Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Peter May]

Wikipedia------ A near-death experience (NDE) refers to personal experiences associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. These phenomena are usually reported after an individual has been pronounced clinically dead or very close to death. --------According to a Gallup poll, approximately eight million Americans claim to have had a near-death experience.[13] Some commentators, such as Simpson,[14] claim that the number of near-death experiencers may be underestimated.------The earliest accounts of NDE can be traced to the Myth of Er, recorded in the 4th century BC by Plato's The Republic (10.614-10.621), wherein Plato describes a soldier telling of his near-death experiences.-

Absolute rubbish
Prove I'm wrong!

 

[Daylightstar]

... that data can be viewed as more reliable.

That is precisely why I don't report the data. However my claim is still solid. All it takes is others to also do the work.
...

What does this 'data' convey? How, exactly, did you obtain this 'data'?
If you already have pointed this out,please point me to it.

 

[Daylightstar]

Cadavers don't have a lot to say about consciousness.

That's all.

Most importantly, they are no longer conscious.

 

[Navigator]

You have yet to tell us what is not intelligent in your system.

For example, a spoon is not intelligent but is indicative of an intelligent process.

 

[Navigator]

What does this 'data' convey?

Consciousness Communication. Insight. Wisdom. Direction. Advice. Intelligence. Knowledge.

How, exactly, did you obtain this 'data'?

Through interaction afforded by the ideomotor effect. The particular medium I used to begin with was glass mirror etched with symbols.
The indicator most often used was an upside down shot glass with a shortened pencil facing point down, attached to the inside.
Most often I applied oil to the mirror surface to reduce friction.
This is a picture of one such device. I created a number of them. Sometimes using more than one at a time.

 

[Daylightstar]

Consciousness Communication. Insight. Wisdom. Direction. Advice. Intelligence. Knowledge.




Through interaction afforded by the ideomotor effect. The particular medium I used to begin with was glass mirror etched with symbols.
The indicator most often used was an upside down shot glass with a shortened pencil facing point down, attached to the inside.
Most often I applied oil to the mirror surface to reduce friction.
This is a picture of one such device. I created a number of them. Sometimes using more than one at a time.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9470[/qimg]

Thanks, Navigator.
Sounds like you're entertaining yourself with an ouija board there's no picture in your post though.

Could you give an example of what such data looks like?

 

[Belz...]

It is well-known that memory is unreliable.

Of course this is blatant nonsense

Really ? What did you eat for dinner on the 5th of January 2011 ?

Hell, if I ask you to tell me verbatim what you said today, you couldn't. As Steenkh said, memory is notoriously unreliable. Do you know why ? Because it's not a recorder. It associates sensations. It's not meant to be perfect because that's not what it was used for by our ancestors. We'd like it to be perfect now because it would be useful to us today, but knowledgeable people who know how memory works have found it to be crappy.

Why are you always on the wrong side of science ?

 

[Belz...]

Ok then! ...believe what you want. Just don't pretend they're facts, cause they're not. It's called religion.

You know, just once I'd like to see you use arguments instead of incredulity and appeals to ignorance.

I’ve said that neuroscience has no idea how the brain generates consciousness…

A lie does not become true after a certain number of repetitions.

 

[Navigator]

Thanks, Navigator.
Sounds like you're entertaining yourself with an ouija board

Not exactly. Sometimes it is entertaining, sometimes not so much. Also - in the context of this continuing discussion - the 'self' is the false self interacting with the real self. Read back to get a clearer understanding of what I am saying in that.
And no, it is not a 'ouija board' A ouija board looks like this:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/images/ouija-board.jpg

there's no picture in your post though.

I can see the picture of the image I have posted. I have no data on why you cannot, or advice on how you might rectify that.
eta:
I can click on the link in post 806 and that takes me to the picture...try that.

Could you give an example of what such data looks like?

Little point until you are able to see the pics I upload. If you could see the pic of the device, you will have some understanding of what the data might look like.

 

[Daylightstar]

Not exactly. Sometimes it is entertaining, sometimes not so much. Also - in the context of this continuing discussion - the 'self' is the false self interacting with the real self. Read back to get a clearer understanding of what I am saying in that.
And no, it is not a 'ouija board' A ouija board looks like this:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/images/ouija-board.jpg



I can see the picture of the image I have posted. I have no data on why you cannot, or advice on how you might rectify that.
eta:
I can click on the link in post 806 and that takes me to the picture...try that.



Little point until you are able to see the pics I upload. If you could see the pic of the device, you will have some understanding of what the data might look like.

My post 806 itself does not contain a link to an image.
Your post 805 as quoted by me in my post 806 , contains a link, although it does not show up in your original post 805.

When I quote your post 805, a link text shows up:
[_qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9470[/qimg_]
(underscores added to let the link text show)

No image is shown for me.

Perhaps you could attach the image to a post.

 

[dlorde]

...he's clearly demonstrated that the argument is not even remotely resolved...as so many here (including you) frequently try to argue.

Ah, well that's quite a different claim.

I agree that while someone argues in opposition you can say it isn't resolved; everyone is welcome to an opinion.

 

[bruto]

In the same way, if evidence is demanded, the evidence demanded must be able to be produced.
"What kind of evidence will you accept" is a reasonable question.




Take the following as a jocular journey of the mind and don't get too serious about it:

Consciousness is a thing. Just as the process of evolution is a thing.
Even 'nothing' is a thing, because consciousness itself determines that and while it (nothing) is absent of anything (thus can be called 'nothing'), this process is exactly what what distinguishes nothing as something.

The one thing which can determine nothing as a thing can only do so if it experiences nothing as something.

Therefore, consciousness has the ability to experience nothing and report that this has occurred.

In fact we all remember experiencing nothing, before we experienced something.

If we didn't, then how is it that we know so much about nothing?



Q: If consciousness experiences nothing, then because consciousness is within nothing and experiencing it as nothing, does that make nothing something?

A: Yes. Consciousness has determined it as being something and has thus labelled it accordingly. It seems to be something consciousness likes doing. Naming things. It even names itself.
Nothing else which exists, does this.




It exists. Therefore it is something.

You are consciousness. Do you consider yourself to being something?

Is it really important making such distinction? How does it help?

Without wasting too much time to answer in detail, I continue to assert that nothing is not a thing. Barring the limitations of language to express nothingness, if nothing is a thing that exists, then, to put it succinctly, nothing exists. All our ontological words become meaningless. I seem to recall that Gorgias wrestled with this paradox once. I had hoped we might have gotten beyond it. I think it would be prudent to abandon it. An insurmountable obstacle of understanding looms.

 

[dlorde]

Yes so there are different groups one can choose depending on what suits their particular bias. The groups might overlap in agreement in some details but it is really just opinion after all.

Yes, although some opinions are based on more knowledge, experience, and understanding than others. It doesn't guarantee they're right of course, but I find Carroll's argument the more persuasive.

How 'shortly after'?

Within a couple of days. Probably the next day. It was before I realised most people aren't really interested in your amazing dreams, they're just being polite.

Not just through my memory and subsequent contemplation of experiencing it but also my communications process through ideomotor regarding the experiences.

You do realise that ideomotor just means 'unconscious movement', don't you? [it's just that your usage of it reads oddly].

Apparently (or rumor has it) hypnosis also reports successful recall and it is very clear. The person recalls so vividly that they are literally reliving the experience.
If true, that goes to show that memory is still stored as precise and sharply as was experienced. Normal recall is the fuzzy thing.

The recalled experience under hypnosis may seem clear and vivid, but is actually less reliable than normal episodic recall. It's been shown that in a suggestible state of that kind, leading questions or slight hints can cause a subject to confabulate completely novel events, complete with seemingly convincing detail. These might be of interest: When Suggestibility is a Liability; How Memories are Distorted & Invented.

ETA: OK, I now see you were using some ouija-style device, your usage of ideomotor makes more sense.

 

[turingtest]

What would you accept as evidence? I am finding that is the best question to ask those who consistently use that line in their argument.

Right- what makes it such a great question is the way the framing of it lets you slither away from any actual answers to it, by shifting the burden on to others to define what your evidence should be. I can't help but notice the way you ignored my answer, so here it is again-

Since you apparently accept the evidence for evolution itself, what you need, as evidence for an "intelligence" behind it, is the kind- empirical and testable- that's comparable to what supports evolution- but not for evolution itself, for the separate intelligence. If you're simply going to assert that they are the same thing, then you're just begging the question by assertion. Faith is fine, but don't try to pass it off as "evidently" if you can't show the evidence that, by definition, is needed to make it so.

That's the best anyone can do by way of telling you what's acceptable as evidence, short of telling you what the evidence is- and that, of course, is your burden.

 

[turingtest]

Is it just me, or is annnnoid simply indulging in the wordiest "god consciousness of the gaps" argument ever?

 

[Navigator]

My post 806 itself does not contain a link to an image.
Your post 805 as quoted by me in my post 806 , contains a link, although it does not show up in your original post 805.

When I quote your post 805, a link text shows up:
[_qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9470[/qimg_]
(underscores added to let the link text show)

No image is shown for me.

Perhaps you could attach the image to a post.

I thought that is what I was doing.

so the link to the image is this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9470

when I click that it takes me to the image.

 

[Navigator]

Without wasting too much time to answer in detail, I continue to assert that nothing is not a thing. Barring the limitations of language to express nothingness, if nothing is a thing that exists, then, to put it succinctly, nothing exists. All our ontological words become meaningless. I seem to recall that Gorgias wrestled with this paradox once. I had hoped we might have gotten beyond it. I think it would be prudent to abandon it. An insurmountable obstacle of understanding looms.

Perhaps the answer is in separating the words in Some thing and in no thing?

Perhaps not.

 

[dlorde]

so the link to the image is this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9470

when I click that it takes me to the image.

That takes me to a blank page, as did the previous link. Why not just include the image in the post?

 

[Navigator]

You do realise that ideomotor just means 'unconscious movement', don't you? [it's just that your usage of it reads oddly].

If so then it is not an altogether accurate description then. The word is misleading. It was likely coined by those who don't understand what is taking place in relation to how the movement it is being used, but think they do.
Whatever, it works. That is the point.

Within a couple of days. Probably the next day.

So how is telling others of the experience going to be different than reminding oneself, within that time frame?
Recording it asap would seem the best idea.

The recalled experience under hypnosis may seem clear and vivid, but is actually less reliable than normal episodic recall. It's been shown that in a suggestible state of that kind, leading questions or slight hints can cause a subject to confabulate completely novel events, complete with seemingly convincing detail. These might be of interest:

Thanks
Perhaps the key then is to not use leading questions or hints.
I have not ever been regressed through hypnosis and don't know that much about it. What I have read suggests the individual can go back to the memory and it is vivid - literally relived.
Which of course would make a good case for memories being stored intakes and retrievable in all their vividness. Conscious recall under non hypnotic circumstance would remain fuzzy.

 

[Navigator]

That takes me to a blank page, as did the previous link. Why not just include the image in the post?

Like I said, I though I had. How can the same link take me to the image and take you to a blank page?

I will try again.