ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags neuroscience , physics

Reply
Old 5th November 2019, 02:15 PM   #81
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
So a soul should not experience life until its body approaches death.

If you are experiencing reading post this doesn't that mean "you" are just a body, not actually a soul, or else that you are about to die?
According to NDE reports, the person doesn't feel like being someone else during NDE but feels like being in a different state of mind with a different kind of perception. As if you removed a perceptual filter, or put on a different perceptual filter.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 02:21 PM   #82
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Why is it apparent that reports of vivid and empathetic states of mind during NDEs would be caused by souls detaching from the brain?
As I clarified, it is apparent to the near-death experiencer.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 02:22 PM   #83
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
General anesthesia usually causes amnesia.
Elaborate. I've been under general anesthesia. It passes as lost time, which is not the same as amnesia. The amnesia that sometimes follows the use of general anesthetic is not simply the spot-forgetting of some event that occurred right around the time it was used.

Quote:
Memory formation while under anesthesia has nothing to do with a life review -- i.e., of recalling past memories.

Quote:
Ok.
And...?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 02:23 PM   #84
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
As I clarified, it is apparent to the near-death experiencer.
This just repeats the claim. You're attributing the effects we call "near-death experience" to the separation of the soul from the body. What evidence supports this attribution?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 02:51 PM   #85
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Elaborate. I've been under general anesthesia. It passes as lost time, which is not the same as amnesia. The amnesia that sometimes follows the use of general anesthetic is not simply the spot-forgetting of some event that occurred right around the time it was used.
Do you remember anything from the time you were under anesthesia?

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Memory formation while under anesthesia has nothing to do with a life review -- i.e., of recalling past memories.
Amnesia under anesthesia means that formation of memories under anesthesia is impaired. That's what I mentioned as a possible reason why many survivors don't remember an NDE.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And...?
I don't have enough data to conclude whether a soul exists.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:29 PM   #86
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Do you remember anything from the time you were under anesthesia?
No. That means we can conclude nothing about whether I had a "lost" NDA. You're colossally missing the point. You're trying to rehabilitate an anti-correlation in your data using an argument from silence. No matter how many times you repeat the argument or underscore the silence, the argument suddenly doesn't become logically valid.

Quote:
I don't have enough data to conclude whether a soul exists.
That's too kind. Your arguments all presume the existence of a soul. Some even go on to presume that certain physical symptoms must be the effects of a soul. But you have no evidence a soul exist, much less that it has the properties necessary to do all that you attribute to it. For that reason your claims are non-starters.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:33 PM   #87
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,163
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Did you have a drug induced hallucination? Or is it what you rationalized post hoc?
Nope. NDE on the operating table. I know from direct experience that you are frantically shovelling the bovine fecal product. Not my problem, it is yours alone.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:37 PM   #88
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,163
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
As I clarified, it is apparent to the near-death experiencer.
Baloney. Had one, and that simply is a made up claim out of whole cloth. As far as I am concerned, I am a first hand witness and you can take your baloney for an unlikely anatomical excursion.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:42 PM   #89
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I don't see how that's a problem.
By analogy suppose you are simulating a collection of particles following the laws of physics.

For convenience you allow yourself a back door to move particles from one place to another with your mouse pointer.

Do you have to change the physical laws that the particles follow in order to do that? No. The particles can just follow the same laws in the simulation and you can allow your mouse pointer to alter certain variables.

For example if the particles in your simulation are behaving according to the Dirac equation then you do not need to add another term to the Dirac equation to allow for your mouse to drag a particle to a different location. Indeed that would be a very inefficient way of achieving this.

If someone asks does the mouse pointer obey Lorentz invariance then the question would be meaningless because your mouse pointer is not part of the simulation.

If you ask "how far apart is particle A in my simulation from particle B in my simulation?" then you can get a sensible answer. If you ask "how far is my hand from particle B in my simulation" it makes no sense because your hand is not part of the simulation and yet it can make changes to the simulation.

A supernatural force, if there was such a thing, would be like that. The supernatural realm would act according to a different set of rules and our physics would be implemented on those rules just as our simulations physics are implemented on the physics of our world.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:47 PM   #90
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,163
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Do you remember anything from the time you were under anesthesia?
Can't speak for Jay but I do. So what?

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Amnesia under anesthesia means that formation of memories under anesthesia is impaired. That's what I mentioned as a possible reason why many survivors don't remember an NDE.
Bullplop. I was post op interviewed. It's bullplop.

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I don't have enough data to conclude whether a soul exists.
You have no data at all. Not even sufficient to suspect "souls" even exist. That is a bigger concession than you seem to realise.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:51 PM   #91
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
It is a little like arguing that we could not possibly be part of any simulation where the programmers had the power to intervene because if they had the power to intervene then there would have to be an extra term to the Dirac equation which represented this power and we would have to ask if the power of the programmers to intervene in our simulation respected Lorentz invariance.

But of course if we were part of a simulation where the programmers could intervene, we would not expect to see any of those things. The programmers might decide whether or not to make their interventions respect Lorentz invariance on a case by case basis.

The same would be true for a supernatural realm. If there was a supernatural realm then our physics would be, in a sense, a simulation.

And I should add that I do not waste any time worrying if there is a supernatural realm, nor any time worrying that we are part of a simulation.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:05 PM   #92
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Can't speak for Jay but I do. So what?
So what, indeed. Here's a though experiment :--

Administer general anesthetic to a person. The possible outcomes (non-exhaustive) regarding NDE and memory include:

1. Subject does not have an NDE and remembers that he did not.
2. Subject does not have an NDE but cannot remember whether the did or not.
3. Subject has an NDE and remembers that he dide.
4. Subject has an NDE but does not remember that he did.

Cases 2 and 4 are hopelessly conflated. No matter how much data you collect for the other cases, you can never resolve the number of NDEs that the data from cases 2,4 silently represents. The empirical picture here is second fiddle to the error in categorical reasoning.

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th November 2019 at 04:39 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:49 PM   #93
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. That means we can conclude nothing about whether I had a "lost" NDA.
So you can't conclude that you didn't lose memory of an NDE either, especially when you know that anesthesia commonly causes amnesia.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's too kind. Your arguments all presume the existence of a soul. Some even go on to presume that certain physical symptoms must be the effects of a soul.
Sure, I argue how the soul could interact with the body while eluding observations of physicists and neuroscientists. Because, as you see, a common argument against such an interaction is that physicists or neuroscientists would have detected it.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:51 PM   #94
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope. NDE on the operating table. I know from direct experience that you are frantically shovelling the bovine fecal product. Not my problem, it is yours alone.
So what did you experience?
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:51 PM   #95
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,358
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
By analogy <polite snip>.
Please, no.

I'm willing to read your thoughts but I really don't want to get side-tracked with something that, so far, in my opinion, is clear enough so can be discussed on their own terms.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:53 PM   #96
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,066
It may have already been mentioned, but...

... Similar experiences to NDE's are reported by folks in G-Force studies. It causes passing out, life review, etc.

... NDE's also involve views/interactions with living people.

... NDE descriptions follow traditions of the areas in which they are involved, which are often contradictory between traditions.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:54 PM   #97
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
So...
No, don't rewrite the statement. :Because there is no data, we can draw no conclusion. That means what it says. You're still trying to argue from silence to say it can only improve the chances. That's not how it works.

Quote:
Sure, I argue how the soul could interact...
You have no evidence. You aren't therefore arguing, you're speculating. And a pile of speculation carefully tailored to thread the needle to your desired conclusion is circular reasoning.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:56 PM   #98
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
As far as I am concerned, I am a first hand witness and you can take your baloney for an unlikely anatomical excursion.
It's not my 'baloney' but reports from other first hand witnesses. Welcome among many first hand witnesses.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:59 PM   #99
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
It's not my 'baloney' but reports from other first hand witnesses.
How many of them have you interviewed?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:02 PM   #100
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,358
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Because, as you see, a common argument against such an interaction is that physicists or neuroscientists would have detected it.
It's a common argument because it's a fact. Your fantasies are baseless.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:03 PM   #101
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You have no evidence. You aren't therefore arguing, you're speculating. And a pile of speculation carefully tailored to thread the needle to your desired conclusion is circular reasoning.
I am pointing out a possibility how the soul could interact with the body without being detected by physicists and neuroscientists.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:06 PM   #102
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I am pointing out a possibility how the soul...
This only matters if you can prove the soul exists and has the properties necessary to operate according to your "possibility." Speculation is not argument. You've speculated that some unknown force might exist that has exactly the properties your belief needs. That is not science.

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th November 2019 at 05:07 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:06 PM   #103
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
How many of them have you interviewed?
None. So what? How many neuroscientific experiments have you done?
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:09 PM   #104
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
None. So what?
So how can you be so sure their information is as good as you need it to be? All other things being equal, who is more qualified to assess the validity and reliability of NDE reports: someone who has had an NDE himself, or someone who has not and has merely read the reports?

Quote:
How many neuroscientific experiments have you done?
Ad hominem.

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th November 2019 at 05:11 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:12 PM   #105
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
This only matters if you can prove the soul exists and has the properties necessary to operate according to your "possibility." Speculation is not argument. You've speculated that some unknown force might exist that has exactly the properties your belief needs. That is not science.
It is also not science to claim that if the soul interacted with the body, scientists would notice it.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:15 PM   #106
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
It is also not science to claim that if the soul interacted with the body, scientists would notice it.
If this is what you think, then you haven't understood a word I've said regarding science. Current models are complete and parsimonious. When you have to propose a new force and new interactions, whose only purpose is to enliven one desired belief, science can quite rigorously say "No."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:18 PM   #107
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
So how can you be so sure their information is as good as you need it to be? All other things being equal, who is more qualified to assess the validity and reliability of NDE reports: someone who has had an NDE himself, or someone who has not and has merely read the reports?
I don't know whether the information is 'as good as I need it to be', but I note that there are thousands of reports with common elements.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:21 PM   #108
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Current models are complete and parsimonious.
Are you joking? The Standard model is missing dark matter and gravity and has not been reconciled with general theory of relativity.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:24 PM   #109
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
It's a common argument because it's a fact. Your fantasies are baseless.
Saying it's a fact does not make it a fact.
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:24 PM   #110
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I don't know whether the information is 'as good as I need it to be'...
Then how do you know whether you can safely ignore Abbadon's experience and disregard his judgment? You didn't answer my question. Do you consider yourself a better judge of the reports than Abaddon?

Quote:
...but I note that there are thousands of reports with common elements.
Exactly how many? Show me the controlled statistical profile on the coherence of the reports. Last I checked, they were all anecdotes, variously reported, variously verified. How does your claim jive with Charlotte Martial's findings? I'm prepared to concede that NDE is a real phenomenon. But I don't think it's as clear-cut as you want it to be, and I don't agree at all that it "appears" to have anything to do with a soul.

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th November 2019 at 05:31 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:26 PM   #111
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Are you joking? The Standard model is missing dark matter and gravity and has not been reconciled with general theory of relativity.
Fair enough. How exactly does that result in the magical force you invented?

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th November 2019 at 05:37 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:32 PM   #112
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
By analogy suppose you are simulating a collection of particles following the laws of physics.

For convenience you allow yourself a back door to move particles from one place to another with your mouse pointer.

Do you have to change the physical laws that the particles follow in order to do that? No. The particles can just follow the same laws in the simulation and you can allow your mouse pointer to alter certain variables.
What variables? Wouldn't we notice if a variable was changed by a supposed simulator?
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:42 PM   #113
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Then how do you know whether you can safely ignore Abbadon's experience and disregard his judgment? You didn't answer my question. Do you consider yourself a better judge of the reports than Abaddon?
No, but Abaddon didn't describe his experience so there is nothing for me to regard or disregard.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Exactly how many? Show me the controlled statistical profile on the coherence of the reports. Last I checked, they were all anecdotes, variously reported, variously verified.
I just saw this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:51 PM   #114
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Fair enough. How exactly does that result in the magical force you invented?
It doesn't have to be any more 'magical' than familiar forces and resonance is a familiar physical phenomenon. The new particle(s) might be incorporated in an extended Standard model
litewave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:51 PM   #115
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
No, but Abaddon didn't describe his experience so there is nothing for me to regard or disregard.
That wasn't the question.

Quote:
Yes, that article lists a number of occurrences that it says are "commonly reported." That list relies upon about half a dozen sources, nearly all of them publications in the popular press. Not all sources are cited as authorities for all claimed traits. If one source reports one trait and another source reports a different trait, what would be the statistical basis for combining them together and calling that a list of truly common traits? Of the sources that listed their sample sizes, most were on the order of N=100 or less; one gives N=154. This therefore can't be the authority for your claim that there are "thousands" of congruent reports.

And more importantly, how does the alleged commonality in the reports support the conclusion you drew from it?

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th November 2019 at 06:05 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:54 PM   #116
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
It doesn't have to be any more 'magical' than familiar forces...
But it's not a familiar force, and you present no evidence that it exists. And you speculate it to have exactly the properties you need in order for your belief to be true, with no evidence that the belief is a fact that needs to be explained. This is what we mean in argumentation when we say it's "magical." There is no need to extend any model to incorporate an ad hoc element that remains in search of an actual observation to explain.

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th November 2019 at 06:24 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 06:52 PM   #117
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,358
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Saying it's a fact does not make it a fact.
That's exactly right. Thing is, theoretical physicists who do this sort of a thing for a living -- such as Dr. Sean Carroll -- have actually done the hard work and have presented their findings and conclusions, so... you know. Those facts. Don't be the guy staring at my pointing finger, rather look to the moon I'm pointing at.

Dr. Carroll explicitly laid out precisely why you're wrong and the kinds of things you will have to address if you really truly think that there are unknown forces that can interact with the human brain, such as transfers of memory, or life after death or souls or whatever.

Of course you blithely ignore the questions, even after I had quoted them here verbatim. I'm beginning to think that you have no answers and that you don't even have the requisite background to even begin to understand the questions that scientists have already figured out.

And of course, it isn't me per se that you'd have to convince but theoretical physicists like Dr. Carroll that you'll have to convince; but if you can't even get past the basics -- which ISF is a great place for -- then... well... what can I say?
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 08:29 PM   #118
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 636
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
According to NDE reports, the person doesn't feel like being someone else during NDE but feels like being in a different state of mind with a different kind of perception. As if you removed a perceptual filter, or put on a different perceptual filter.
You are still ignoring the implications of a soul that does not experience life until just prior to death.

If you decide to raise your arm and then do so, what just happened? If your hypotheses is true then the “you” that did that was just your physical body and your soul played no part in that action. If you kill someone that was your body acting, your soul is still innocent.

In this scenario how would you know that you even have a soul? Perhaps only those who experience NDE’s actually have souls. The rest of us, including you and I, are just meat puppets.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 08:34 PM   #119
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Because that's what the common elements of thousands of NDE reports suggest.

No, it is not. There is no reason a soul has to be involved in NDE. Nobody who had zero brain activity has ever been revived and reported an NDE. All those people died. They died when the activity in their brain ceased. So you have a sample size of exactly zero.

All the people who you say are reporting NDEs had some brain activity and then lived. Current medical science is fully capable of explaining NDEs without inventing a new notion of a soul and shoving it into the material theories. And medical science says that people dream, they hallucinate, and that they have poor memories. All of this fully explains NDEs.


Quote:
There are neuroscientists and doctors who don't think that these explanations are sufficient.

Name three. Name three neuroscientists and/or doctors who think that. Provide contact information for each.

Of course, plenty of scientists disagree on plenty of things. That still doesn't mean that a fully new theory of "souls" needs to be invented to resolve those disagreements. And even if it did, the scientists would then test it. They'd make predictions about it and then test them.

Can you suggest a repeatable, falsifiable test for the existence of souls - a test where, if souls exist, the result will confidently be positive and if none exist, the results will confidently be negative? If so, please lay out your planned test.


Quote:
What is clear is that neurochemistry didn't predict NDEs, just suggested possible causes after the fact.

Well, that's kind of an ignorant thing to say. Modern humans have been on this planet for at least 200,000 years. The whole idea of the scientific method - falsifiable, repeatable tests - only dates back to the 1600s. The first experiments to determine that chemicals were the transmitters of information between cells were performed by Otto Loewi starting in 1921. For reference, that's 199,902 years after modern humans arose.

EVERYTHING scientists do is after the fact. It's close to 200,000 years after the fact.

Also, seeing a phenomenon and then testing a theory to explain it is exactly how science works. Then scientists can test other things predicted by that theory that haven't been observed yet.

Neuroscientists currently have a theory regarding NDEs that has nothing to do with souls. There's no new phenomenon that doesn't fit current medical and physical theories. There's no reason to run a test for a soul, even if anyone could devise such a thing.

Can you?


Originally Posted by litewave View Post
According to NDE reports, the person doesn't feel like being someone else during NDE but feels like being in a different state of mind with a different kind of perception. As if you removed a perceptual filter, or put on a different perceptual filter.

But we know certain drugs can do that. We know partial wakefulness during sleep paralysis can do that. And we know that lots of people who report NDEs had been given powerful drugs and (in cases of surgery) paralytics.

What remains to be explained? What does a "soul" add to our understanding of what we can observe?


Originally Posted by litewave View Post
As I clarified, it is apparent to the near-death experiencer.

It's apparent to me if I go outside and walk as far as I can, that the earth is flat. It's apparent to me that my phone hates me, especially when I try to use the camera. It was apparent to me when I was a child, that there were definitely monsters in my closet.

Plenty of things are apparent to an individual that aren't true. Appearance is just a signal that we should run falsifiable, repeatable tests to confirm or disprove our perceptions. That's what they did to determine the earth was round.


Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Amnesia under anesthesia means that formation of memories under anesthesia is impaired. That's what I mentioned as a possible reason why many survivors don't remember an NDE.

You're still starting with your conclusion. You're assuming a soul exists and then dismissing instances that don't line up with your conclusion.


Quote:
I don't have enough data to conclude whether a soul exists.

Great. End thread. Get some proper data and we'll reconvene then.


Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I don't know whether the information is 'as good as I need it to be', but I note that there are thousands of reports with common elements.

Name three. Name three people from three different cultures who reported NDEs that have common elements. Provide the names and contact information and I'll interview them myself.

See, I think that all you have are nameless stories. I don't think they can be traced back to any particular person. It's always an unnamed nurse at a hospital who heard an unnamed patient say something. Can you provide any names of anyone who reported an NDE and who is still alive to be interviewed?

I don't think you can.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 5th November 2019 at 08:41 PM.
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 10:15 PM   #120
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 976
As long as one begins with reality as a material / physical world, then the notion of a soul can never gain any traction. A material / physical world has no explanaition or possibility of a living conscious being, much less a conscious being that survives death. Yet consciousness is - so begin with a different model. I don't know what the term 'soul' refers to, so this is not my wheelhouse.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.