Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

[PainKiller]

I don't think we should stop looking for the divine within nature

There is nothing divine, from bottom up nature is messed up, cruel, twisted, unjust. There are organisms dying in nature every second, every minute. A few weeks ago I had some baby birds hatch from my garden, I spent a long time trying to make sure they were ok and that they survive. They were decapitated by magpies. You come back from work and find this on your garden patio, it is very disturbing. This is very upsetting...

I have personally held a baby rabbit in my arms, until his last breathe. His throat had been ripped open probably by a large bird or fox. I found him in a woodland on a path.

There is nothing divine in nature, anyone who thinks there is, is delusional and has probably never spent much time in nature, no offense.

You are searching for something that does not exist.

 

[Jodie]

I don't think I'm searching for something that doesn't exist because for good or bad, it's all a miraculous process IMO. I deal with natural processes everyday as a nurse midwife, even with those babies that don't survive. I appreciate how many things have to go right to have a viable newborn, whether animal or human. Let me assure you, I am amazed everyday that life exists on this planet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry if this has been posted, I've not kept up on this thread but, there was an interesting scientific evidence based show on today about NDEs. They went a long way toward showing just how the brain creates the experience, no magic or real afterlife involved.

Return From the Dead: Out of Body Experience on the Nat Geo channel.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay, you're pretty good at physics, how does Gerlich's research fall apart?

Wrong question.

 

[JayUtah]

I deal with natural processes everyday as a nurse midwife...

How much of your training for that profession included adjudicated education in quantum mechanics? That is not a rhetorical question.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't think I'm searching for something that doesn't exist because for good or bad, it's all a miraculous process IMO. I deal with natural processes everyday as a nurse midwife, even with those babies that don't survive. I appreciate how many things have to go right to have a viable newborn, whether animal or human. Let me assure you, I am amazed everyday that life exists on this planet.

That's very nice.

It still has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, offers no support to biocentrism, and does not even begin to establish even the possibility, let alone the reality, of consciousness continuing after death.

 

[Donn]

I don't think I'm searching for something that doesn't exist because for good or bad, it's all a miraculous process IMO. [Of the divine in nature]

To use miraculous in so mundane a manner, well — it blands it to paste. Miracles become that which happens all the time. May as well take rare as common; impossible is every other occurrence.

You mean it as important, but deploy it cheaply. If this is for purpose, to thrust duplicity deep into reason's gut, then you have been exposed; cutting with a cardboard sword to seem ardent in battle. If it's in error, look at the case and use better words.

 

[Jodie]

How much of your training for that profession included adjudicated education in quantum mechanics? That is not a rhetorical question.

Basic physics in high school. So what is the right question?

 

[Jodie]

That's very nice.

It still has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, offers no support to biocentrism, and does not even begin to establish even the possibility, let alone the reality, of consciousness continuing after death.

Neither does the NDE. If we do exist after death, and I do believe some part of us does, it would be without memories since memories are only relevant to brain function.

 

[Nonpareil]

Basic physics in high school.

So none, then.

Neither does the NDE. If we do exist after death, and I do believe some part of us does, it would be without memories since memories are only relevant to brain function.

Then why did you bring up biocentrism?

And, ignoring for the moment that you minus your memories, emotions, and everything else demonstrably tied to the brain is effectively not you, what evidence do you have to support that belief?

 

[Jodie]

To use miraculous in so mundane a manner, well — it blands it to paste. Miracles become that which happens all the time. May as well take rare as common; impossible is every other occurrence.

You mean it as important, but deploy it cheaply. If this is for purpose, to thrust duplicity deep into reason's gut, then you have been exposed; cutting with a cardboard sword to seem ardent in battle. If it's in error, look at the case and use better words.

First of all, since when is gestation and childbirth mundane? Secondly, don't tell me what I mean or don't mean because mind reading is a skill that hasn't been falsified.

 

[Donn]

First of all, since when is gestation and childbirth mundane? Secondly, don't tell me what I mean or don't mean because mind reading is a skill that hasn't been falsified.

It's not mind reading, it's reading. If you call mundane things miraculous, then you are misusing words. Mundane, too, has a meaning.

 

[Nonpareil]

First of all, since when is gestation and childbirth mundane?

Since literally the first organism capable of giving birth did so.

 

[Jodie]

So none, then.



Then why did you bring up biocentrism?

And, ignoring for the moment that you minus your memories, emotions, and everything else demonstrably tied to the brain is effectively not you, what evidence do you have to support that belief?

I brought up biocentrism because it states that consciousness creates the reality that we see, and without it, there would be no world, universe etc.....because the crux of the matter is whether consciousness can survive outside of the brain. Consciousness doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence so as we start out in life assimilating what we perceive, perhaps the same is true after death. The research I linked was circumstantial evidence for why I believe the way that I do, no one has definitive evidence for either position.

 

[Jodie]

Since literally the first organism capable of giving birth did so.

Then you have no understanding of what does or can go wrong to understand that a viable lifeform is not mundane. Did you know that 50% of all human pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that's just one of thousands of things that can go wrong, so the only reason we survived as a species was because of our fecundity? Just because you take it for granted doesn't make it mundane. If you applied Drake's equation to an infant's gestation and the first year of life it's miraculous that we are here.

 

[Turgor]

Then you have no understanding of what does or can go wrong to understand that a viable lifeform is not mundane. Did you know that 50% of all human pregnancies end in miscarriage and the only reason we survived as a species was because of our fecundity? Just because you take it for granted doesn't make it mundane.

about 4.3 babies were born every second in 2014 (source).

That suggests it is not just mundane but even ubiquitous, even if any specific baby being born is a significant event for the specific relatives of that baby, and for their friends.

 

[Jodie]

Did you bother to look at what it was 100 hundred years ago?

 

[Turgor]

Did you bother to look at what it was 100 hundred years ago?

If you go back far enough the birthrate of humans drops to 0 because we hadn't evolved yet. Now that would be a not-so-mundane occurence, evidence of a human being born in the cretacious.

But why should I look back when I have statistics about our current period that seem relevant to whether or not babies being born is a mundane occurence?

 

[Nonpareil]

I brought up biocentrism.....because the crux of the matter is whether consciousness can survive outside of the brain.

And yet biocentrism has absolutely no supporting evidence.

The research I linked was circumstantial evidence for why I believe the way that I do

No, it wasn't. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with biocentrism, or whether or not consciousness can exist outside of a brain.

no one has definitive evidence for either position.

Yes, we do.

Then you have no understanding of what does or can go wrong to understand that a viable lifeform is not mundane.

Yes, I do.

It's still mundane.

Just because you take it for granted doesn't make it mundane.

I don't think you understand what "mundane" means.

Or "miraculous", come to that.

 

[JayUtah]

Basic physics in high school.

So, none.

We already established that you hadn't studied linear algebra, nor could demonstrate any competence in it. It's amusing that you would insinuate a working understanding of quantum mechanics without any knowledge of the mathematics upon which it is based and without which it cannot be studied. A prerequisite to any quantum mechanics course at the college level is linear algebra up through eigenvalues and eigenvectors, which is generally second- or third-level linear algebra. In contrast you don't even know what "dimension" means in the context of this sort of math, and that's the first week of first-level.

Nor am I aware of any high school physics program -- even for advanced placement in science -- that even completes Newtonian physics up through physical dynamics, much less moves on to advanced topics such as electrodynamics. Physics majors in colleges that offer strong physics programs (e.g., Princeton, MIT, Stanford) don't even begin quantum mechanics until the sophomore year.

So no, I don't accept that you are competent in quantum mechanics based on your stated level of education and your inability to master the nomenclature.

Perhaps turning the tables would help you understand. As a single man, I know next to nothing about obstetrics or childbirth. My knowledge of obstetrics is limited to 12th-grade health. I've never witnessed a birth. Would you consider me qualified to deliver a baby? Would you consider me qualified to advise others on whether they were delivering babies correctly? Would you consider me an expert on what factors affect pregnancy and childbirth? Would you trust me to advise a woman on what activities and lifestyles would be appropriate while she is pregnant?

While I'm a reasonably intelligent man, I am not remotely qualified to engage in, or even meaningfully comment upon, your profession. I have no relevant foundational knowledge. I have no practical experience. What would you consider an appropriate response if you were to see me practicing midwifery, obstetrics, or nursing? What would you say if I dismissed your corrections by saying you obviously didn't understand the field?

Several of your arguments in this thread attempt to connect quantum mechanics -- a subject not considered general knowledge, nor especially easy even for experts to understand -- to various propositions that would generally fall under parapsychology and the supernatural. Specifically you suggest that aspects of quantum electrodynamics transcend the known properties of matter and bear in some way upon the traits you attribute to the supernatural, if not to prove them then at least to admit their possibility.

You have no appropriate foundational knowledge. You have no adjudicated training. You have absolutely no basis for asserting that the aspects of advanced physics to which you allude justify or even relate to the claims you make. You are relying upon a non sequitur and hoping that the obscurity of the sciences you invoke is sufficient to forestall criticism. The lack of foundation dooms your argument.

Your arguments that invoke physics typically break down into two parts: (1) a (mis)interpretation of the referenced work, and (2) a nonsensical application of the interpretation to some vaguely analogous parapsychology claim. When challenged, you ignore (2). You seem to consider it a foregone conclusion that your desired conclusion follows from the research. In discussing (1) you try to limit your critics to one of two rebuttals -- either that they must not understand the reference or that they are accusing the original author of error or misrepresentation.

At no point do you allow the proposition that you have misunderstood and misapplied advanced theoretical physics. This is quite hubristic given your lack of competence in it.

And no, this is not a personal attack or an ad hominem rebuttal. A key premise to your argument (whether you state it or not) is that you understand the relevant sciences and are applying them appropriately. I am challenging that premise.

So what is the right question?

One that doesn't presuppose what the objection to your argument is.