Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

BluntGuy

I love the way the article randomly decides science, specifically the "scientific method", can't solve the question of consciousness, and then rather lamely attempts to fall back on science to give its incoherent rambling some kind of credibility.

The idea of consciousness interacting non-locally with physical systems could therefore be an important element in understanding how reality works at the subatomic level.

Can anyone tell me what this sentence means?

@Mickrock, Can you link us to a peer-reviewed paper in which any of your suggestions are corroborated?

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not obliged to answer every question you ask.

In a dialectic discussion, where you are proposing some idea, I'm afraid, yes, you are obliged to answer whatever people ask.

Galvasean

Newsite wrote: »

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

It's true you know.

you poop your pants

Dave!

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

I've posted about Pam Reynolds before - she doesn't describe anything that she could only have observed when she was brain dead. She was brain dead for only about 30 mins during the procedure, the rest of the time she was only sedated. She had earphones put in, but not ones that block out all sound. She could have heard conversations between the surgeons and doctors, and she could have heard a saw being turned on.

Her description of the saw was also inaccurate - she described some feature of it (can't remember what it was) being at the opposite end. Perhaps she saw some similar saw on TV before, or somethin.

I believe there's an experiment being conducted at the moment where some random digits are on a platform above an operating table, such that they can only be seen from above. We'll see if that bears any fruit.

muppeteer

Steeveep wrote: »

Hang on a minute.

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

Little known fact: The red pill in the matrix is actually a super powerful laxative that produces a poo so forceful it rips you from your virtual world.

True story.

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

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

I'd say you'll be in for a big surprise to, but you won't be.

Nah, you're just going to rot in the ground with the rest of us

recedite

pH wrote: »

What exactly "perceives" conciousness if not conciousness itself?

Conciousness could perceive itself whether it was local or non-local.

yawha

Steeveep wrote: »

Hang on a minute.

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

Nonlocal excretion. What you see is simply the perception of local urination and defecation.

yawha

Guys, the Matrix came out in 1999. What is this bringing to the table that's in any way a new or novel idea?

Lucy8080

hi all.. happy xmas..or season...i wish ya all the best...

with family and havin a tipple so tonite ill keep it short.

i will go through this.

i see the old thanks mob have been in operation again. oh well ...i enjoy it too.

but u guys have a space for the funny cartoons et al...thats ur space and i respect it.

now if u guys want a definition of gullible...check out the four years of "the origin of the specious nonsense"

or its mirror image in the christianity forum.

who keeps that stuff going?

and why?

wasnt me.

still have a good one....ill explain....and for this discussion

u guys are gonna have to explain too.

now post ur pics on the thread provided..

mickrock asked a valid question here.

ill expand ...enjoy ur laughs...i enjoy some of em too..

especially that 4 year old sectarian thread...and scientists driving it...lol

happy xmas.

jimmymal

loving this thread in a sort of king of kong doc type way, was hoping to see logical fallacy get stuck in for the bit of craic, make it a bit funnier. good fightin spirit from mickrock but ultimately doomed. too many holes being punched in almost everything said on the pro non local side.
heeeheehee

recedite

The Matrix thing is a misunderstanding of the OP. Think Avatar instead, but without the avatars, ie the interconnection of the aliens and their planet.

MagicMarker

recedite wrote: »

The Matrix thing is a misunderstanding of the OP. Think Avatar instead, but without the avatars, ie the interconnection of the aliens and their planet.

That makes more sense alright.

yawha

recedite wrote: »

The Matrix thing is a misunderstanding of the OP. Think Avatar instead, but without the avatars, ie the interconnection of the aliens and their planet.

Avatar was just the Matrix with wifi.

The Mad Hatter

yawha wrote: »

Avatar was just the Matrix with wifi.

No, The Matrix was good. Avatar was Pocahontas with wifi.

HUNK

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No, The Matrix was good. Avatar was Pocahontas with wifi.

Heard a few people compare it to pocahontas before I actually went to see it. Thought it was a pretty accurate description.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Your nose is an aerial, ears are used for fine tuning

yawha

Your mind is nothing but an illusion. It's all in your mind!

Tonyandthewhale

mickrock wrote: »

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

Sorry if this has been dealt with already, I haven't finished reading the whole thread. But according to wikipedia, measurable brain activity ceases in cases of clinical death after 20 to 40 seconds while consciousness is lost after only a few seconds. Who's to say these near death experiences aren't just hallucinations occuring during this interlude? Especially since the study specifically states that the majority of subjects had been given fentanyl which causes side-effects including HALLUCINATIONS!

Also, the procedure in your quoted study in the Lancet is based on interviews a few days and a few years after the near death experience occured. How do we verify the accuracy of these memories? Or even its truthfulness?

enfant terrible

yawha wrote: »

Your mind is nothing but an illusion. It's all in your mind!

How many transistors does it take for a computer to become self aware?

Sarky

Current evidence suggests the way they're connected is more important than how many there are.

Lucy8080

to jimmymal.

stick around jimmy ...this thread could go anywhere...but even i think its gonna be great fun.

but have some faith in mick....im coming in for him...but its christmas...i may be on the celebrations for a bit...

and really...i hope u all are...

goodnight all...we should all be loving this thread...

the pro nonlocal side is gonna rise....

why?...nonlocal is for life..not just for christmas.

thanks for the laff jimmy...

beerbuddy

Sorry but your Guru Hitchens would probably agree with thatQUOTE]

mickrock

Dave! wrote: »

I've posted about Pam Reynolds before - she doesn't describe anything that she could only have observed when she was brain dead. She was brain dead for only about 30 mins during the procedure, the rest of the time she was only sedated. She had earphones put in, but not ones that block out all sound. She could have heard conversations between the surgeons and doctors, and she could have heard a saw being turned on.

Her surgeon said it would have been impossible for her to hear anything. The earplugs were emitting high frequency clicks at very high dB levels.

Yet she was able to perceive some of the conversations of those present at the surgery.

Dave! wrote: »

Her description of the saw was also inaccurate - she described some feature of it (can't remember what it was) being at the opposite end. Perhaps she saw some similar saw on TV before, or somethin.

No, she was able to describe aspects of the operation with surprising accuracy, especically the unique nature of the tools used, which was very unlikely she could have otherwise known about.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

Her surgeon said it would have been impossible for her to hear anything. The earplugs were emitting high frequency clicks at very high dB levels.

Yet she was able to perceive some of the conversations of those present at the surgery.

No, she was able to describe aspects of the operation with surprising accuracy, especically the unique nature of the tools used, which was very unlikely she could have otherwise known about.

That's not what it says in the link you provided.
Can you provide anything to confirm any of this?
Who determined these things? When did they?
How did they exclude the possibility that she simply didn't overhear stuff after the surgery before she woke up and dreamed about it as often happens normally?
How do you know that she didn't get glimpses of the "unique" tools before the surgery, say like when the doctor is describing the procedure to his patient?
Seems to me that you've just swallowed everything you read without actually asking any questions about it.

mickrock

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

But according to wikipedia, measurable brain activity ceases in cases of clinical death after 20 to 40 seconds while consciousness is lost after only a few seconds. Who's to say these near death experiences aren't just hallucinations occuring during this interlude? Especially since the study specifically states that the majority of subjects had been given fentanyl which causes side-effects including HALLUCINATIONS!

Near-death experiences are of an enhanced and lucid consiousness which isn't consistent with a very rapidly deteriorating brain function.

The study says that patients' medication was unrelated to frequency of NDEs.

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Also, the procedure in your quoted study in the Lancet is based on interviews a few days and a few years after the near death experience occured. How do we verify the accuracy of these memories? Or even its truthfulness?

The interviews years later were only conducted to determine what impact the NDE had on the person's life.

They were normally interviewed within a few days of being resusitated and asked if they had experienced anything unusual.

Since the experiences are subjective it is difficult to verify the accuracy of perceptions during an out-of-body experience, but the "dentures" example quoted in the study is a good case of one that was.

Galvasean

mickrock wrote: »

Her surgeon said it would have been impossible for her to hear anything. The earplugs were emitting high frequency clicks at very high dB levels.

To serve what purpose?

mickrock

Galvasean wrote: »

To serve what purpose?

As a test for auditory and brain-stem reflexes.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

Her surgeon said it would have been impossible for her to hear anything. The earplugs were emitting high frequency clicks at very high dB levels.

Yet she was able to perceive some of the conversations of those present at the surgery.

Yes, but she was able to hear these conversations long before she was put into a state of being almost dead.

The conversations she recalls started approx 2 hours before the 30 minute period where she was put into this state.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#pam

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, but she was able to hear these conversations long before she was put into a state of being almost dead.

It is true that her first OBE of the procedure occurred before she was brain dead.

But she did perceive the conversations despite being anesthesized and having earplugs that emitted very loud, frequent clicks.