Radorth

Re: Gooches Dad

Well in your case, I'd say it does apply.

From another open-minded thinker BBT

Who thinks BBT won't think about this anymore?

From W@L.

Who are just now finding out they know even less than they thought they did, their incoherent assertions full of big words notwithstanding.

"But we definitely will replicate them some day, honest we will. Just keep the faith."

And so far only one person here has not taken a simplistic approach, a "fundie" named

Rad

Bill Snedden

To add to what W@L said, as I see it the fact that experiences differ is actually an argument supporing the "con" side. If these experiences were actually of an alleged "spiritual reality" that exists independently of our physical one, wouldn't we really expect them to be similar? IOW, if this "spiritual realm" has objective reality, shouldn't those visiting it relay relatively similar descriptions?

The fact that experiences differ greatly seems to me better explained by viewing these as wholly subjective phenomena. IOW, they are created by the mind and differ because they are dependent upon the mind that does the creating.

That said, I can't see very much to disagree with in Chalmer's evaluation of the situation. It may be that we will never be able to fully answer this question...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

emotional

It's my fervent wish that the the NDEs really do point to an objective reality of life after death.

However, reality is independent of human wishes.

To conclusively say NDEs are proof of life after death because we don't have a theory of how the brain might produce them is argumentum ad ignorantiam - "we don't know, therefore (insert supernatural explanation here)". Such arguments always tend to melt away with advance of scientific research.

Do cats and dogs have NDEs? Do germs and viruses? Saying only humans have NDEs - that only humans have a soul - is setting a gulf between humans and other living organisms that evolution does not know of. It's an anthropocentric fallacy, just like old geocentrism.

Maybe NDEs point to life after death. When you die you'll know. Or not

Bumble Bee Tuna

Right, so not caring about a subject backed solely by conflicting personal accounts now qualifies as being close-minded.
Guess I should start being seriously inquisitive of anal-probing alien abductions and Bigfoot.

-B

Cthulhu

So, to summarize your argument so far, Rad: because skeptics don't completely understand the mechanisms of NDEs yet, that means that your subjective and unsupported interpretation is the correct one.

Uh huh.


Actually, that's not what I asked. I asked whether reported experiences that contradict Christian teachings are valid.

Pardon me, where did I specify "Hindu" experiences? I asked whether the experiences of non-Christians were valid, and I used Native Americans and Aboriginals as examples. Last time I checked, neither of these groups are Hindus. And the very site you keep linking too has a brief section on Hindu experiences, as well as others.

I find it telling that every link you have offered so far comes from the same site, a site run by a self-proclaimed Christian and a fervent believer in the "reality" of NDEs (not to mention someone with a book to sell.)

Well, then the same could be said about Christian experiences.

Okay, so different people go to different places? Why? How does this lend creedence to your belief that Christianity is the only correct faith? Surely God and Jebus would tell everyone the same thing, that only Christianity is the right path.

Non sequitur. The above could be used just as easily to argue in favor of alien abductions....

Speaking of which, Rad, do you believe in the reality of the abduction phenomenon? I mean, the evidence for both experiences is the same (i.e., purely anecdotal.) If not, why not?

Once again, all that you are saying is that because we haven't figured out completely the mechanisms involved, that this is evidence of the paranormal or supernatural. "I don't understand it, so God must have done it."

Mageth

Connie Willis wrote an excellent sci-fi book, Passage, which deals with NDEs, both experienced by patients in traumatic situations and induced in the lab, and with varying explanations for them. I'd highly recommend the book anyone interested in the subject, or to anyone that likes very good sci-fi.



SPOILER BELOW:

In the book, Ms. Willis postulates an interesting explanation for NDEs. In tramatic situations, nearing death, when the brain and body functions are shutting down, a reactive function of the lower, primitive brain kicks in that sends "SOS" signals to various parts of the brain in an attempt at an emergency kick-start of the brain and body functions. The NDE is what one's conscious (or subconscious) mind constructs from various memories "fired" during this activity (and perhaps other brain events such as the shutting down of the visual cortex) as an explanation for this flurry of unstructured stimuli, much as dreams may be one's subconscious ordering of randomly stimulated memories during sleep.

Yes, for now it's fiction, but it has the benefit of providing an evolutionary explanation to the root cause of NDEs, as they would provide an evolutionary advantage as a survival function.

Writer@Large

That's not the first time you've accussed scientific findings of being "incoherent" and full of "big words." First of all, incoherent to you does not, nor ever will, translate into incoherent to all. If you're vocabulary, or your understanding of science, or your general education, isn't advanced enough to allow you to comprehend those articles, so what? That doesn't make them devoid of meaning.

Secondly: if those articles are incoherent and full of big words, how exactly do you know what they're saying? How do you know how far they are? How do you know what they are "just now finding out"? If they're so incoherent to you, how exactly can you claim to understand what they're about?

Methinks someone is talking straight out of their posterior.

--W@L

Yellum Notnef

My stars! I go out to use a friends milling machine for a few hours and look what happens while I'm gone.

That skit about the "big scientific words" is a priceless gem that I will cherish always.

Marduk

"To add to what W@L said, as I see it the fact that experiences differ is actually an argument supporing the "con" side. If these experiences were actually of an alleged "spiritual reality" that exists independently of our physical one, wouldn't we really expect them to be similar? "

unless you are a Hindu, where there are hundreds of different 'realities'.

was just browsing through some summaries of old vedic texts, they seem to say humans are the only beings stuck in one reality, others can move freely between them, of which they claim there are many and in ancient India these beings lived with humans on Earth, causing all sorts of trouble as well.

Radorth

Re: CT

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this stuff begs for an explanation other than simplistic theories, two second electrode "laboratory tests" which somehow explain it all, and non repeatable results.

Well not really. Saying I shouldn't use a Christian site is silly, especially when he gives distinct counter- arguments UNLIKE YOUR SITES. It's the old double standard- heads I win, tails you lose. Reminds me of when Buffman gave a David barton site to make his point, a site which had EVERTHING we were talking about, including problems Buffman was pointing out.

My mistake. I thought we were discussing non-Christian expereinces so I used that. But I suppose you want me to go chase down native-American sites before you'll argue the point.

Rad