[quote]pat wrote:
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but too true[/quote]
Unfortunately they are all we have access to.
It is precisely because they are so crude that we have to rely on the scientific method to make sure we are not fooling ourselves or are mistaken about what our senses are telling us.
This guys story, in my opinion, is a case of the later.
Ask Professor X…he said he died last year in his crash…
I remember him saying there was “nothing”
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Ask Professor X…he said he died last year in his crash…
I remember him saying there was “nothing”
[/quote]
I guess nobody wanted him.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Ask Professor X…he said he died last year in his crash…
I remember him saying there was “nothing”
[/quote]
I guess nobody wanted him.[/quote]
Or he’s livied such a perfect life that he willed himself out of existence…
From the article: [quote]Although I considered myself a faithful Christian, I was so more in name than in actual belief. I didn?t begrudge those who wanted to believe that Jesus was more than simply a good man who had suffered at the hands of the world. I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself.[/quote] A deluded pagan who was clearly not experiencing anything like the Biblical heaven. The father of lies is at it like always.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
and another "As a neuroscientist, I can tell you this article is based on junk science. It?s very amateurish given that it?s from a neurosurgeon, but I suspect that?s the only reason it?s getting so much attention in the first place. So let me point out two very flawed assumptions in this article:
What the author means to say is that his brain was suppressed to a very low level of metabolic activity (in an MR or PET scan, this looks like a dramatic decline in activity, but this isn?t something you can see in a CT scan showing the extent of meningitis, so that reference seems like a bizarre attempt to sound credible). Anyway, some might call that being ?shut off?, but make no mistake ? biologically, it?s not at all the case. Even doctors make this mistake, but a neurosurgeon should know better.
Consciousness can be altered much more dramatically by lesioning SUBcortical structures than by lesioning the cortex. Deficits in consciousness caused by cortical lesions can be RESTORED by specific subcortical lesions (look up ?sprague effect?).
Lastly, we?ve known for nearly a decade now that many people in a persistent vegetative state DO show low levels of intrinsic brain activity, and specific activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli (hearing family tell stories, etc.)
Conclusion: This article is marshmallow fluff. His cortex wasn?t off, and it?s not the only thing that gives rise to consciousness anyway. So don?t accept amateurish claims like ?my cortex was turned off but i still felt stuff so god exists.? Consciousness is an undending puzzle, but this ain?t the magic piece!"
This guys is pretty much getting torn apart in the blogosphere amongst the neuroscience community [/quote]
How would you ‘prove’ this scientifically? It’s a personal experience. I think would think the burden lies on those saying what he experienced wasn’t real. That’s a heavily damaged, or partially shut down brain can produce a more intense state of consciousness than a fully functioning healthy one. It seems counter intuitive to say that brain on shutdown or diminshed state produces a state of super consciousness.[/quote]
What you described as impossible is exactly the mechanism by which dissociative psychedelics like ketamine, PCP, and dextromethorphan cause their effects put very simply. And his experience mirrors those psychedelic states too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but too true[/quote]
Unfortunately they are all we have access to.
It is precisely because they are so crude that we have to rely on the scientific method to make sure we are not fooling ourselves or are mistaken about what our senses are telling us.
This guys story, in my opinion, is a case of the later. [/quote]
The scientific method is totally dependent on the senses.
Good grief.[/quote]
“The scientific method is totally dependent on the senses, and so is what I choose to believe in, therefore God exists.”
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve read a few stories of hellish NDEs. They didn’t sound too fun, either. [/quote]
Years ago, I had a patient whose heart failed so rapidly, he drove to the hospital ER and went into a coma. No trauma…he just went out. For 3 months.
He was maintained in the ICU, equivocally brian dead, for 3 months, and I argued that plugs should be pulled. I was overruled, and sure enough, he woke up in the 3rd month to entirely normal mental state
He told me that he had thought he was in a submarine for 3 months. Made sense to me…with all the beeps, and monitors, and hoses and what-not, the comatose man would have good reason to think that he was in a submarine.
And so, now, decades later, because of that man’s near-death experience, I believe in submarines.
Proof of heaven.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but too true[/quote]
Unfortunately they are all we have access to.
It is precisely because they are so crude that we have to rely on the scientific method to make sure we are not fooling ourselves or are mistaken about what our senses are telling us.
This guys story, in my opinion, is a case of the later. [/quote]
The scientific method is totally dependent on the senses.
Good grief.[/quote]
You are aware of other ways to access information other than through our senses?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve read a few stories of hellish NDEs. They didn’t sound too fun, either. [/quote]
Years ago, I had a patient whose heart failed so rapidly, he drove to the hospital ER and went into a coma. No trauma…he just went out. For 3 months.
He was maintained in the ICU, equivocally brian dead, for 3 months, and I argued that plugs should be pulled. I was overruled, and sure enough, he woke up in the 3rd month to entirely normal mental state
He told me that he had thought he was in a submarine for 3 months. Made sense to me…with all the beeps, and monitors, and hoses and what-not, the comatose man would have good reason to think that he was in a submarine.
And so, now, decades later, because of that man’s near-death experience, I believe in submarines.[/quote]
That was golden, thank you DrSkeptix.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]
False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.
Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]
He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]
The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.[/quote]
Really? So you didn’t read this part:
“This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.”
So documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is no backup of his physiological state?[/quote]
Temporal distortion with memories is common. This is the case with dreams. I’ve had plenty of dreams that seem to stretch a lengthy period of time, but in fact occur within a span of 10 minutes. Most people have. Researchers have documented this, it’s not even really a point of discussion. The difference is, when I wake up from a dream, I can quickly realize that the dream that I thought lasted for days didn’t actually, because I can look at a clock.
[/quote]
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but a given.[/quote]
I get a very David Hume-y vibe from some of your posts. That’s a compliment by the way.[/quote]
I appreciate that… I am a huge fan of Hume, he had a big influence. His work on causal relationships was the best there ever was.
What I liked about Hume is he never let his personal biases stand in the way of pure logic. He often painted himself into corners, but he didn’t care, he let logic rule the day, even if they went against his personal beliefs. And that I respect tremendously.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]
False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.
Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]
He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]
The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.[/quote]
Really? So you didn’t read this part:
“This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.”
So documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is no backup of his physiological state?[/quote]
Temporal distortion with memories is common. This is the case with dreams. I’ve had plenty of dreams that seem to stretch a lengthy period of time, but in fact occur within a span of 10 minutes. Most people have. Researchers have documented this, it’s not even really a point of discussion. The difference is, when I wake up from a dream, I can quickly realize that the dream that I thought lasted for days didn’t actually, because I can look at a clock.
[/quote]
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but a given.[/quote]
My point was referring to your statement “documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is”. I was saying that the visions he supposedly had during this dormant period could very easily have occurred after or before, and then displaced in his memory. Sounds like you agree that this is a possibility.[/quote]
Without knowing more details of his physiological state and “when” this experience occurred or what his basis for saying this occurred during that time, then yes it’s a possibility. I would hope in the book he would detail that better.
What I do not agree with is that the brain in diminished capacity can produce a reality that’s more vivid than a healthy brain consciousness. I don’t believe that for a second. Visions, hallucinations, etc. sure. But being able to look back upon it and still say this consciousness was more vivid and real than what he is used to in normal health is not the norm.
So to be clear, I am not saying people with diminished brain capacities don’t have visions or hallucinations, but they don’t experience a ‘more real’ reality, especially looking back.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but too true[/quote]
Unfortunately they are all we have access to.
It is precisely because they are so crude that we have to rely on the scientific method to make sure we are not fooling ourselves or are mistaken about what our senses are telling us.
This guys story, in my opinion, is a case of the later. [/quote]
The scientific method is a tool and a method of inductive logic. The scientific method at best gives us a correlation with a high degree of statistical significance. That’s it. That’s not to say science isn’t valuable. It’s one of the best tools we have, but it’s not the tool for everything. It may be a hammer, but not everything is a nail.
In this case we are dealing with a personal experience. The only science we can apply is the verification of his physiological states.
We certainly cannot say based on that, that what he experienced wasn’t real or wasn’t true. Like wise we cannot say it was.
So we have to look for other things and then decide to trust or not trust. To believe or not believe.
This man’s personal experience is not testable. So we have to ask different questions.
To be fair, in defence of this fellow, this is more semantics than bad science.
Same way when Dawkins presented a TV documentary called: Religion, the root of all evil.
Divisive titles are just better for ratings than mealy mouthed, intellectually honest ones.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
and another "As a neuroscientist, I can tell you this article is based on junk science. It?s very amateurish given that it?s from a neurosurgeon, but I suspect that?s the only reason it?s getting so much attention in the first place. So let me point out two very flawed assumptions in this article:
What the author means to say is that his brain was suppressed to a very low level of metabolic activity (in an MR or PET scan, this looks like a dramatic decline in activity, but this isn?t something you can see in a CT scan showing the extent of meningitis, so that reference seems like a bizarre attempt to sound credible). Anyway, some might call that being ?shut off?, but make no mistake ? biologically, it?s not at all the case. Even doctors make this mistake, but a neurosurgeon should know better.
Consciousness can be altered much more dramatically by lesioning SUBcortical structures than by lesioning the cortex. Deficits in consciousness caused by cortical lesions can be RESTORED by specific subcortical lesions (look up ?sprague effect?).
Lastly, we?ve known for nearly a decade now that many people in a persistent vegetative state DO show low levels of intrinsic brain activity, and specific activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli (hearing family tell stories, etc.)
Conclusion: This article is marshmallow fluff. His cortex wasn?t off, and it?s not the only thing that gives rise to consciousness anyway. So don?t accept amateurish claims like ?my cortex was turned off but i still felt stuff so god exists.? Consciousness is an undending puzzle, but this ain?t the magic piece!"
This guys is pretty much getting torn apart in the blogosphere amongst the neuroscience community [/quote]
How would you ‘prove’ this scientifically? It’s a personal experience. I think would think the burden lies on those saying what he experienced wasn’t real. That’s a heavily damaged, or partially shut down brain can produce a more intense state of consciousness than a fully functioning healthy one. It seems counter intuitive to say that brain on shutdown or diminshed state produces a state of super consciousness.[/quote]
What you described as impossible is exactly the mechanism by which dissociative psychedelics like ketamine, PCP, and dextromethorphan cause their effects put very simply. And his experience mirrors those psychedelic states too. [/quote]
Dextromethophan? Well I have taken my fair share of cough syrups over the years and never had a psychedelic experience. As far as the other hallucinagins you describe the user doesn’t come out of it thinking that his experience was more profound, enlightening and ‘real’ than normal. Maybe during, but not after.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The scientific method is a tool and a method of inductive logic. The scientific method at best gives us a correlation with a high degree of statistical significance. That’s it. That’s not to say science isn’t valuable. It’s one of the best tools we have, but it’s not the tool for everything. It may be a hammer, but not everything is a nail.
In this case we are dealing with a personal experience. The only science we can apply is the verification of his physiological states.
We certainly cannot say based on that, that what he experienced wasn’t real or wasn’t true. Like wise we cannot say it was.
So we have to look for other things and then decide to trust or not trust. To believe or not believe.
This man’s personal experience is not testable. So we have to ask different questions. [/quote] Very good Pat. We will disagree utterly from here on out, but this is a solid statement here.
However a guy who doesn’t believe the true gospel CANNOT be experiencing the true heaven if the New Testament is not a lie. You would of course muddy those crystal clear waters hopelessly up, but the light of the living Word of God shines through all the mud there could ever be.
