Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

From The Lancet, 2001:


Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands



It contains this example of a veridical OBE:



http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Now can you explain what precautions they took to exclude the possibility of these reports of out of body experiences simply being cases of the patients overhearing stuff while being drugged up and woozy?
Cause all of the other stuff sounds exactly like dreaming, and the above happens all the time in dreaming.

18AD

This is purty interesting: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1657919,00.html

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

Now can you explain what precautions they took to exclude the possibility of these reports of out of body experiences simply being cases of the patients overhearing stuff while being drugged up and woozy?
Cause all of the other stuff sounds exactly like dreaming, and the above happens all the time in dreaming.

Medication can be ruled out because all the patients were clinically dead with no measurable brain activity.

pH

mickrock wrote: »

Just because drugs can alter one's state of consciousness doesn't prove that it originates in the brain. Drugs just alter the perception of consciousness.

What exactly "perceives" conciousness if not conciousness itself?

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

Current biological understanding is fine but it can't explain how life and consciousness arose from inanimate matter by chance.

Well yes actually it can.

• Self-replicating molecules started replicating, leading to
• Simple proto-cells, leading to
• Cellular life, leading to
• Multi-cellular life, leading to
• Nerves, leading to
• Nervous system, leading to
• Brains

The problem is that you for some reason don't like the idea that the brain alone causes consciousness. But that is what all the evidence points too.

sephir0th

Zombrex wrote: »

But that is what all the evidence points too.

But reality is no fun!

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

Medication can be ruled out because all the patients were clinically dead with no measurable brain activity.

And you didn't understand my question. What measures did they take to ensure that the patient didn't over hear something or see something after or before their "death" and resuscitation?

And why do I have to remind you to answer my questions?

Undergod

Guys, I'm disappointed. 8 pages on, and no-one's addressed this question.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who's broadcasting?

Logical Fallacy

mickrock wrote: »

Just because drugs can alter one's state of consciousness doesn't prove that it originates in the brain. Drugs just alter the perception of consciousness.

This makes no sense.

It would make far more sense to say that the connection is push/pull, not just one way. Something occurring within the brain is transmitted back to the consciousness.

If you would like I can switch sides for a while, as i reckon i could do a better job Devil's Advocating your argument than you can defending it.

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes actually it can.

• Self-replicating molecules started replicating, leading to
• Simple proto-cells, leading to
• Cellular life, leading to
• Multi-cellular life, leading to
• Nerves, leading to
• Nervous system, leading to
• Brains

As an explanation for abiogenesis and evolution that's pretty pathetic.

Galvasean

mickrock wrote: »

As an explanation for abiogenesis and evolution that's pretty pathetic.

In a way I think you're kind of funny. In another much bigger way you make me despair.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

As an explanation for abiogenesis and evolution that's pretty pathetic.

Well I appreciate there is no TVs or unexplained external broadcasts in my some what boring explanation of 4 billion years of evolution.

Perhaps it might seem more appealing to you if I say that maybe the first self replicating molecules were put there by ALIENS!!!

Ohhhh spooky.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

As an explanation for abiogenesis and evolution that's pretty pathetic.

"Accurate" is the word you're groping around for.

mickrock

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If you would like I can switch sides for a while, as i reckon i could do a better job Devil's Advocating your argument than you can defending it.

Switch sides for a while if you want.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

And why do I have to remind you to answer my questions?

What are you in real life? A teacher?

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

What are you in real life? A teacher?

No, just like to point out when people like you aren't honest enough to admit they can't answer though questions.

So not only is your theory total nonsense and bunk, you know it is as much and are avoiding questions you can't handle.
And then you've then gall you whine about how mean we all are...

Is it any surprise that no one is taking you or that mental turd of an article seriously?

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

Well I appreciate there is no TVs or unexplained external broadcasts in my some what boring explanation of 4 billion years of evolution.

It's not that it was boring, it's more that it was somewhat lacking in details.

It's unknown how life started.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

It's not that it was boring, it's more that it was somewhat lacking in details.

It's unknown how life started.

And by your own admission it's unknown how the conciousness sees when it's having an OBE.
And I'd wager you're not going to be able to tell us any other details about the mechanisms of your theory, such how exactly the brain receives and transmits to the conciousness, or by what mechanism this happens, or were the conciousness actually is, or how it sustains itself, or why we even have this set up in the first place....

So by your standards we must dismiss your theory completely as all of this stuff is unknown.
Right?

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

No, just like to point out when people like you aren't honest enough to admit they can't answer though questions.

I did answer your original question about NDEs and being drugged up and woozy.

Then you claim I didn't answer it and say you've rephrased it but it's a totally different question.

Very shoddy.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

I did answer your original question about NDEs and being drugged up and woozy.

Then you claim I didn't answer it and say you've rephrased it but it's a totally different question.

Very shoddy.

I explained how you misunderstood it, then you still failed to answer it, and that's excluding the previous post, full of questions.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76151855&postcount=117

So are you going to take part in a discussion or not?

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

So by your standards we must dismiss your theory completely as all of this stuff is unknown.
Right?

The details are unknown but the broader picture seems to point to nonlocal consciousness.

I believe you're a physicist. I find that hard to believe.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

So are you going to take part in a discussion or not?

You're a bit bossy, aren't you?

I'm not obliged to answer every question you ask. Most of them I've already dealt with anyway.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

The details are unknown but the broader picture seems to point to nonlocal consciousness.

I believe you're a physicist. I find that hard to believe.

So why is the details being unknown in the case of a local conciousness somehow a point against it?

So far the only "broader picture" you've provided is two laughably poorly researched concepts.
And then you've admitted that the rest of the picture (ie. what we actually observe) shows that the conciousness behaves exactly as if it was local.

mickrock wrote: »

You're a bit bossy, aren't you?

I'm not obliged to answer every question you ask. Most of them I've already dealt with anyway.

No you're not obliged to answer every question.
It just makes you look like you can't and that you are talking nonsense.

And no, you've not dealt with any and you still have not.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

So far the only "broader picture" you've provided is two laughably poorly researched concepts.

What two concepts are you referring to?

Explain how a veridical near-death experience can be explained?

I'll give a convincing example and please explain how it was possible.

Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of an amazing near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Newsite

mickrock wrote: »

What two concepts are you referring to?

Explain how a veridical near-death experience can be explained?

I'll give a convincing example and please explain how it was possible.



http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

That's actually kinda crazy as Pam Reynolds was the exact person I was trying to think of in relation to this thread. Cheers.

If you don't believe in an afterlife, you're in for a biiiiiiiiiiiig surprise when you pass on from this life

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

What two concepts are you referring to?

Out of body experiences and such.

mickrock wrote: »

Explain how a veridical near-death experience can be explained?

I'll give a convincing example and please explain how it was possible.



http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate.

That's not convincing in the slightest.

What observations?
Verified by who? When?
How accurate is accurate?
How did they exclude the possibility that the patient simply wasn't misremembering what she had seen before or after he surgery? Or dreaming about such a thing and misremembering when she had the dream?

There's a bunch of stuff you need to show before I need to explain anything.

And again, why is it a problem for the materialistic explanation that it is unable to explain the emergence of the conciousness brain as you claim, but the fact that your theory cannot explain anything at all is not a problem?
Why the double standard? Why can't I just do what you are doing and reject your explanation because you are unable to account for some (or more accurately any) of it's mechanisms?

Steeveep

Hang on a minute.

Why do I need to piss and **** if this is a virtual world?

Dimithy

mickrock wrote: »

I believe you're a physicist. I find that hard to believe.

You seem a bit unsure of yourself.

RichieC

Steeveep wrote: »

Hang on a minute.

Why do I need to piss and **** if this is a virtual world?

a valid question.

18AD

Steeveep wrote: »

Hang on a minute.

Why do I need to piss and **** if this is a virtual world?

It's part of the programming... as is this message. Get on with it.