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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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 ndes , obes

Reply
Old 20th April 2015, 05:03 AM   #81
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,432
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
But what do you think about the fact that a certain sequence of networks must fyer in the brain .. the same procedure of fyering neuronetworks .. What are the chances?
There have been several great analogies to answer this already. I'd only add that water goes down the drain — all of it — when you pull the plug out. How special is that! What are the chances?

100%, Maartenn. The chances are 100% that brains do braining.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 20th April 2015, 05:55 AM   #82
Stuart
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 621
Like Loss Leader, I am also lucky to be here.
I however have a different experiance. After an illness at home it transpired that I collapsed and an ambulance was called.
I have vague memories - almost like a dream of hearing a voice saying "It's not your turn yet".

Well - to give the quote the full context "It's not your turn yet. Not now - come on you *******, you're not going to die on me not when we are so ******* close to the hospital"
The ambulance technician, who I later met so that I could give them my thanks, confirmed that that is what they had said whilst doing CPR on me in the back of the ambulance. She also apologised for her language.
Stuart 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 20th April 2015, 06:22 AM   #83
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Pretty good, actually, since our brains all work in pretty much the same way.

Your argument is one of incredulity, used to support beliefs you already have.
To be fair, the argument against a supernatural cause for NDEs is also one of incredulity. I find the notion of an afterlife to be without any credibility at all. I have a very difficult time imagining all the consequences/context required to make it fly.
marplots 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 20th April 2015, 06:29 AM   #84
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,901
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
To be fair, the argument against a supernatural cause for NDEs is also one of incredulity.
No it isn't. Citing the total lack of evidence for explanation X and the presence of proven explanation Y isn't incredulity.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 20th April 2015, 07:23 AM   #85
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No it isn't. Citing the total lack of evidence for explanation X and the presence of proven explanation Y isn't incredulity.
We must have different dictionaries.

"noun: incredulity

the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something."

I am unable/unwilling to believe that NDEs are explained best by spiritual ideas. The notion does not seem credible to me. In fact, it seems incredible.

The fact there is an alternate explanation I prefer doesn't change this state, it actually enhances it.

Last edited by marplots; 20th April 2015 at 07:25 AM.
marplots 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 20th April 2015, 07:28 AM   #86
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,089
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
We must have different dictionaries.

"noun: incredulity

the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something."

I am unable/unwilling to believe that NDEs are explained best by spiritual ideas. The notion does not seem credible to me. In fact, it seems incredible.

The fact there is an alternate explanation I prefer doesn't change this state, it actually enhances it.
You are correct that that is what 'incredulity' means. However an argument from incredulity is solely based on incredulity. The normal skeptic position is that not only do we find the NDE's based on spirituality incredible, but as you also note, we can point to alternative explanations. This means that we are not arguing from incredulity.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 20th April 2015, 07:42 AM   #87
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,901
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I am unable/unwilling to believe that NDEs are explained best by spiritual ideas. The notion does not seem credible to me. In fact, it seems incredible.
Speak for yourself. If the evidence supports the supernatural, I will gladly accept it.

There _is_ no evidence for the supernatural, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist. That's not incredulity.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 20th April 2015, 08:13 AM   #88
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Speak for yourself. If the evidence supports the supernatural, I will gladly accept it.

There _is_ no evidence for the supernatural, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist. That's not incredulity.
I always try to speak for myself. No one is willing to pay me to speak for them.

But yes, the context for my comment was the existing state of affairs, not some future possible state. After all, maybe the horse will sing.
marplots 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 20th April 2015, 02:18 PM   #89
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,178
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Even if your understanding of biology and psychology was right, you're still making the logical mistake of only counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

I died. My heart stopped. The whole system was down for a solid minute. I was on an EKG and have the strip to prove it. I did not experience anything. It wasn't even like sleep. It was just nothing. Many people have had the same experience. What percentage of people in near-death states have classic near-death experiences?

If you can't answer that, you can't go any further.
I get the feeling that NDE "researchers" do a lot of cherry-picking. Some subset of people report similar experiences after a cardiac arrest or similar event. The NDE "researchers" gather these, say, "Isn't that amazing?" and ignore the (probable majority of) people who experience nothing, or experience something other than the "standard" NDE.
CORed 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 23rd April 2015, 04:50 PM   #90
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
I'm all for scientific explanations of an NDE-experience but it seems every time I hear or read someone try and give a rational explanation for an NDE it doesn't even come close to explaining what people have described, other than explaining what might be the tunnel with a light at the end. what about all the other things which have been described by so many people? Just seems like the skeptics really have nothing substantial to offer to explain these trips people take.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 23rd April 2015 at 04:59 PM.
Maartenn100 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 23rd April 2015, 05:14 PM   #91
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I'm all for scientific explanations of an NDE-experience but it seems every time I hear or read someone try and give a rational explanation for an NDE it doesn't even come close to explaining what people have described, other than explaining what might be the tunnel with a light at the end. what about all the other things which have been described by so many people? Just seems like the skeptics really have nothing substantial to offer to explain these trips people take.
In other words, you don't like the physiological explanation, because it does not support your cherry-picked woo!-laden anecdotes. The fact that reality disagrees with your hopes does not represent a lack of substance on the part of reality.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 23rd April 2015, 05:36 PM   #92
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
You call an eye witness testimony of many people "woo!-laden anecdotes". That's not only disrespectful, that's also not true. What's wrong by the way with an anecdote?

I want to call it the anecdote fallacy. It's the fallacy wich says: "it's an anecdote, so it must be wrong." Or 'the professor eye witnessed the experiment, so he must be wrong because eye witness testimony is not reliable'". That's a fallacy.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 23rd April 2015 at 05:43 PM.
Maartenn100 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 23rd April 2015, 06:06 PM   #93
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,697
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I want to call it the anecdote fallacy. It's the fallacy wich says: "it's an anecdote, so it must be wrong." Or 'the professor eye witnessed the experiment, so he must be wrong because eye witness testimony is not reliable'". That's a fallacy.
OK, here is an anecdote. Six years ago when I was in hospital after a heart attack, I had a second heart attack, and apparently was a "code blue", and got rushed into intensive care and rightly so). I stopped breathing, which I suppose could be described as near death. Nearly 16 hours later, I woke with a tube stuck down my throat, and heaps of "stuff on poles" attached to me in recovery with a couple of my kids in the room.

The entire time of my "near death" from start to finish is a complete blank. No dreams, no "light at the end of the tunnel". Nothing at all, save I remember collapsing, and remember waking up. This is my non eye witness testimony as to what happened to me, as I was literally not there, or anywhere else during those 16 hours.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 23rd April 2015 at 06:54 PM.
fromdownunder 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 23rd April 2015, 06:15 PM   #94
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I'm all for scientific explanations of an NDE-experience but it seems every time I hear or read someone try and give a rational explanation for an NDE it doesn't even come close to explaining what people have described, other than explaining what might be the tunnel with a light at the end. what about all the other things which have been described by so many people? Just seems like the skeptics really have nothing substantial to offer to explain these trips people take.
Nothing substantial is really needed to counteract what isn't substantially supported, is it?

And for pete's sake, stop with the whining already; it's unseemly. You were the one who appealed to science- sorry, but you don't get to change its terms and necessities when you suddenly find the real thing doesn't work for you. That is disrespectful of the thing you once wanted, kind of like deciding after a divorce that your ex was always really just a terrible human being anyway. Get over it already; acknowledge your woo as woo, believe it if you want, and move on.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 23rd April 2015, 08:24 PM   #95
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 25,926
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
You and I have dramatically different ideas about what constitutes evidence. Individual testimonies on YouTube is not evidence. They are not even close to evidence. There are myriad reasons why YouTubers who never had a NDE might claim to have had one.
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
That's the only evidence we have. You cannot go and measure the tunnel or the light with your instruments. Impossible. Eye witness testimony is the only thing you have to investigate this. Case studies with interviews.
You misunderstood my post.

I said that YouTube videos cannot be considered eyewitness testimony because there is absolutely no evidence that the people making the videos have ever flatlined or otherwise experienced a NDE. YouTube is filled with liars who are more concerned with getting hits than with providing factual testimony that can be considered evidence.

YouTube stories are not eyewitness testimony.
YouTube stories are not evidence.
YouTube stories cannot be used to support your speculations.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig 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 23rd April 2015, 08:30 PM   #96
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You call an eye witness testimony of many people "woo!-laden anecdotes". That's not only disrespectful, that's also not true. What's wrong by the way with an anecdote?

I want to call it the anecdote fallacy. It's the fallacy wich says: "it's an anecdote, so it must be wrong." Or 'the professor eye witnessed the experiment, so he must be wrong because eye witness testimony is not reliable'". That's a fallacy.
You are indulging in a straw person argument. It should go over there under the windmill, with the others.

What is "wrong" with an anecdote is that it is untestable and subjective. An anecdote may serve as the basis for beginning to examine a phenomenon, but it is not, cannot be, evidence that the phenomenon does, in fact, exist.

Are you familiar with Simmons' Gorilla?

Are you familiar with confirmation bias?

Are you familiar with eh Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and the New Mexico Tourist fallacy?

...those are only a few things "wrong" with pretending that an anecdote is objective evidence.

As far as "the professor"; if what she "witnessed" in the "experiment" is never duplicated, is never repeated, and can not ever be experienced by anyone else, then, yes, her "eyewitness anecdote" is "wrong".

Kinda like all those who have"eyewitnessed" 'Squatch.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 23rd April 2015 at 08:32 PM.
Slowvehicle 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 23rd April 2015, 10:55 PM   #97
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,432
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Nothing substantial is really needed to counteract what isn't substantially supported, is it?
Indeed; and ...

Quote:
And for pete's sake, stop with the whining already;
Exactly!


"But it happened to so many people!"

"List them."

Flaps arms. "Lots and lots."

"Oh, you mean imaginary people?"

"You skeptics are so closed. What about all the identical reports?"

"List them."

"Tunnels and light; God and oh God! and it's not your time."

"Are you talking about metaphors for sex?"

"No, no, no, no. You skeptics. NDEs. EN DEE EEEES."

"Nazarene Didn't Exist?"

Whaaaaa.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 24th April 2015, 01:17 AM   #98
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You call an eye witness testimony of many people "woo!-laden anecdotes". That's not only disrespectful, that's also not true. What's wrong by the way with an anecdote?

I want to call it the anecdote fallacy. It's the fallacy wich says: "it's an anecdote, so it must be wrong." Or 'the professor eye witnessed the experiment, so he must be wrong because eye witness testimony is not reliable'". That's a fallacy.
What you describe is actually the 'anecdote fallacy' fallacy.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar 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 24th April 2015, 01:36 AM   #99
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,432
Here's some information to defeat the notion that most NDEs are the same:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...ly-like-to-die
they reported dream-like or hallucinatory scenarios that [Sam] Parnia and his co-authors categorised into seven major themes. “Most of these were not consistent to what’s called ‘near-death’ experiences,” Parnia says. “It seems like the mental experience of death is much broader than what’s been assumed in the past.”
Those seven themes were:

Fear
Seeing animals or plants
Bright light
Violence and persecution
Deja-vu
Seeing family
Recalling events post-cardiac arrest
While the article is fluffy and speaks glibly of bringing people "back from the dead", and also begins with a strongly woo story suggesting OOBe is real, it's still got some interesting stuff in it.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 24th April 2015, 01:54 AM   #100
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,699
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You call an eye witness testimony of many people "woo!-laden anecdotes". That's not only disrespectful, that's also not true. What's wrong by the way with an anecdote?

I want to call it the anecdote fallacy. It's the fallacy wich says: "it's an anecdote, so it must be wrong." Or 'the professor eye witnessed the experiment, so he must be wrong because eye witness testimony is not reliable'". That's a fallacy.
That's not what people are saying. What they are trying to explain to you is that it's the explanation of that anecdote that is wrong. Just because someone claims they saw the gates of heaven doesn't mean they actually did. What you need to do is show some evidence that what they claim to have experienced is really what happened, and not just a hallucination or dream-like experience caused by lack of oxygen.
Cosmic Yak 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 24th April 2015, 06:47 AM   #101
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
So, your eye witness testimony of this forum and your observations (eye witness) of my posts are not reliable?
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 24th April 2015 at 07:00 AM.
Maartenn100 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 24th April 2015, 07:17 AM   #102
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
So, your eye witness testimony of this forum and your observations (eye witness) of my posts are not reliable?
What a silly attempt at a misdirection!

The fact that your posts exist, and can be referenced, and used as a check of the accuracy of memory, means that reports of their content are not, in fact, "eyewitness anecdotes".

Were you to claim you had posted something, but it was no longer available, your report of that content, which could no longer be supported, would, in fact, be an "eyewitness anecdote".

Please try to understand the difference.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 24th April 2015, 07:18 AM   #103
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
So, your eye witness testimony of this forum and your observations (eye witness) of my posts are not reliable?
They're reliable evidence that you have made those posts, sure. What else did you think they would be evidence of? Your existence? Ok; but there's no real reason to doubt that anyway, and if someone really wanted to, they could go beyond just the posts for more evidence that you exist. There's a word and a concept you need to grasp, Maartenn- consilience.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 24th April 2015, 07:27 AM   #104
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Thanks for this concept. I didn't know that.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 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 24th April 2015, 07:42 AM   #105
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Thanks for this concept. I didn't know that.
You're welcome. It's a useful concept; science relies on it.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 25th April 2015, 02:05 AM   #106
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,699
Maartenn100:
Now you're back on the straight and narrow, after your attempted dodge was corrected, would you like to answer my question?

Last edited by Cosmic Yak; 25th April 2015 at 02:14 AM. Reason: Promoted Maartenn100 to 1000: now corrected.
Cosmic Yak 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 10th May 2015, 04:14 AM   #107
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Scientists are willing to believe in multiversa, but when someone is talking about 'being an another dimension' (a near death experience), suddenly they don't believe in portals to other dimensions anymore. Because the people who were in other dimensions are no scientists. And because nature forbids scientists to go their with their intstruments.
Just believe in multiversa, and you understand this portal to another realm...
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 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 10th May 2015, 04:42 AM   #108
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,010
Who shows up in this universe?
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 10th May 2015, 05:07 AM   #109
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
An out of body experience (seeing from above) is 'existing in a parallel universe' f.e. Physicists who talk about parallel universes suddenly don't except the existence of it when people are talking about being in such a universe. That's not very consistent.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 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 10th May 2015, 05:30 AM   #110
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Scientists are willing to believe in multiversa, but when someone is talking about 'being an another dimension' (a near death experience), suddenly they don't believe in portals to other dimensions anymore. Because the people who were in other dimensions are no scientists. And because nature forbids scientists to go their with their intstruments.
Just believe in multiversa, and you understand this portal to another realm...
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
An out of body experience (seeing from above) is 'existing in a parallel universe' f.e. Physicists who talk about parallel universes suddenly don't except the existence of it when people are talking about being in such a universe. That's not very consistent.
Be so kind as to provide a specific, concrete, real world example of a "scientist" who "believes" that the Multiverse Theory actually describes reality, who also rejects NDE's as a description of an actual place or state of being. Straw persons need not be raised up.

Be so kind as to support your statement that "nature forbids" investigation of the experiences popularly miscalled "NDEs" (keep your eye on that "D") with "intstruments".

Be so kind as to familiarize yourself with the differences between "belief" and "knowledge".

Be so kind as to provide practical, physical. non-anecdotal, objective evidence of the existence of "portals" to "another realm" (or, for that matter, of the mere existence of your "other realm".

Be so kind as to support your claim that the experiences popularly mis-called OOBEs are evidence of "existing in a parallel universe", especially as described in any rigorous treatment of Multiverse Theory.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 10th May 2015, 07:15 AM   #111
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,432
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Physicists who talk about parallel universes suddenly don't except the existence of it when people are talking about being in such a universe. That's not very consistent.
Right, it's not consistent. No scientist talks this way, so they are being very consistent. Thanks for pointing this out.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 10th May 2015, 01:28 PM   #112
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,455
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Scientists are willing to believe in multiversa, but when someone is talking about 'being an another dimension' (a near death experience), suddenly they don't believe in portals to other dimensions anymore. Because the people who were in other dimensions are no scientists. And because nature forbids scientists to go their with their intstruments.
Just believe in multiversa, and you understand this portal to another realm...
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
An out of body experience (seeing from above) is 'existing in a parallel universe' f.e. Physicists who talk about parallel universes suddenly don't except the existence of it when people are talking about being in such a universe. That's not very consistent.
More posts demonstrating you fill in the blanks with your own made up facts when you lack knowledge.
Skeptic Ginger 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 10th May 2015, 04:21 PM   #113
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
More posts demonstrating you fill in the blanks with your own made up facts when you lack knowledge.
Do you really think you can have knowledge about this? We stare in total darkness about this. We lose everything (when we die) when we get knowledge about this 'dimension' or whatever we want to call The Unknown or The Unseen. Do you think you can understand what's going on during an NDE? I can't understand it. Whatever brain we have, it's been given to us (by Nature) and it will be talken away from us (by Nature).

Skeptic Ginger, remember this: your life (and my life too) is not for eternity.

And whatever is beyond this life is hidden for our knowledge. No 'scientific' device can discover this. Scientific devices cannot go there. When we get the opportunity to meet this Light, we are defenseless and naked. No way to get knowledge when it is not been given to you. It reveals itself to us or not. That's not up to us.

We may not think that our science is holey and we are immortal with it. There are doors of knowledge which stay closed for our best tools of science.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th May 2015 at 05:01 PM.
Maartenn100 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 10th May 2015, 05:02 PM   #114
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,455
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Do you really think you can have knowledge about this? We stare in total darkness about this. We lose everything (when we die) when we get knowledge about this 'dimension' or whatever we want to call The Unknown or The Unseen. Do you think you can understand what's going on during an NDE? I can't understand it. Whatever brain we have, it's been given to us (by Nature) and it will be talken away from us (by Nature).

Skeptic Ginger, remember this: your life (and my life too) is not for eternity.

And whatever is beyond this life is hidden for our knowledge. No 'scientific' device can discover this. Scientific devices cannot go there. When you meet the light, you are defenseless and naked. No way to get knowledge when it is not been given to you. It reveals itself to you or not. That's not up to you.
Some people believe they have had NDEs and floated above their bodies able to see everything below them. If they actually had, then experiments with hidden messages one can only see from the ceiling down should have proven this was the case by now. No such case has been documented.

It's a fantasy to believe in life after death. But by all means, enjoy yourself.
Skeptic Ginger 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 10th May 2015, 05:17 PM   #115
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
I don't know.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 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 10th May 2015, 05:42 PM   #116
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't know.

So the subject line is a lie?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 10th May 2015, 06:03 PM   #117
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Maybe there is a bigger picture then our lives here on Earth. And this possibility (of a bigger picture) must be considered too. Science is a human invention. Science is not reality. Science cannot explain consciousness (very well). In my op!nion: there is a much bigger picture of things, and we have only a little scoop.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 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 11th May 2015, 12:10 AM   #118
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't know.
Clearly.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar 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 11th May 2015, 12:16 AM   #119
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Maybe there is a bigger picture then our lives here on Earth. And this possibility (of a bigger picture) must be considered too. Science is a human invention. Science is not reality. Science cannot explain consciousness (very well). In my op!nion: there is a much bigger picture of things, and we have only a little scoop.
You have a propensity for religious thinking, attempting to fill gaping holes in even your basic understanding of the natural world around you.
The most important message your written thoughts display is not so much how little you know (although they do) but how little you want to learn.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar 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 11th May 2015, 06:51 AM   #120
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,089
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Do you really think you can have knowledge about this?
We do not have to fill up the blanks with wishful fantasies.

Quote:
Do you think you can understand what's going on during an NDE? I can't understand it.
Of course we can understand what is going on during an NDE, and this has been pointed out to you over and over in this thread. Most importantly, nothing points to NDE's having anything to do with death, and everything to do with how the brain works under stress. So far, every attempt to prove otherwise has met with failure.

Quote:
And whatever is beyond this life is hidden for our knowledge.
And yet people constantly claim that they know what happens ...

Quote:
No way to get knowledge when it is not been given to you. It reveals itself to us or not.
Nonsense, when we die - and we all die - we will get a genuine DE, there is no way around it.

Quote:
We may not think that our science is holey and we are immortal with it.
What scientist claims that we know everything? Where did this claim of immortality come from?

Quote:
There are doors of knowledge which stay closed for our best tools of science.
Sure, but that does not mean that NDE's are in any way telling us something about death.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

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 03:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.