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 7th November 2019, 09:07 AM   #201
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
The source says that the prevalent interpretation is that the NDE is exactly what it appears to be to the person having the experience. (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, 09:13 AM   #202
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Yep, which is why I have tried to explain to you your misunderstanding.
You didn't explain anything. I specifically wrote in OP why scientists may have not detected interaction of soul with matter, and you just said that if the soul existed scientists 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 7th November 2019, 09:14 AM   #203
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,218
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
The source says that the prevalent interpretation is that the NDE is exactly what it appears to be to the person having the experience. (soul!)
Prevalent amongst WHOM?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 09:16 AM   #204
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
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.
As it was for so many others, the biggest clue that the OP probably couldn't press his claims to a convincing standard of scientific credibility was this howler:

Originally Posted by litewave View Post
What is clear is that neurochemistry didn't predict NDEs, just suggested possible causes after the fact.
This fundamentally misunderstands how science works, in precisely the way Belz, Loss Leader, and a few others have suggested is wrong with the claim. Yes, when a scientific theory is sustained, we can deduce any number of possible consequents from it. And in some cases such undirected deduction can suggest avenues of possible future research, most often for the purpose of firming up support for the theory. But the real meat and potatoes of scientific inquiry is the observation that doesn't fit the theory. All the really helpful science is done "after the fact," because explaining the newly-incompatible fact is how knowledge is extended.

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th November 2019 at 09:25 AM.
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 7th November 2019, 09:20 AM   #205
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
The source says...
Did you read the source? Yes or 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 7th November 2019, 09:41 AM   #206
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
You didn't explain anything. I specifically wrote in OP why scientists may have not detected interaction of soul with matter, and you just said that if the soul existed scientists would have detected it.
No, I don't read his comment as simply restating his case. He's telling you that you haven't solved any problem, but merely deferred it to a different location n in the causal chain. I read his answer as saying that at some point you need to have detectable energy transfer in order to produce the effect of communication because that's the essence of the effect. Showing that it may not need to happen at Point A, as others have suggested, is not equivalent to saying it never needs to happen at all. I may be wrong, but that's how I'm reading his answer.
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 7th November 2019, 10:30 AM   #207
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Prevalent amongst WHOM?
It doesn't matter. The source says that to the NDErs, the NDE appears as a soul leaving the body. That's what JayUtah what asking - whether the patients interpret their experience in terms of a soul. I didn't do such a research myself, so I can only point to those who have.
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, 10:33 AM   #208
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,218
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
It doesn't matter.
It is absolutely VITAL to your claim. It makes a hell of a difference if it's doctors or neurologists or NDErs or evangelists or faith-healers or chimney sweepers.

Quote:
The source says that to the NDErs, the NDE appears as a soul leaving the body.
So it DOES matter, then.

You seem to be saying whatever you think will help your case at any given moment.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 10:36 AM   #209
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
But the real meat and potatoes of scientific inquiry is the observation that doesn't fit the theory. All the really helpful science is done "after the fact," because explaining the newly-incompatible fact is how knowledge is extended.

In other words, that's what you accused me of doing:

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
For example, the survivor may experience an NDE and subsequently forget it...
This is called making the data fit the desired 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 7th November 2019, 10:38 AM   #210
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Did you read the source? Yes or no.
No.
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, 10:43 AM   #211
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Prevalent amongst WHOM?
Indeed, it seems he didn't read the source. French is studying researchers, not patients. His chapter surveys what theories were floating around (pun intended) at the time, and how they can be taxonomized and characterized. I'll explain it using a hypothetical example.

Let's say we have two people, Tom and Dick. Tom is an artist. Dick is a lawyer. One day, they both have a heart attack and, upon resuscitation, both claim they had a near-death experience. Among the observations each reports is what Greyson would descfribe as a "out-of-body experience." (French focuses on OBEs, but not to the exclusion of other NDE factors.)

We have three other people now: Harriet, Martha, and Joyce. Harriet is a spiritualist author who specializes in books on near-death experiences. Martha is a neurologist. Joyce is a research psychologist. Naturally each might want to interview both patents. When they do, both Tom and Dick say, "It seemed to me like I was floating above my body."

What French is trying to say is that the most likely explanation Harriet is going to come up with is that how the patients subjectively characterized their sensations was what objectively happened, as fact. "It seemed like you were floating above your body because part of you actually was." Harriet's peers, as a matter of statistical survey, most prevalently propose some sort of literal separation of consciousness (French doesn't say soul) as the explanation for the feeling of being outside one's body. She represents one of the schools of though that French surveys.

Martha instead might say, "That's very interesting. We know that a person's sense of body location, surroundings, and equilibrium is controlled by a portion of the brain in the temporal-parietal region. When we stimulate this part of the brain and disrupt its normal function, the patent reports a feeling of being outside his body. I know that seems weird, but we have to remember that all the functions of the brain are going to be perceived as if they were sensory inputs. Now we probably won't be able to investigate the markers of such a causation in your particular cases because the cardiologist was more interested in saving your lives than in collecting data. This is why we prove the causation in the lab using controlled experiments and then generalize the results to situations in which the demonstrated causes might plausibly arise."

And Joyce might say, "We have seen that when people believe they are facing great danger, they sometimes dissociate their conscious thoughts from the surroundings. This might be perceived subjectively as not being inside your body. We think it's a way to shield the conscious mind from things that it doesn't want to deal with."

In summary, Harriet's theory is what the spiritualist school of thought most prevalently applies. Martha's is the most prevalent theory among the physicalist school of thought. And Joyce's is the most prevalent among the psychologist school. What's important to realize in French's study is that Harriet's conclusion has bugger all to do with what Tom and Dick each think.

Tom says, "I've always thought that my art came from somewhere deep inside me that wasn't really part of my physical manifestation. Harriet's interpretation speaks the most profoundly to me." Neither Joyce nor Martha need to revise their theories accordingly because neither of them is based on whether the patients themselves understand or accept the science.

And Dick might say, "I hear you, but I'm quite prepared to believe that the sensation was simply an illusion. Since my predetermination is to follow the evidence, I tend to prefer the explanation for which there is testable evidence, although I do also see some merit in the psychology theory too." Harriet need not change her mind. Her decision to take the out-of-body claim at face value was hers; it had nothing to do with whether Tom or Dick agreed with her.

We have to endorse French's decision to taxonomize as he does because the rhetoric supporting the calculus of parsimony in each case has few if any common axioms. It's not as if Harriet just digs in her heels and sticks with her explanation because she's stubborn. The rhetoric proposes that the patient's perception to have been outside his body should be taken as if it were a literal observation because it's a de minimis interpretation. All the others, they say, require additional factors which lack evidence. But that calculus arrives at parsimony only by ignoring that the existence of the soul is assumed. You can do that in spiritualist circles, and if one presupposes the existence of a soul then the take-at-face-value interpretation comes across as parsimonious. Circular, if OBE is to be considered proof of the soul, but not without intellectual appeal.

What's important to realize is that Tom and Dick don't appear anywhere in French's research. He's twice removed from any information regarding whether the patients themselves interpreted their perceptions as literal records of fact, if any such information was even collected at all by actual investigators. He studies only the Harriets, Marthas, and Joyces.
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 7th November 2019, 10:47 AM   #212
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I read his answer as saying that at some point you need to have detectable energy transfer in order to produce the effect of communication because that's the essence of the effect.
And I explained in OP how the effect of significant interaction with the soul can be produced without being differentiated in neurological observations from familiar influences: the neuroscientist can see measurable activity of the brain and be unable to tell whether it is entirely caused by known physical particles.
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, 10:48 AM   #213
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,218
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
In other words, that's what you accused me of doing:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Fitting the theory to the facts is the OPPOSITE of fitting the facts to the theory.

Now you've stooped to dishonesty.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 10:51 AM   #214
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
It doesn't matter.
It absolutely does. You made a claim regarding what patients think. You're supporting it with evidence of what researchers think about the patients.

Quote:
The source says that to the NDErs, the NDE appears as a soul leaving the body.
The source says that the most prevalant way that spiritualist researchers interpret these statements is to insist they be taken at face value. Even at face value, "out-of-body experience" does not mean "soul," even at the anecdotal level.

Quote:
That's what JayUtah what asking - whether the patients interpret their experience in terms of a soul.
And what you provided is evidence that spiritualist researchers interpret others' experience in terms of a soul, simply because the patients described their perceptions in a way that the researchers construe as congruent with those terms.

Quote:
I didn't do such a research myself, so I can only point to those who have.
[When asked if the source was read:]
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
No.
You need to do more than point at it.
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 7th November 2019, 10:53 AM   #215
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
You can cut through this brain and soul numbing speculation by letting go of the bifurcation of reality into soul stuff and business, and body stuff and business.

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You don't have a body. You are a body. A living Human Body (provided ze's not a vegetable in a coma) is a living soul.

No need for mysterious forces that can't mesh with the forces we know, or misunderstanding the existent ones in ways that contradict their functions to account for the wonderful beings we are.

That subjective inner life we celebrate cannot be made into some separate stuff. We have consciousness because we're empirical. We can speak of empiricality because we're conscious. Stuff as in Mind or Spirit. Stuff as Matter are both ignorant projections.
^Wins Thread^

I've been dead twice, brought back twice. No bright lights, dead relatives or heavenly harps.

When you're gone, you're gone.

My best friend and drummer died last July. Between he, I and our guitarist we have a secret word for him to give us if he's on the other side.

Tony and I are still waiting to hear or see that word.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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, 10:55 AM   #216
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Fitting the theory to the facts is the OPPOSITE of fitting the facts to the theory.

Now you've stooped to dishonesty.
Nonsense. I suggested a reason to explain why only 10% of survivors report NDEs.

Fact: Only 10% of survivors report NDEs.
Possible reason: Other survivors may have forgotten their NDEs, as one would forget a dream or because of amnesia commonly caused by anesthetics.
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, 10:59 AM   #217
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
In other words...
No, don't try to put words in my mouth.

Quote:
...that's what you accused me of doing:
No, it's the opposite of what I accuse you of doing. What you do is state what process you think might be operating, and then imagine that there might somehow exist a pattern of as-yet undiscovered observations that support it. You propose a correlation between NDEs and a hypothetical mode of operation for a hypothetical soul. But when the actual numbers show no such correlation, you deploy an argument from silence to imagine a few different ways in which the observations should be edited to support your desired conclusion.

What neurology does is note that certain observations don't fit a model of brain operation that covers both normal, unremarkable operation and certain modes of anomalous operation. It then proposes to extend the model to accommodate the new facts -- not by altering the facts, but by amending the model. I described at length the hypothetico-deductive process by which various proposed extensions can be tested to see whether the mechanism by which they explain the new facts (a) is actually what is happening, and (b) does no regressive injury to the amended model's overall predictive strength.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't know how science works at a fundamental level. That makes it very unlikely that you've single-handedly solved the energy-transfer problem.

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th November 2019 at 11:07 AM.
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 7th November 2019, 11:00 AM   #218
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Nonsense. I suggested a reason to explain why only 10% of survivors report NDEs.
And it's still an argument from silence.
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 7th November 2019, 11:01 AM   #219
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And what you provided is evidence that spiritualist researchers interpret others' experience in terms of a soul, simply because the patients described their perceptions in a way that the researchers construe as congruent with those terms.
According to Wikipedia, French says that NDEs appear to the experiencers as a soul leaving the body. So either he is right or he is wrong, but that's what he says.
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, 11:06 AM   #220
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,030
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
It doesn't matter. The source says that to the NDErs, the NDE appears as a soul leaving the body. That's what JayUtah what asking - whether the patients interpret their experience in terms of a soul. I didn't do such a research myself, so I can only point to those who have.
How would these NDEs know it was their soul? Plus you have one NDEr in this thread that contradicts your claim.
__________________
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, 11:06 AM   #221
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
According to Wikipedia, French says that NDEs appear to the experiencers as a soul leaving the body. So either he is right or he is wrong, but that's what he says.
Really? Those are the only possible alternatives? It's not even remotely possible that you, not having read the original source, have drawn the wrong conclusion from Wikipedia's summary?
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 7th November 2019, 11:12 AM   #222
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,218
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Nonsense. I suggested a reason to explain why only 10% of survivors report NDEs.

Fact: Only 10% of survivors report NDEs.
Possible reason: Other survivors may have forgotten their NDEs, as one would forget a dream or because of amnesia commonly caused by anesthetics.
Before you fit a theory to the facts, you might want to establish that theory.

The problem is that you're still stuck in the circularity. Allow me to demonstrate:

Why do you believe that there is such a thing as a soul?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 11:16 AM   #223
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Before you fit a theory to the facts, you might want to establish that theory.

The problem is that you're still stuck in the circularity. Allow me to demonstrate:

Why do you believe that there is such a thing as a soul?
I don't believe it. I said repeatedly that I don't have enough data to make a conclusion about the existence of the soul. I explore possibilities in the context of our knowledge from physics and neuroscience.
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, 11:16 AM   #224
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
How would these NDEs know it was their soul?
Narrator: They don't.

The experience reported is a perspective not associated with the known body location. It varies from a vague sense of detachment to a perception of various forms of juxtaposition. In litewave's hasty reading of Wikipedia's summary, he has missed where French goes from summarizing what the patents actually recount to what the spiritualist theories say is going on. He's trying to attribute what the theorists propose as if it were what the patients believe. The starting point of the theory is the proposition, "We should take the floating-perspective reports at face value." There is another part of the theory that proposes, "This is the spirit leaving the body and journeying into the afterlife." The source absolutely does not support the notion that this latter conclusion is what any of the patients believe.
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 7th November 2019, 11:17 AM   #225
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I don't believe it. I said repeatedly that I don't have enough data to make a conclusion about the existence of the soul.
And then you go on to presume it does, as a premise to all your further ramblings. How many times must people point out the circularity of your reasoning before you consider the possibility they may be right?
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 7th November 2019, 11:17 AM   #226
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,218
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
I don't believe it.
I don't believe you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 11:19 AM   #227
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
...in the context of our knowledge ... [of] neuroscience.
Funny then that you havne't yet cited a single neurologist. All your life-science authorities come from other fields, and do not even necessarily represent the prevailing views in those fields.
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 7th November 2019, 11:19 AM   #228
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,030
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
And I explained in OP how the effect of significant interaction with the soul can be produced without being differentiated in neurological observations from familiar influences: the neuroscientist can see measurable activity of the brain and be unable to tell whether it is entirely caused by known physical particles.
Jay accurately summed up my previous responses. But you are still not understanding what we now know (and not theoretically but from evidence). The scales the brain works at and right the way down to the quarks and other exotic beasts and there is no "spare" or "excess" energy at all those scales so we know there is nothing else hiding away. This is not to claim we know everything or there aren't things to still be discovered but we know there isn't anything that interacts at the scales the brain works at (and magnitudes "lower"). If something interacts with the brain it is doing so via the known forces/fields/dragons we already know about.
__________________
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, 11:24 AM   #229
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,854
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
"Oldest soul?" It's been about an hour and a half since I woke up this morning. That's as far back as this current soul goes, if even that far.

East Asian Buddhism has six places the soul can be cranked through:
The Human Realm
The Animal Realm
The Heavenly Realm
The Hell Realm
The Realm of Hungry Ghosts
The Realm of Fighting Demigods
(Plus in many tales: Rebirth as a household utensil.)
So been there and done all of them.

As for "Intarnation," tarnations there be a plenty without count.

Buddhism inherited Reincarnation from the Hindu Milieu. It's never been a fit with the assertion of "No-Self." Over the centuries Buddhist thinkers have tried to fudge it in, but contemporary Secular Buddhists are all too happy to chuck the notion in the trash.
That's the one in Pac-Man, right?
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer 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, 11:24 AM   #230
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,030
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
^Wins Thread^



I've been dead twice, brought back twice. No bright lights, dead relatives or heavenly harps.



When you're gone, you're gone.



My best friend and drummer died last July. Between he, I and our guitarist we have a secret word for him to give us if he's on the other side.



Tony and I are still waiting to hear or see that word.
You're expecting a drummer to remember a special word? That would be supernatural!
__________________
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, 11:26 AM   #231
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,030
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
Nonsense. I suggested a reason to explain why only 10% of survivors report NDEs.



Fact: Only 10% of survivors report NDEs.

Possible reason: Other survivors may have forgotten their NDEs, as one would forget a dream or because of amnesia commonly caused by anesthetics.
Is there some official register that you have to update if you have a NDE? Otherwise you have no idea of the percentage of people who have been at death's door and had a NDE.
__________________
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, 11:28 AM   #232
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,014
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's not what I asked.

I asked how vivid and empathetic NDEs could be considered evidence that, or makes it apparent that, souls are detaching from brains during the NDE.

How do you get from vivid and empathetic NDEs to souls detaching from brains?

It's easy to imagine a fantastical scenario that matches some real world facts and then conclude that it's apparent that the fantastical scenario is true. Logic does not work that way. You can't just assume the existence of a soul and assume it works in a way that is consistent with some NDEs and then suggest it's apparent that NDEs are caused by souls doing something. That's circular reasoning.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 7th November 2019 at 11:32 AM.
JesseCuster 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, 11:31 AM   #233
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
In litewave's hasty reading of Wikipedia's summary, he has missed where French goes from summarizing what the patents actually recount to what the spiritualist theories say is going on. He's trying to attribute what the theorists propose as if it were what the patients believe. The starting point of the theory is the proposition, "We should take the floating-perspective reports at face value."
So do you acknowledge that patients feel as if they are floating outside of their body? If so, what could such a patient think about it? "Hm, I am outside of my body, which makes sense because I am just my body."
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, 11:31 AM   #234
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The scales the brain works at and right the way down to the quarks and other exotic beasts...
I think the bit of information that may not be readily apparent is that the effect of communication has to be visible, in the brain, at those energy levels, in order to say that communication has occurred by any means. It does no good to speculate about different means by which some communication might occur at very tiny energy levels. If the end result is not the observation of the communicative effect, then no dice.

We can draw the parallel perhaps to structural resonance. Yes, a very small amount of energy can be used to excite a structure to a seemingly disproportionate degree if it is applied at the right frequency. But the effect of that resonance is still observable. It does no good to argue that nobody can hear me banging on the bridge with a hammer at its resonant frequency. The evidence of the effect is still visible at the broad scale in the form of a flopping bridge. And if my goal is to use resonance to destroy the bridge, it has to flop a lot regardless of what tiny thing is making it flop.

You can't simply keep shoving the problem of observation farther down the causal chain and announce that you've fixed it.
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 7th November 2019, 11:32 AM   #235
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,030
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
That's not what I asked.



I asked how vivid and empathetic NDEs could be considered evidence that, or makes it apparent that, souls are detaching from brains during the NDE.



How do you get from vivid and empathetic NDEs to souls detaching from brains?
And has been previously alluded to by what means was the soul "seeing" these events? We know it can't be using any senses that the body uses, so how come this is then translated into a memory movie?
__________________
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, 11:36 AM   #236
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
So do you acknowledge that patients feel as if they are floating outside of their body?
No, I acknowledge that they describe a subjective experience using variations on such terms. What you're trying to get me to accept is that a majority of them interpret that experience according to how one school of researchers does -- specifically that they argue it's what was literally happening to them.

I've read your source. You haven't. I've summarized the gist of the source for you, so that you can see the error in your interpretation without having to go pay to read the source. Yet for some reason you want to avoid all that and simply try to keep shoving words in my mouth.

Pathetic.
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 7th November 2019, 11:37 AM   #237
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,218
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
So do you acknowledge that patients feel as if they are floating outside of their body?
People feel all sorts of untrue stuff. A friend of mine took some acid one day and saw people as polygons like in an old video game. That doesn't mean that people were actually polygonal.

Quote:
If so, what could such a patient think about it? "Hm, I am outside of my body, which makes sense because I am just my body."
Don't assume that you know what others think.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 11:46 AM   #238
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,948
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
If so, what could such a patient think about it?
Begging the question. You're the one who claimed the majority of patients who described some form of locality dissociation interpreted it as the soul leaving the body. It's your burden to prove the patients are thinking what you say they're thinking.

When asked for the evidence, you gave me a summary of how different commentators approach OBE reports and then latched onto one of those approaches to the full exclusion of all others. That one school says, "We take the patient's description at face value, as a factual report of what actually was occurring." That says absolutely zilch about whether the patient took it at face value. In fact, French didn't even have that information available to him. Other approaches say, "We grasp that that's what it seemed like, and here is how that might have been merely an illusion produced by this or that phenomenon." That too says absolutely zilch about whether the patient thought it was an illusion. You're conflating how various researchers interpret the data with how the patients interpret the data.

If I describe my experience of sleeping on a memory foam mattress as, "It's like I was floating on a cloud," does that mean I literally believe was I was floating on a cloud?

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th November 2019 at 11:52 AM.
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 7th November 2019, 11:46 AM   #239
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by litewave View Post
In my OP I had the general scenario in mind, that the soul interacts with the body anytime and in a significant way. Then Scorpion mentioned that the soul may be dormant during life and it reminded me of the doctrine of the spiritual fall of man in religious literature. So there seems to be a possibility that the soul interacts with the body only sometimes, or anytime but not much.
I have no idea how the sentence in italics follows from the preceding sentences. Someone said something that reminded you of something in a religious book, therefore something something souls interacts body something something?
JesseCuster 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, 11:47 AM   #240
litewave
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
We can draw the parallel perhaps to structural resonance. Yes, a very small amount of energy can be used to excite a structure to a seemingly disproportionate degree if it is applied at the right frequency. But the effect of that resonance is still observable.
And I don't dispute that the effect is observable. You keep attacking a strawman.
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
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 11:02 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.