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 6th November 2019, 05:50 PM   #161
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I said that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, not that they are evidence of it, let alone any NDE.
That's carefully parsed. What precisely do you consider the difference between "suggests the existence of" and "is evidence of?" Isn't the intended effect in each case to make the proposition of the existence of the soul more probable?
JayUtah 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 6th November 2019, 06:10 PM   #162
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,156
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I said that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, not that they are evidence of it, let alone any NDE.
I will overlook that particular dishonesty. For now.



Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I don't know what you expect of me but I would like to know what you think was a hallucination in your NDE and what was not, and why you think so.
Well then you have a problem of definitions. The OOBE? A hallucination of perspective. The events actually happened, that is true. My perception of them was false. That is also true.

From my POV I was outside my body observing all of it from the point of view of an external dispassionate observer of a mere slab of meat. I was entirely disconnected from my body. Or felt that way.

To you, that might seem to be confirmation of your "soul" idea. That begs an obvious question. At the time, I was spaced out on whatever drugs they were intravenously pumping into me. If you are going to accept the drug fueled experience that I had, or any other NDEr at face value, then you must by the same argument, accept any claim by the next junkie you meet on the street. That is absurd on it's face. Drug induced experiences are de facto not arguments, Deal with that for starters.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 6th November 2019, 06:12 PM   #163
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Because religion says so? Do you mean "possible" in the sense of congruence among religious beliefs, or "possible" as something that science should consider?
"Possible" as logically possible, without an obvious contradiction. The religious doctrine of the fall is just something that emphasized that possibility to me.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. What you actually said was
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Apparently this is due to the soul detaching from the brain.
Nothing about what the patient believes.
That sentence was preceded by a sentence about how the patients describe their state of mind during NDE and I already clarified in two other posts that the "apparently" is from the standpoint of patients.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
What about patients who don't believe in souls?
If there are patients who had an NDE with an out of body experience or with a sense of having died and they don't interpret the NDE as involving a soul, they appear to be in a minority.


Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
If the NDEs had just random elements that would make it more believable that they are caused by firings of a distressed or dying brain.
What evidence supports this claim? Is that what neurologists think?
I don't know but I would imagine that a distressed or dying brain would produce experiences like panic and confusion.
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 6th November 2019, 06:26 PM   #164
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Yeah. the patient. Would that be the patient under the influence of intravenous drugs? That patient? The same one having intravenous drugs intentionally used to alter their consciousness?
They gave you intravenous drugs to alter your consciousness? How alter? To produce an out of body experience?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Don't you think that drugs intended to alter anyones consciousness might actually do that? Or did that thought simply not occur to you?
You mean drugs like LSD? Sure they can alter your consciousness.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. Insufficient to make me believe in <insert deity of choice> though.
Strawman. I didn't say that an NDE would make the experiencer believe in a deity. Many NDErs don't believe in any specific deity.
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 6th November 2019, 06:28 PM   #165
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,156
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
"Possible" as logically possible, without an obvious contradiction.
It is possible that cream cheese originates from planet sausage in some far distant galaxy. Should we spend time considering that possibility?

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
The religious doctrine of the fall is just something that emphasized that possibility to me.
Total derail. The fall is entirely made up crap. take it to an appropriate thread.

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
That sentence was preceded by a sentence about how the patients describe their state of mind during NDE and I already clarified in two other posts that the "apparently" is from the standpoint of patients.
Yay, you mean me. Oh, only patients who agree with you. Right. That's objective. (sarcasm)

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
If there are patients who had an NDE with an out of body experience or with a sense of having died and they don't interpret the NDE as involving a soul, they appear to be in a minority.
But you have one directly to hand that you can directly question. Why are you dodging that?

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I don't know but I would imagine that a distressed or dying brain would produce experiences like panic and confusion.
The evidence says you are wrong and why would anyone care whatever you "imagine"? I could imagine Luke Skywalker is about to sort out the galaxy with a laser sword. Does my imagination make that true?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 6th November 2019, 06:31 PM   #166
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's carefully parsed. What precisely do you consider the difference between "suggests the existence of" and "is evidence of?"
By "evidence" I meant something based on which you can make a conclusion.
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 6th November 2019, 06:46 PM   #167
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,156
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
They gave you intravenous drugs to alter your consciousness? How alter? To produce an out of body experience?
Wow. Do you really think that I would have had all of that metalwork bolted into my leg without the benefit of a lot of hard drugs? And do you somehow think that said drugs do not have serious effects? Seriously?

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
You mean drugs like LSD? Sure they can alter your consciousness.
No I mean like general anaesthesia, which can switch your brain right off but is not perfect. This is exactly why I mentioned honesty earlier. You simply make crap up out of whole cloth for religious reasons.

Now, I genuinely made an offer that I would share my experience of NDE if you would commit to be honest. You have comprehensively burned that bridge. Not my problem.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 6th November 2019, 07:20 PM   #168
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Wow. Do you really think that I would have had all of that metalwork bolted into my leg without the benefit of a lot of hard drugs? And do you somehow think that said drugs do not have serious effects? Seriously?
Is an out of body experience listed among the side effects of the drugs they gave you?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You simply make crap up out of whole cloth for religious reasons.
What crap have I made up? I pointed to many reports of NDEs, which you readily dismiss.
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 6th November 2019, 08:44 PM   #169
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,882
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
If there are patients who had an NDE with an out of body experience or with a sense of having died and they don't interpret the NDE as involving a soul, they appear to be in a minority.

Name three. Name three people who are alive and who describe an NDE as an experience of a soul.

The last time I asked you to name three neuroscientists who believe in souls, you just gave me a googled list of scientists studying brain behavior at or near the time of death. None of them state that the existence of a soul is the logically sound explanation for NDEs. In fact all of them state the opposite.

So, of your thousands of reports of NDEs, pick three that I can verify.


Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Is an out of body experience listed among the side effects of the drugs they gave you?

That's a silly question. Is an out-of-body experience listed on the packaging for LSD or peyote or certain toads? No, it's not. There is no packaging. Yet all of these substances have led people to feel like they were out of their bodies.

Drug packaging provides information relevant to helping the prescribing doctor choose the proper treatment for the patient. What possible good would it do for doctors to know that a small percentage of people under the drug might think they remembered an out of body experience? The drug packaging for propofol already says, "Intravenous injection of a therapeutic dose of propofol induces hypnosis." It also lists one of the side effects as, "Delirium." Mostly, it's concerned with respiration and cardiac conditions because, you know, that information helps doctors keep patients alive.

You're demanding proof from us that the existence of a soul isn't possible. You've got it the wrong way around. You're proposing a soul. It's your responsibility to show that it is necessarily true in order to explain observed phenomena.

Instead, you've wandered down a road about NDEs, which you concede may be (but are not necessarily) some evidence for souls. You've derailed your own argument into one about NDEs and OOBEs because it's easier than confronting the issue head on.

Describe a repeatable, falsifiable experiment showing that souls necessarily exist.

I can do it for gravity. I can do it for the shape of the earth. I can do it for a triangle made up of 3 right angles. And I haven't taken a math or science class since 1988. I don't know a tangent from a tangerine.

Can you do that for souls?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 6th November 2019 at 09:02 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 6th November 2019, 09:05 PM   #170
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
By "evidence" I meant something based on which you can make a conclusion.
That wasn't my question.

When I step back, it certainly looks like you're arguing for the existence of a soul and proffering NDEs as evidence in favor of it. It's surprising to hear you try to say you're not. You gave us a carefully-worded statement that looks like it's trying to split hairs. I'm looking for clarity.

When you say NDEs "suggest" the existence of a soul, it's not really clear what you mean and how that differs from offering evidence of it. The concept of a soul long predates any discussion of NDEs. When NDE is brought up in connection with souls, the audience is expected to know what a soul means. Whether you believe in it or not, the hypothesis of the soul is common knowledge. So clearly NDE did not "suggest" the existence of a soul in the sense of being the genesis of the idea.

And unless one has lived under a rock -- or deep in the American South -- for his whole life, one should probably concede also that the debate over the existence of the soul is common knowledge. In light of that, I'm struggling to understand how "NDE suggests the existence of a soul" can be rationally interpreted in any way other than to propose that the information provided by NDE reports is meant to persuade the listener toward the conclusion that the soul exists, more so than if no such information were available.

Please take another turn and tell me what I asked. How is "suggests the existence of..." different than "is evidence of the existence of...?"
JayUtah 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 6th November 2019, 09:36 PM   #171
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
"Possible" as logically possible, without an obvious contradiction. The religious doctrine of the fall is just something that emphasized that possibility to me.
I think you're trying to be forthright here, but my question was really about context. We can hypothetically look at the doctrines of some religion and conclude that they are mutually consistent. That is, we could conclude that they are properly inferred from the antecedents according to syllogisms of validating form. We could further observe that no internal contradictions arise. In a certain sense we can appreciate the effort it would take to fashion such a religion. But then at the same time we can reject the whole thing in toto because we disagree with the truth value of the antecedents. And this is generally an "agree to disagree" situation because the antecedents are meant to be taken on faith, not demonstrable as fact.

In science too we require conclusions to be properly inferred from the antecedents, but in this case the antecedents are hard data or scientific laws. So we have to reckon "possibility" not just in the strength of the inference but in the truth of the antecedent. You have to go further than mere internal consistency. And a hypothesis that requires science to materially alter what it knows or can reliably deduce can't really be described as "possible."

That's what I mean by context. So if you're proposing that end-of-life memory transfer doesn't run afoul of any religious tenets you know of, irrespective of whether you believe them, then we're on the same page. It's moot, but it's a page. If you propose that it doesn't run afoul of scientific understanding, then we disagree.

Quote:
That sentence was preceded by a sentence about how the patients describe their state of mind during NDE and I already clarified in two other posts that the "apparently" is from the standpoint of patients.
And nobody bought that argument, including me. You talk about "state of mind" in the preceding sentences, but you don't talk about "soul" until the sentence I quoted. The part where that supernatural concept pops up out of the blue is where people have an issue.

Quote:
If there are patients who had an NDE with an out of body experience or with a sense of having died and they don't interpret the NDE as involving a soul, they appear to be in a minority.
You are fond of abusing the word "appear." I'm entirely certain you have insufficient data to back up this assertion. Loss Leader asked for names. He's a lawyer and that's what persuades him. I work differently. Show me the numbers.

Quote:
I don't know but I would imagine that a distressed or dying brain would produce experiences like panic and confusion.
Isn't it wonderful that our advancements as a species have almost no regard for what ignorant people imagine? What does the field of neurology say on the subject? What do the people say who do know?
JayUtah 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 6th November 2019, 10:09 PM   #172
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
"That sentence was preceded by a sentence about how the patients describe their state of mind during NDE and I already clarified in two other posts that the "apparently" is from the standpoint of patients.
It is apparent to a dowser who finds water that dowsing works. It is apparent to a patient who takes a homeopathic remedy and then feels better that homeopathy works. Both are mistaken. Subjective experiences are unreliable indicators of how the world actually works, that's why the scientific method had to be invented.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 6th November 2019, 10:16 PM   #173
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The last time I asked you to name three neuroscientists who believe in souls, you just gave me a googled list of scientists studying brain behavior at or near the time of death.
That's one of the major criticism against Greyson. He studied only near-death experiences. He filtered his data according to whether the reported perceptions occurred when the patient's death was imminent, thereby ignoring all the times the same symptoms occurred in other contexts having nothing to do with death or the threat of death. No wonder he was fond of the conclusion that NDEs were evidence of dualistic separation at the time of death.

Quote:
None of them state that the existence of a soul is the logically sound explanation for NDEs. In fact all of them state the opposite.
These days Parnia even says he thinks NDEs are just an "illusion."

Quote:
So, of your thousands of reports of NDEs...
Greyson's Handbook alludes to thousands of subjects. But subsequently he had to walk back that claim and admit that they couldn't be sure of all of them. Why? Because -- as someone pointed out -- ultimately an unknown number of them were just stories passed around. In a more serious mea culpa he even wrote a paper advocating a better method for filtering reports.

The Greyson scale is a codification of the depth of an NDE according to the criteria of "commonly reported" symptoms. The very existence of the scale proves that coherence of the phenomenon is a sliding scale, not a deterministic set of perceptions that always happen together. For subsequent studies, only NDEs that met a certain arbitrary score on the Greyson scale could be considered "true" NDEs.

Quote:
That's a silly question. Is an out-of-body experience listed on the packaging for LSD or peyote or certain toads? No, it's not. There is no packaging. Yet all of these substances have led people to feel like they were out of their bodies.
it's also straw-manically silly. "Out of body experience" is not a clinical term. The neurology literature describes the phenomenon, but doesn't use the term except to note that this is what layman use to refer to a family of more prosaically considered phenomena and symptoms.
JayUtah 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 7th November 2019, 03:14 AM   #174
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Name three people who are alive and who describe an NDE as an experience of a soul.
Why should I look up patient names for you? Do you doubt that the thousands of NDE reports collected by doctors according to the Wikipedia article on NDEs came from real people?

Quote:
French summarizes this model by saying : "the most popular interpretation is that the NDE is exactly what it appears to be to the person having the experience". The NDE would then represent evidence of the supposedly immaterial existence of a soul or mind, which would leave the body upon death. An NDE would then provide information about an immaterial world where the soul would journey upon ending its physical existence on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-d...ental_theories

Here is a short video featuring Anita Moorjani, who also wrote a book about her NDE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipmeTbo1tOY

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The last time I asked you to name three neuroscientists who believe in souls, you just gave me a googled list of scientists studying brain behavior at or near the time of death. None of them state that the existence of a soul is the logically sound explanation for NDEs. In fact all of them state the opposite.
I said there are neuroscientists and doctors who don't regard neurological explanations of NDEs as sufficient. For example:

Bruce Greyson:

Quote:
Likewise Greyson writes that although some or any of the neuroanatomical models proposed may serve to explain NDEs and pathways through which they are expressed, they remain speculative at this stage since they have not been tested in empirical studies.
Sam Parnia:

Quote:
According to Parnia, neurochemical models are not backed by data. This is true for "NMDA receptor activation, serotonin, and endorphin release" models. Parnia writes that no data has been collected via thorough and careful experimentation to back "a possible causal relationship or even an association" between neurochemical agents and NDE experiences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-d...ganic_theories)

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Is an out-of-body experience listed on the packaging for LSD or peyote or certain toads? No, it's not. There is no packaging.
Surely the drugs used in hospital must have some kind of packaging, and even if there is no leaflet in the package there must be some articles about those drugs, including their side effects.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
"Intravenous injection of a therapeutic dose of propofol induces hypnosis." It also lists one of the side effects as, "Delirium."
Is that a sufficient explanation of out of body experiences and other common features of NDEs? Your own bar is pretty low.
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 7th November 2019, 03:22 AM   #175
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
When I step back, it certainly looks like you're arguing for the existence of a soul and proffering NDEs as evidence in favor of it. It's surprising to hear you try to say you're not.
I argue that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, that NDEs provide data in favor of the existence of a soul, and I also said that I don't have enough data to make a conclusion about the existence of a soul.
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 7th November 2019, 03:25 AM   #176
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
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.

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.
But we would still be able to detect the location of the moved particle, which means we would know something had moved them.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 7th November 2019, 03:35 AM   #177
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
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
Not if you want it to interact with the brain, there is simply no place for such a force, because we would have detected it as an "anomaly" in the data from actual experiments, never mind that there is simply not the space for such a new "force".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 7th November 2019, 03:50 AM   #178
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You are fond of abusing the word "appear." I'm entirely certain you have insufficient data to back up this assertion. Loss Leader asked for names. He's a lawyer and that's what persuades him. I work differently. Show me the numbers.
You are certain that a majority of patients who had an NDE don't interpret it as involving a soul?

Here is the same quote I gave to Loss Leader:

Quote:
French summarizes this model by saying : "the most popular interpretation is that the NDE is exactly what it appears to be to the person having the experience". The NDE would then represent evidence of the supposedly immaterial existence of a soul or mind, which would leave the body upon death. An NDE would then provide information about an immaterial world where the soul would journey upon ending its physical existence on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-d...ental_theories
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 7th November 2019, 03:51 AM   #179
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
There is no scientific evidence of consciousness, period. We can test if a 'unit' exhibits behavior we deem as conscious behavor.

The highlighted above reads like any religious apologist.

There are no explainations or even wild hunches how matter becomes conscious because in principle there are none. We need a new / different way of thinking about this.
Seriously, find a friend who has just had a baby and get them to let you interact with the baby once a month, over just a few years you will see how consciousness arises, it's in fits and starts and takes quite some time to kick in fully. And sadly then you can go and do the same observations of babies born with various forms of brain damage/developmental problems and see how consciousness doesn't get going because they never have or never develop the structures required. You can even do this with adults who were conscious and then had some form of brain damage and are no longer conscious.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 7th November 2019, 03:52 AM   #180
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
It is apparent to a dowser who finds water that dowsing works. It is apparent to a patient who takes a homeopathic remedy and then feels better that homeopathy works. Both are mistaken. Subjective experiences are unreliable indicators of how the world actually works, that's why the scientific method had to be invented.
Yes, but I guess it is also apparent to you that you are reading words on a screen. I will let you make your own conclusion from that appearance.
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 7th November 2019, 03:56 AM   #181
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
NDErs often mention out of body experiences and that it felt very real, even hyper-real, vivid and with heightened empathy toward other people.
That sounds like how you lucky people who get movies played when you are asleep describe dreaming. Are dreams then the soul downloading memories from the brain?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 7th November 2019, 04:20 AM   #182
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
These days Parnia even says he thinks NDEs are just an "illusion."
I remember he said in an interview that he doesn't know whether NDEs are just illusions, only that it is possible they are.

This is what he noted in a paper from 2016:

Quote:
Two recent, but separate, studies have attempted to indirectly address the issue of reality with respect to NDE’s through an examination of memory quality.18,19 Both studies used a standardized instrument designed to differentiate between imagined events and real events, relying on the principle that memories of imagined events have fewer phenomenological characteristics than those of real events. Thus, to test the hypothesis that NDEs are imagined experiences brought about by abnormal or ‘awry’ cerebral mechanisms, these studies analyzed the phenomenological characteristics of real and imagined memories. Both concluded that NDE recollections are not consistent with illusory experiences but with memories of real life events. In fact NDE’s appeared ‘more real’ than actual real life events that were used as controls.18,19. One study also explored brain waves during re-call of NDEs which indicated that NDE’s were processed in a manner similar to memories of real events.19 In this respect they were found to be unlike hallucinations.
Quote:
Only a handful of studies have examined the mental and cognitive experience of cardiac arrest.2,3,15,22–24 The first demonstrated that 6% of 63 cardiac arrest survivors reported lucid, well-structured thought processes, together with reasoning and memory formation compatible with the previously described NDE.15 No evidence to support a specific role for drugs, hypoxia, hypercarbia, or electrolyte disturbances in association with the experiences was found.15 Another study interviewed 344 cardiac arrest survivors from 10 hospitals over a 2-year period. Here 12% reported experiences similar to those from the British study,2 and at least one patient reported a sensation of separating from the body and observing the events from his own resuscitation. Hospital staff corroborated the accuracy of his claims.2 As the recollections were compatible with real and verifiable events this account is clearly inconsistent with a hallucinatory or illusory experience.2
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/artic...732/hcw185.pdf

And this is what he said a few months ago:

Quote:
The fact that people seem to have full consciousness, with lucid well-structured thought processes and memory formation from a time when their brains are highly dysfunctional or even nonfunctional is perplexing and paradoxical.

I do agree that this raises the possibility that the entity we call the mind or consciousness may not be produced by the brain. It’s certainly possible that maybe there's another layer of reality that we haven't yet discovered that's essentially beyond what we know of the brain, and which determines our reality.

So, I believe it is possible for consciousness to be an as of yet undiscovered scientific entity that may not necessarily be produced by synaptic activity in the brain.
https://www.nyas.org/news-articles/a...e-after-death/

Last edited by litewave; 7th November 2019 at 05:20 AM. Reason: URL link correction
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 7th November 2019, 04:22 AM   #183
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not if you want it to interact with the brain, there is simply no place for such a force, because we would have detected it as an "anomaly" in the data from actual experiments, never mind that there is simply not the space for such a new "force".
Did you even read my OP?
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 7th November 2019, 05:05 AM   #184
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
We can only speculate.
And how about the tiny elves that move atoms about? We can only speculate!

When the only thing you can do is speculate, you might want to consider not believing in the speculation.

Quote:
The soul may have its own memory system and the material body may serve as a tool through which the soul interacts with the material world.
Or, more simply, the soul might not exist and NDEs, which are not evidence of anything after death -- as indicated by the "N" part --, are just oxygen-deprived malfunctions of the brain.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th November 2019, 05:12 AM   #185
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
NDErs often mention out of body experiences and that it felt very real, even hyper-real, vivid and with heightened empathy toward other people.
And? Some people report indigestion and are actually having a heart attack. What does their interpretation have to do with reality?

Quote:
An NDE is often accompanied by an experience of being out of one's body or of having died and entering a spiritual realm, so it seems obvious to me that the patient feels as if he was a soul that has left his body.
Have any atheists reported this? Have you considered that people's religious beliefs may strongly affect their perception during the event and their interpretation after the fact?

Quote:
Maybe the NDEs are products of a distressed or dying brain but that's a speculation too
Oh, no it's not! We KNOW that oxygen-deprived brains hallucinate. You cannot possibly in all seriousness claim that something that already correlates to the events in question and is known to occur is on the same level as a magical soul for which we have otherwise zero evidence!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th November 2019, 05:15 AM   #186
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
If there are patients who had an NDE with an out of body experience or with a sense of having died and they don't interpret the NDE as involving a soul, they appear to be in a minority.
Woah Nelly.

You don't know that. In fact, I find it very likely that non-believers who experience NDE might either report it differently or not at all, simply because they don't interpret the experience religiously.

You are seriously cherry-picking your arguments and evidences.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th November 2019, 05:20 AM   #187
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Loss Leader asked for names. He's a lawyer and that's what persuades him. I work differently. Show me the numbers.
Lawyer wants names and testimonies. Scientist wants numbers. Programmer (me) wants logic. None of us are getting what we want, despite covering pretty much the entire spectrum of what you need to make a case for the soul.

The OP has nothing.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th November 2019, 05:22 AM   #188
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Why should I look up patient names for you?
I think you should familiarise yourself with the concept of burden of proof.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th November 2019, 06:32 AM   #189
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,100
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
"Possible" as logically possible, without an obvious contradiction.
I wouldn't even grant that. The classic NDE is the "soul" hovering above the body, looking down, during a medical procedure. If the soul is non-physical, then how does it exist in this physical location? How is light interacting with its "eyes?"
I Am The Scum 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 7th November 2019, 06:59 AM   #190
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I wouldn't even grant that. The classic NDE is the "soul" hovering above the body, looking down, during a medical procedure. If the soul is non-physical, then how does it exist in this physical location? How is light interacting with its "eyes?"
It depends on what you mean by "physical". My hypothesis is that the soul consists of yet unknown particle-fields that can under certain conditions interact with known particle-fields and could potentially be added to the Standard Model of particle physics.
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 7th November 2019, 07:10 AM   #191
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Why should I look up patient names for you?
Because you're the one responsible for showing that your evidence says what you say it says.

Quote:
Do you doubt that the thousands of NDE reports collected by doctors according to the Wikipedia article on NDEs came from real people?
I doubt they have the characteristics you attribute to them. And I doubt whether you even know if they do or not. You seem to be making up a lot of your argument out of whole cloth.

Quote:
I said there are neuroscientists and doctors who don't regard neurological explanations of NDEs as sufficient. For example:

Bruce Greyson:
Sam Parnia:
Names you merely Googled and whose contributions you can't knowledgeably discuss. I gave an in-depth rebuttal to your insinuation that these men represent neuroscience, and that they represent a legitimate dissent in the field.[/quote]
JayUtah 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 7th November 2019, 07:13 AM   #192
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I remember he said in an interview that he doesn't know whether NDEs are just illusions, only that it is possible they are.
That's probably what I'm recalling.

Quote:
This is what he noted in a paper from 2016:
And this is what he said a few months ago:
Fair enough. Interesting claims, though, coming from a cardiologist.

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th November 2019 at 08:05 AM.
JayUtah 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 7th November 2019, 07:40 AM   #193
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I argue that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, that NDEs provide data in favor of the existence of a soul...
Yes, that's exactly what it means to argue for the existence of a soul and to proffer NDEs as evidence of that existence. But when Abbadon said, "[A]ny answer I might provide is likely to be promptly dismissed by you since it will not conform to your presuppositions. You have already decided that any NDE is evidence of a 'soul,'" you said
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I said that NDEs suggest the existence of a soul, not that they are evidence of it, let alone any NDE.
What's going on here? Did you misread Abbadon's post? Are you changing your position? A number of posters have belabored that going from some selected set of reported medical symptoms to the notion that a soul exists is a giant non sequitur. We're gradually homing in on how you think one relates to the other. But there doesn't seem to be any legitimate question that you believe one does relate to the other.

Quote:
I also said that I don't have enough data to make a conclusion about the existence of a soul.
That doesn't help you. All your analysis of NDEs presuppose the existence of a soul. Telling us you don't have enough data to support your presupposed premise, and then aiming the argument at the matter the premise asserts, is exactly circular reasoning.
JayUtah 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 7th November 2019, 07:45 AM   #194
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
My hypothesis is that the soul consists of yet unknown particle-fields that can under certain conditions interact with known particle-fields and could potentially be added to the Standard Model of particle physics.
Your theory seems to be in search of an observation. Not sure why you'd work in that direction.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th November 2019, 07:51 AM   #195
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
You are certain that a majority of patients who had an NDE don't interpret it as involving a soul?
No, that's clearly not what I said. I said I'm certain you don't have evidence to support your claim. I didn't opine about the matter asserted.

The reason I am certain you don't have evidence to support your claim is that your authority for the "thousands" of NDE subjects was a single source you admit you hadn't read. The source itself is not clear on the matter you assert.

You really need to just stop making stuff up. No one is persuaded by what you "imagine."

Quote:
Here is the same quote I gave to Loss Leader.
Have you read the article that Wikipedia uses as its source? It's a single-sourced paragraph, the kind Wikipedia is rather infamous at times for. The source discusses what are prevalent theories among researchers. You were asked to support your claim that the majority of patients interpret their experience in terms of a soul. As you can imagine, there is a lot of interest among spiritualists regarding NDEs, and the most popular interpretation among them is that it's some sort of expression of spirit-body dualism. That in no way supports your claim that the number of NDE patients who do not interpret their experiences in terms of a soul "appear to be in the minority."
JayUtah 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 7th November 2019, 07:58 AM   #196
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Your theory seems to be in search of an observation. Not sure why you'd work in that direction.
He's trying to rebut the claim made by physicists that our present knowledge doesn't allow for spirit-body communication to occur undetected by any known means. He's trying to argue that if we allow unknown means, that could allow for communication that goes undetected. It's just a classier version of the argument that science can't know enough to refute supernatural claims.

But you're still right. There's no evidence any spirit exists, or evidence of the consequences of any communication between it and its host organism. There's no errant observations that require us to reach into the unknown to solve them. That's why it's anti-parsimonious. He postulates a problem that doesn't exist, then speculates there might be a solution for it.
JayUtah 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 7th November 2019, 08:08 AM   #197
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I remember he said in an interview that he doesn't know whether NDEs are just illusions, only that it is possible they are.

This is what he noted in a paper from 2016:




https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/artic...732/hcw185.pdf

And this is what he said a few months ago:


https://www.nyas.org/news-articles/a...e-after-death/
One of the issues is that we know memory doesn't work like a hard disk, so someone's memory of something can be very different to actually what happened. Our brains in effect create a new narrative when recalling memories, so it should be expected when attempting to recall the NDE the brain would produce a story. Indeed our fine member who experienced one of these NDEs account is exactly that, some real facts and happenings mixed into a narrative the brain comes up with to make the memories "make sense".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 7th November 2019, 08:08 AM   #198
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Did you even read my OP?
Yep, which is why I have tried to explain to you your misunderstanding.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 7th November 2019, 08:13 AM   #199
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
It depends on what you mean by "physical". My hypothesis is that the soul consists of yet unknown particle-fields that can under certain conditions interact with known particle-fields and could potentially be added to the Standard Model of particle physics.
Which just goes to show you don't know and understand the ramifications of what we currently know about the energy levels that would allow something to interact with our brain. And hint: your resonance idea still at some point has to react with the brain.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 7th November 2019, 08:38 AM   #200
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,916
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
One of the issues is that we know memory doesn't work like a hard disk...
This poses a special problem for the data sets most commonly referred to by people who favor some kind of dualist explanation. Those data sets roundly ignore occurrences when the symptoms of NDEs occur without an attendant threat to life. This subset of data involves a number of precipitating events and circumstances, but doesn't present any reason to doubt that the mind is operating and thus no reason to suppose the intrusion of some as-yet unevidenced component to explain the NDE-like reports.

As to the recall of such events, some cases refer to seeing something surprising or shocking, prompting such things as a life review. Popular belief says that such notorious happenstance events are "seared into the mind" such that they are recalled with great fidelity later. But our evidence conclusively shows the opposite. As you correctly note, the fidelity of recall suffers from the narrative-building bias. So when NDE's aren't really ND, the apparently vivid coherence in the recall still occurs, but can't really be considered related to anything hypothesized around death or near-death.

Another big issue is that neurologists and cardiologists seem to have a very different idea of what constitutes a "cessation of brain activity." So when a cardiologist says, "The patient was clinically dead," as a means of forestalling explanations having to do with anomalous cerebral activity, I'm told that neurologists sort of roll their eyes. And this is a big risk of bias when so much of the proffered data comes from cardiac arrest patients.

A common assumption for that data set is that the real time at which the NDE is believed to occur is only conjecturally correlated with the real-time period in which cerebral activity is argued not to be a plausible explanation. The patient is rarely, if ever, able to pinpoint the time of the NDE within the interval between when he lost consciousness and when he regained it. Time markers in the data are practically non-existent, and only poorly controlled when they can be found. Those who favor a spiritualist explanation argue that the observation we must explain is the foreclosure of any natural explanation. This assumption means that foreclosure is overstated.

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th November 2019 at 08:43 AM.
JayUtah 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
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 07:51 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.