Anti-Materialist

It is simple. If we have a soul - it is something that is a part of us. There would have to be some sort of interface between the brain and the soul. The non-material explanation for ketamine would be that it is activating that link between the brain and the soul. Perhaps it quiets down much of the physical brain activity, allowing for greater perceived input from your etheric brain. Perhaps it causes neurons to fire in a specific part of the brain that is involved in the interface with the etheric brain.

For those of us who believe we have souls, it makes perfect sense.


And when you find someone who is a disinterested party, let me know - I would like to meet them.


Oh - and Atheists have tremendous faith. Specifically, they have faith in the idea that you can get something from nothing. I do not have faith in that idea. Actually, I don't really have faith in much of anything. I am very literal minded that way.

Anti-Materialist

But God is not Invisible and unknowable. I just supplied you with a link to a method for how you can go and see and talk to God any time you want to.


You will assume it is just a God you've created inside your head, of course. But either way, it is not something that is invisble and unknowable.

Bugs

Option (1) requires us to believe Ketamine is a hallucinatory drug that acts on brain chemistry. Option (2) requires us to believe Ketamine is a hallucinatory drug that acts on brain chemistry (because we know this to be true even if God exists), PLUS we need to believe in God. Therefore the Ketamine experience is not any reason to believe in God. Don’t invent unnecessary entities.

Yes - IF. But that doesn’t mean the advice IS from God. And if it isn’t, any actions you take, based on that advice, will be drug induced. Hardly a basis for good decision making.

Would it involve inventing unnecessary entities?

Why would you think it was anything other than a hallucination?

It only adds extra explanatory power if it is true. Your reason to accept it therefore assumes the conclusion – the definition of circular reasoning. And as I said in my earlier post, there is no way to choose that option over the multiple universe option. Or the weak anthropomorphic principle (the option you missed out).

What evidence would that be?

Why not?

Bugs

Right there you violate Occam’s Razor again. What is your evidence for the existence of a soul?

Your evidence for NDEs (unproven unnecessary entity), requires you to believe in a soul (another unproven unnecessary entity). Do you see the problem here? You are multiplying unproven unnecessary entiies.

Bugs

I've taken Ketamine. It was fun but I didn't talk to God.

Anti-Materialist

and your reason to reject it assumes the conclusion that it is false. Another example of circular reasoning.




I am saying that one phenomenon adds explanatory power to the other phenomenon. You are saying we should just assume they are false to start with.


This is why I think people use occam's razor too much.


You are using it throw out a whole bunch of weak data, because the data does not fit your world view.


If you want evidence for reincarnation, look up Dr. Ian Stephenson on the web. The debunkers have said they think his evidence is flawed, of course. But the fact that there may be errors in his work does not explain away the entire body of work. Everyone makes mistakes.


My hypothesis fits the world as we see it, both the strong data and the weak data. Your hypothesis dismisses the weak data, and only fits the strong data. Given a choice between the two, I choose the better fit.

All things are not equal.

God is not an unnecessary entity, because his existence explains the weak data gathered in Near Death Experiences and reincarnation studies. I don't assume these things are true - instead I assume they are possible.

You, obviously, assume they are impossible.


It still comes down to an intuitive judgement call.

Anti-Materialist

How much did you take?



I think you need to go beyond the K-hole to get this experience. In fact, in order to have a high probability of causing this experience, I think you might need to inject it IV. If you do, please do it in a controlled setting, with a doctor on hand to revive you if you take too much or react weird or something.

I think people probably should not use IV anesthetics at home alone.

Philosoft

Who cares what "people" object to? 1) posits a prior known phenomenon, namely hallucinations; 2) posits an unknown entity in place of a known phenomenon. If it looks like a hallucination, walks like a hallucination and quacks like a hallucination...? Is it possible Okcham is wrong? Of course. Does it matter yet? No.


Where are you coming from? Who said anything about "consequences" and "life reviews"? Talk about your unnecessary entities.


Why would we evolve with the need to sleep? Talk about a waste of time, not to mention a long period of relative defenselesness.

I bet you didn't know "hokey sounding" was the number one reason given for article rejection by the board of the JEP?


Rest assured, you'll have science dismantled in no time.

"Because God wanted it that way" is "extra explanatory power"?
I'm afraid to ask.

Anti-Materialist

Yes - it is.

Bugs

If you think that you haven’t understood anything I have written about Occam’s Razor. I don’t reject it. I just say it is an unnecessary entity that you have made up. It is a milk fairy. It could be true, but there is no reason to think it is. You could be talking to an invisible unicorn in pink pajamas and gold stilettos. Why not assume that?

I’m glad you agree the data about God is weak. There is no evidence for it. Nothing that cannot be explained naturally. That’s why we do not accept it. Nothing to do with a world view. Unlike your beliefs, I would suggest.

I have read Stevenson’s work. It is deeply flawed. Mainly because he interviews children long after they have supposedly “remembered” their previous lives. He clearly has a deep belief in reincarnation that has clouded his judgment. If you want to know what I really think about Ian Stevenson you can read the review I wrote of his book “Children Who Remember Previous Lives”. It is in two parts for some reason. The second part is here. You should also read Leonard Angel’s review of a different Stevenson book. His review was published in the Vol9 No. 3 2002 edition of “Skeptic” magazine. Angel found that Stevenson had confused assumptions he had made with actual hard data, and had used these false data to arrive at (therefore) false conclusions. Stevenson had, by accident or design, made it very hard to determine that he had done this. Angel also discovered that Stevenson had made serious errors in his statistical calculations relating to birthmarks being supposedly evidence of injuries in prior lives.

None of this proves reincarnation doesn’t take place. But if Stevenson’s work is the best evidence there is for reincarnation, then I see no reason to suppose reincarnation takes place.

You don’t understand the issues, I’m afraid. Your options (1) and (2) each have additional unproven entities. We can’t choose between them. The weak anthropomorphic principle is actually the one that does not violate Occam’s Razor, and is the ONLY one that “fits the world as we see it”. Although I still wouldn’t say which one I’d choose as the weak anthropomorphic principle is possibly a low probability.

So do hallucinations explain the data. And (one more time), without the unnecessary entity of God.

I assume no such thing. I just see no need at this time to invent a milk fairy. But you admit yours is based on intuition – something that has proven to be extremely unreliable in arriving at what is real. Intuition at one time told man that the Sun was pulled across the sky by a chariot made by God. They didn’t know better in those days. We do now.