallucinations?

What is some are hallucinations followed by actual death and transition into a real NDE, that could also be followed by a further trip back into a hallucination just before the return to consciousness?

What if correlation does not equal causation?

In any case, yes, the bottom line is not, at least in my case, whether NDEs are real event or not. I honestly couldn’t care less. I just took umbrage at the poster throwing around the evidence he has as if it could possibly answer the question. It can’t. Even if every single NDE that has ever occurred is found to have inconsistencies, you still can’t make any authoritative statements on their authenticity outside of your strongly held opinion backed up by conjecture.

Still think I’m wrong? Try explaining what “blue” is to someone blind from birth so that they can imagine the same thing you are seeing in your head.

[Cortes]

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]

How did they do that?
[/quote]

By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]

Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]

There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]

NDEs are not a necessary pillar of my faith. That said, you realize that no, the experiments you are describing indeed do NOT prove that there are NO real NDEs. All they prove is that the subjective experience collectively referred to as an NDE appears to be replicable. The subjects in the experiment were not actually killed. So of course they are not going to display supernatural abilities.Therefore at best all you can say is that we can replicate something similar to the experience described by people who have been declared clinically dead and were then revived.

Whether or not those people who were actually, measurably dead were experiencing a hallucination or an actual supernatural encounter will not be provable anytime in the near future. So claim what you will, but in the end, your opinion has no more empirical weight than any theist’s.[/quote]

Denial is a funny thing. I don’t give two fucks if NDEs are not a pillar of your faith.
When will you get it into your head that the greatest amount of evidence that NDEs are hallucianry has come from REAL NDEs, people who were clinically dead and revived. The fact that every component of a NDE can be recreated in the lab is just the final nail in the coffin.
The following are based on reports from REAL NDEs (even though there is no difference to a lab NDE as far as your brain is concerned):

Discrepancies between what is seen in the out-of-body component of an NDE and what’s actually happening in the physical world.

Encountering people who are still alive in the NDE.

The greater variety of differences than similarities between different NDEs, where specific details of NDEs generally conform to cultural expectation.

NDEs where the experiencer makes a decision not to return to life by crossing a barrier or threshold viewed as a ‘point of no return,’ but is restored to life anyway.

Hallucinatory imagery in NDEs, including encounters with mythological creatures and fictional characters. This is particularly evident in young children.

The failure of predictions in those instances in which experiencers report seeing future events during NDEs or gaining psychic abilities after them.
[/quote]

The above are true for ALL NDEs, right?

I’ll be waiting on that syllogism. [/quote]

The above points are based on the experiences of people who were clinically dead and then revived. The above points have also been reproduced in the lab. The above points are true for the MAJORITY of NDEs, there will always be exceptions and I have discussed this in my previous posts.

Syllogism??? Am I talking to a riddle master here. I have given you more than enough info to show that NDEs are very very likely hallucinary(Seeing that I cannot prove it 100% then it must be wrong). No need to complicate things. Complex words are a fools language… syllogism LOL.[/quote]

I didn’t say your statement was wrong, that’s where you are getting all messed up. You just conceded my point. Now we agree. Though there may be strong evidence against the reality of NDEs, we cannot say with any authority that there is NO such thing as the conditions people have described experiencing.

See, that wasn’t that hard, was it?

[supa_power]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
Of course you can see your dead aunt in a dream but you don’t wake up thinking that you actually met her because your senses of touch etc were disorientated.[/quote]

I was not comparing dreams to reality. I was comparing the ability to cause similar occurrences in two different ways. Think about it.

Subjects who have had NDEs recreated in the lab are in a severe state of shock after the experience. It feels 100% real and had they not been told what to expect, then they may have been convinced they saw the afterlife.

And what you fail to understand is that you cannot disprove NDE’s by proving that you can create a similar experience in the lab.

You are not using sound logic my friend. You have not disproved something by proving something else. You must actually disprove the thing that you are attacking by an independent means. In this case you are saying that since a similar occurrence can happen in a lab that this IS what’s happening to those who have NDE’s. Do you follow?

Let me give you one final analogy. I turn on my faucet and water comes out. I then claim that water comes from my faucet. You then bring me down to a stream lower a cup into the lake pour the water over my head and say “water does NOT come from your faucet it comes from this stream.”

You have NOT disproved that water comes from my faucet by proving that water comes from a stream.

Aside from any disagreements that we may have about God and the afterlife this much we should be able to agree on. Please think it over.
[/quote]

Have you missed my previous posts?
I agree that recreating a NDE in the lab alone is not enough. I have shown that the greatest evidence that NDEs are hallucinary is from the discrepancies and cultural expectation in real world NDEs.

“You have not disproved something by proving something else”. Technically this is true, but what has happened to common sense?
Anyway I must go train.

[forlife]

Pat,

I agree it’s not logical, but it is what you’ve been doing to shore up
the cosmological argument:

“You can’t prove X is true, therefore Y must be true.”

You attack alternate theories that aren’t 100% proven to be true, and
conclude that because they aren’t 100% proven to be true, the
cosmological theory must be true.

These theories MAY be true, as suggested by both philosophy and
science, and therefore it is premature and shortsighted to assume that
they CANNOT be true per the cosmological argument.

It’s true that the cosmological argument hasn’t been proven false. Big
deal. Most of these other theories haven’t been proven false either.

If the cosmological argument was as ironclad as you believe, these
other theories wouldn’t even be a possibility, and it would be so
blatantly obvious that most scientists and philosophers would likely
agree with you.

Sorry dude, but I’m telling you what I honestly believe. I see the
cosmological argument as only ONE possible theory, among many other
possible theories.

We know far too little at this stage to insist that any particular
theory MUST be true. The moment you find anyone insisting their
particular theory MUST be true, be ready to pull the confirmatory bias
trigger, because it is staring you in the face.

That’s all I’m going to say about that. If you want to continue
insisting that only your particular theory can possibly be true, feel
free. You know that I fundamentally disagree, and why.

---

Now, I’m happy to talk about the possibility of an infinite series.

An infinite series is different from a circular series. With an
infinite series, you don’t end up at the same point you started.

The Eskimo example in the paper I referenced shows why your argument
that the series itself is caused doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny.

To be uncaused and yet be able to cause, something must…be uncaused
and yet be able to cause. Because it is able to cause doesn’t mean it
is able to cause everything, nor does it mean it actually does cause
everything. The paper is correct that it is possible for multiple
uncaused causes to exist.

But that is a different argument than the infinite series argument
we’re discussing.

[ZEB]

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
Of course you can see your dead aunt in a dream but you don’t wake up thinking that you actually met her because your senses of touch etc were disorientated.[/quote]

I was not comparing dreams to reality. I was comparing the ability to cause similar occurrences in two different ways. Think about it.

Subjects who have had NDEs recreated in the lab are in a severe state of shock after the experience. It feels 100% real and had they not been told what to expect, then they may have been convinced they saw the afterlife.

And what you fail to understand is that you cannot disprove NDE’s by proving that you can create a similar experience in the lab.

You are not using sound logic my friend. You have not disproved something by proving something else. You must actually disprove the thing that you are attacking by an independent means. In this case you are saying that since a similar occurrence can happen in a lab that this IS what’s happening to those who have NDE’s. Do you follow?

Let me give you one final analogy. I turn on my faucet and water comes out. I then claim that water comes from my faucet. You then bring me down to a stream lower a cup into the lake pour the water over my head and say “water does NOT come from your faucet it comes from this stream.”

You have NOT disproved that water comes from my faucet by proving that water comes from a stream.

Aside from any disagreements that we may have about God and the afterlife this much we should be able to agree on. Please think it over.
[/quote]

Have you missed my previous posts?
I agree that recreating a NDE in the lab alone is not enough. I have shown that the greatest evidence that NDEs are hallucinary is from the discrepancies and cultural expectation in real world NDEs.

“You have not disproved something by proving something else”. Technically this is true, but what has happened to common sense?
Anyway I must go train.[/quote]

But none of that really matters if you are actually taking the road that science has proven NDE’s false. Neither science or common sense has proven NDE’s false. As I already pointed out they cannot be disproved by the methodology that you’ve stated, even including your other points which rely on cultural differences. And by the way I am not a big believer in NDE’s. But I am also not a big believer in our current crop of skeptic who try in vain to tarnish everything that they cannot measure and monitor. It is this same diseased thought process (rampid in 2011) which seeks to put God in a box and when they cannot they lash out at those of us with faith. But I digress.

Anyway we can agree that you must train. Hope you had a good workout!

ZEB