Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Navigator]

I am not sure how I can "clarify" the remark I addressed to Jodie.

Read it in context, and, if it is still unclear to you, point out what it is that you do not understand.

Are you saying that when you said:

...which I found both skillfully crafted and amusing, but which has nothing to do with the "sources" that do not in fact, provide support for your other claim; nor can it honestly be said to indicate whether I did, in fact, look at your "sources" in good faith.

Interesting that that is the thing, out of all the questions you have been asked, to which you chose to respond.

You were addressing Jodie?

 

[John Jones]

Are you saying that when you said:
[ ...]You were addressing Jodie?

Would you please learn to quote properly? I can't follow your argument at all.

Past experience has taught me that trying to follow your arguments is a waste of time.

And in case it comes up again, Please don't bother trying to re-define science when you don't understand the discipline in the first place.

Thank you very much, Navigator.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Are you saying that when you said:



You were addressing Jodie?

Did you read the post in its entirety?

The entire post is addressed to Jodie.

Go back and read it, not just the part with your nym in it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That should fix the links. Daily Mail is not the best of resources though.

Ta ever so.

Am I surprised that those links are much of a muchness?

"...scientists beleive...", "...devices may..."

and

A paywalled paper, the abstract of which refers to "hybrid systems".

 

[bruto]

It seems the argument never gets beyond the basic question of what consciousness might be.

You can say consciousness is something or other that inhabits a person, leaving mysterious, unproven, and hard to imagine where that thing is before a person is born, and where it goes after he dies. Nobody has ever, it seems, captured wild consciousness in its disembodied form, but if you believe this, then many other mysterious and unproven things might also be true. You can, for example, decide there's a god, and defer all explanation. Now when you don't know something, it's on purpose.

Or you can say that consciousness is something that is done. When the thing doing the doing breaks, the thing it does stops being done.

Consciousness is something of a mystery, or at least a marvel, either way. But if it is a thing, it is an awfully slippery one.

I have an old computer. After many years I have accumulated a number of files whose purpose I cannot recall; they may not even work, but you never know. So I made a folder and called it "God." I moved all those files in there, and the problem is solved.

 

[dlorde]

If it was wrapped up,tied with a bow in a neat little package, with a "That's all settled then" tag on it then research investigating the issue wouldn't continue.

Well quite. That there are already a number of plausible explanations for the specific features of NDEs doesn't mean there aren't others to be found; and confirmation through replication and alternative approaches, where viable, is often worth doing.

However, it does mean that there is even less justification for considering mystical, magical, paranormal, or supernatural explanations (albeit these are already ruled out en-masse by quantum field theory).

 

[dlorde]

...if we were just living blobs of flesh we would all be the same, but we aren't.

That is an assuming the consequence fallacy. It is also a non sequitur logical fallacy. You have not demonstrated that living blobs of flesh would all be "the same". Furthermore, It's an equivocation fallacy for using the very vague term 'same' without explicitly defining how you mean the term.

It is a non-sequitur in any case; all living things are different, one from another, even when their genetics are identical (e.g. clones). Each is modified in different ways by the different environments they are exposed to.

 

[Jodie]

The first two links have a double http protocol, in the actual link text as well, whereby the second http lacks the colon right after the "p", in the actual link text as well.
The first two links work only when the double http protocol is removed entirely from the actual link text, or .... when the "http//" without colon, is removed from the actual link text.

That's the problem with your first two links.

Thank you, I had no idea.

 

[Jodie]

I am not sure how I can "clarify" the remark I addressed to Jodie.

Read it in context, and, if it is still unclear to you, point out what it is that you do not understand.

It was? I thought you were talking to Navigator.

 

[Jodie]

The first two still link to a "This website is not available" message.

The third is an interview, in which Dr. Ken Hayworth holds that "the functioning of the brain can be understood at a fully mechanistic level". Dr. Haywoth discusses how to emulate cognition, but does not appear to put forth the idea of any "self" independent of a neural (be it organic, constructed, of some combination) system.

The only point at which "artificial AI" is mentioned is in the context of abstract artificail architectures, which is a long way from conscripting Dr. Hayward as support for the idea that the "soul" exists.

It is interesting stuff, but it is far from your implication of "cultivating" neurons on microchips.

But thanks for the readings.

Soul? I was talking about being able to use the technology to see exactly what happens during an NDE, what the person, or organic AI application could actually be perceiving and where it is coming from within the brain. The research indicates mental activity during an NDE of someone who is awake and actually seeing something, not like what your brain waves look like when you're dreaming. There are common elements, like the light or tunnel, but everyone sees different things based on what I've read.

My personal belief is that we belong to one group consciousness that lies outside our individual physical bodies. Whatever people are seeing during NDE's doesn't match that belief. Here is an excerpt from "Transhumanism" that was on Discovery. I am not making this stuff up. The links I posted were about the different applications of this technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg

If you can pull memories out of the brain, then why couldn't you see what those that report experiencing NDE's say that they see?

 

[Navigator]

... all living things are different, one from another, even when their genetics are identical (e.g. clones). Each is modified in different ways by the different environments they are exposed to.

Not just biological things. Everything is different and unique.

 

[Navigator]

My personal belief is that we belong to one group consciousness that lies outside our individual physical bodies.

Are you saying that you believe we are connected to this one consciousness?
If so, would that not mean that it is not just 'outside' our physical bodies?

Whatever people are seeing during NDE's doesn't match that belief.

Why not?

Here is an excerpt from "Transhumanism" that was on Discovery. I am not making this stuff up. The links I posted were about the different applications of this technology.

I have seen similar vids on this topic. It is really a natural extension of evolving consciousness to want to explore other forms in which it can experience through. The human form is exceptionally good at creating the machinery for this to happen.

 

[Jodie]

Well quite. That there are already a number of plausible explanations for the specific features of NDEs doesn't mean there aren't others to be found; and confirmation through replication and alternative approaches, where viable, is often worth doing.

However, it does mean that there is even less justification for considering mystical, magical, paranormal, or supernatural explanations (albeit these are already ruled out en-masse by quantum field theory).

So my thoughts regarding a group mind and the possibility of consciousness that resides out side of individual bodies is supernatural? I don't think it is, sounds more like the Avatar or Matrix movies, which do happen to be fiction.

I thought trotting out the quantum theory to provide evidence for or against the existence of the supernatural was an inappropriate use of the theory. What particular supernatural explanations does it rule out?

 

[Jodie]

Are you saying that you believe we are connected to this one consciousness?
If so, would that not mean that it is not just 'outside' our physical bodies?





Why not?




I have seen similar vids on this topic. It is really a natural extension of evolving consciousness to want to explore other forms in which it can experience through. The human form is exceptionally good at creating the machinery for this to happen.

No, I'm saying we are it, all the time, dead or alive. Whatever we experience down here is like the holo deck on the Enterprise.

I have no idea why it doesn't match my personal belief. It doesn't really match any religious belief that I'm familiar with, I don't recall Jesus discussing in any detail about what to expect when you die with his disciples.

Have you ever read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato? It seems to me that this kind of technology would help you perceive things that might not be readily evident with only the five senses.

 

[Navigator]

No, I'm saying we are it, all the time, dead or alive.

So it also exists inside our physical bodies then. You said it doesn't.

Whatever we experience down here is like the holo deck on the Enterprise.

Strictly speaking there is no up or down. There is in and out.
So you believe this physical reality is a simulation of sorts?

I have no idea why it doesn't match my personal belief.

No doubt I missed it, but in what way do NDEs not match your personal belief?

It doesn't really match any religious belief that I'm familiar with, I don't recall Jesus discussing in any detail about what to expect when you die with his disciples.

Nor do I, but that is because I wasn't around then to witness it. However, words attributed as being spoken by him are in the bible. Here are some verses.

^{John 11:23-26 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 14:1-2 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. John 10:27-29 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Mark 9:1 And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."}
Certainly it wasn't detailed stuff on what to expect once your body dies.

Have you ever read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato?

No. Just googled it and have a summary. It seems to be the man figured the knowledge gained by human beings through their five senses amounted to opinion. I will have a read of it.

It seems to me that this kind of technology would help you perceive things that might not be readily evident with only the five senses.

Well that would depend on the capabilities of the machinery. There is some pretty awesome machinery, but I wonder how awesome it would have to be before Plato's metaphor no longer applied?

 

[Navigator]

It seems the argument never gets beyond the basic question of what consciousness might be.
...

What it amounts to - since it is consciousnesses who are doing the arguing - is that they who argue do not really know what they are.

 

[Donn]

What it amounts to - since it is consciousnesses who are doing the arguing - is that they who argue do not really know what they are.

And, to continue talking to myself, just because we do not know everything about consciousness, does not mean we know nothing about it; it also does not mean your personal beliefs about it are worth anything at all. (Or Jodie's beliefs.)

Opinions do not count in the face of evidence.
Beliefs without evidence do not count as valid opposition.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Interesting approach to reality, there...

Let's review the bidding:

You claimed that


I asked for links to those projects, intrigued by the concept of "cultivating" neurons onto microchips.

Of the links you provided:


leads to a "this webpage is not available" notice


...turns out to be the discussion of a set of procedures to build an organic interface for "...stimulation, manipulation and recording of cell bioelectrical activity in vitro and in vivo..."


...does not open a page or a document; searching the title generated, ("Photolithographic generation of protein micropatterns for neuron culture applications" ) led to a paywalled article about using photoresist etching of protein-based substances to (again) simulate neuronal function.


...links to an article about mimicking the structures of the human brain to build small chips. Although labeled you may hve been misled by the titl (did you read the whole paper?) and by the frequent use of the "neurosynaptic" buzzword, but the article is about simulation of neuronal function, not about "cultivating" neurons.

Your "superstar",
...led to another "webpage not available" page.

Typically, your argumentum ad catarractum did not address what you claimed; at that point, I chose not to play your treasure hunt game any more.

None of which addresses the fact that your snide assertion (with your oh-so-clever-and-original-play-on-my-nym (did you come up with that yourself? I had never heard it before...) had nothing to do wiith the post to which you pretended to be responding.

In response to Navigator's post:


...dlorde posted this:

...which I found both skillfully crafted and amusing, but which has nothing to do with the "sources" that do not in fact, provide support for your other claim; nor can it honestly be said to indicate whether I did, in fact, look at your "sources" in good faith.

Interesting that that is the thing, out of all the questions you have been asked, to which you chose to respond.

Slowvehicle, here are the proper links to the first and last sites you couldn't access.
First.http://apt.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ftp/pub/amulet/papers/MMK_IJCNN08.pdf which discusses a type of microchip network its builders hope will be able to replicate a neural network.
Secondhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf is a discussion of the constaints on the universe if the hypothesis that it turned out to be a numerical simulation were true.

 

[tsig]

What it amounts to - since it is consciousnesses who are doing the arguing - is that they who argue do not really know what they are.

This applies to you also.

 

[bruto]

I would admit that I do not know just how consciousness works. Nobody really does. We do, however, have a fairly large body of evidence for where and when it works. If you could find some instance in which consciousness occurs without a living brain this would help the argument. If you could find some instance in which consciousness exists without occurring, it would help even more.