Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

[Jodie]

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?

Because we are currently going through evolutionary changes, combined with cultural and social changes, that are decreasing our birth rate world wide. If you look at the stats you can see the dramatic drop, which is fine for now since we have issues with overpopulation, but it won't be fine if it continues into the 22nd century. Combine that with the 6th wave of mass extinction that has started and our species just might be an early victim.

 

[Jodie]

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.



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

Your arguments might hold more weight had I not prefaced everything I've said as being my opinion. However, I can read, and I do enjoy reading about physics even if I'm dependent on the author's interpretation of the mathematics involved, knowing full well that it is strictly an interpretation. You can't separate reality, consciousness, what we might be without bodies without including physics since physics is a natural science. And yes, your post is an ad hominem rebuttal because you suggest through your criticism that everyone must have graduate school level knowledge of topics to participate in this discussion.

 

[bruto]

Because we are currently going through evolutionary changes, combined with cultural and social changes, that are decreasing our birth rate world wide. If you look at the stats you can see the dramatic drop, which is fine for now since we have issues with overpopulation, but it won't be fine if it continues into the 22nd century. Combine that with the 6th wave of mass extinction that has started and our species just might be an early victim.

Jodie, do you have any evidence that the decline in birth rate is biological rather than cultural? I really don't know, but it was my impression that the birth rate is still pretty high among those who perceive it as an advantage.

 

[Jodie]

And yet biocentrism has absolutely no supporting evidence.

Not so, I've read the books, have you? If you disagree with what the authors' suggest can you explain why you disagree?

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

If it affects reality then quantum mechanics is involved.

Yes, we do.

No we don't, if you think so then that is simply giving more weight to the evidence that backs up your belief system.

Yes, I do.

It's still mundane.

I don't think you do, you simply think it's mundane, there is a difference.

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

Or "miraculous", come to that.

I believe we both understand, I simply don't agree with you.

 

[JayUtah]

Your arguments might hold more weight had I not prefaced everything I've said as being my opinion.

Physics doesn't care about your opinion. Or mine, for that matter. That's what makes it such a powerful science.

However, I can read, and I do enjoy reading about physics...

That's cute. You're still no more a physicist than I am an obstetrician.

You can't separate reality, consciousness, what we might be without bodies without including physics since physics is a natural science.

Handwaving. That physics is a "natural science" doesn't mean it supports all the hogwash you wish to read into it.

And yes, your post is an ad hominem rebuttal because you suggest through your criticism that everyone must have graduate school level knowledge of topics to participate in this discussion.

I suggest no more earth-shattering an idea than that one should know what one is talking about. You didn't answer my questions about fraudulently misrepresenting your profession, so I can't really take your latest objection seriously.

You're invoking a science that takes years to master, and you don't know the first thing about it. Literally you don't know the first thing. Why should we indulge your ignorance? Nothing about participation in this discussion ostensibly requires knowledge of advanced physics. You're the one who brings it up, voluntarily without any provocation. Why do you think you can do that and just get a pass? If you don't know the science, you will be taken appropriately to task by those who do. Welcome to the real world.

 

[Nonpareil]

Not so, I've read the books, have you?

I haven't gone through Scientology initiation, either, but I know there is no Xenu.

There is no evidence whatsoever for biocentrism. If you disagree, present it.

If it affects reality then quantum mechanics is involved.

Only in the most trivial sense. Gravity technically has an effect on my desktop computer, but it doesn't enter into the conversation when we discuss how it works.

Quantum mechanics does not offer a mechanism by which consciousness can exist outside of the brain. Nor does it offer evidence to support biocentrism.

It is irrelevant.

No we don't, if you think so then that is simply giving more weight to the evidence that backs up your belief system.

No. I am honestly appraising the evidence that there is.

It is definitively against both biocentrism and the idea of consciousness existing outside of the brain.

I don't think you do, you simply think it's mundane, there is a difference.

It is mundane. There is no hyperbole here, no argument to be had. The act of childbirth is not supernatural or in violation of any laws of physics. It is completely, utterly, absolutely mundane.

If you want to use hyperbole to describe children as "little miracles", that is your business. But do not attempt to act as though that description carries any weight whatsoever in discussions like this.

 

[Jodie]

Jodie, do you have any evidence that the decline in birth rate is biological rather than cultural? I really don't know, but it was my impression that the birth rate is still pretty high among those who perceive it as an advantage.

Yes, as with all research, you have those scientists that say there are biological reasons (evolutionary) and then those that refute it. I'll link what I know about to support that we are undergoing evolutionary changes that are affecting our fertility rates:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26888167

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150415125817.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822424/

There are about 300 + more articles that discuss research regarding the changes in male fertility alone, much more regarding female fertility. They are trying to find an association between pesticides and plastics as a reason for the change. The causes are certainly multifactorial and related to our industrialized society. If you dig through the research, physiological changes are noted but specific causes aren't necessarily identified. The changes include an increase in aggressive sperm that affects the timing for fertilizing the egg that results in a blighted ovum, which is the main reason for the 50% miscarriage rate that we are seeing these days. The other issues with female fertility are early puberty, early onset of menopause in conjunction with societal changes that foster delayed childbearing, increased incidence for PCOS, and how the changes in sperm have caused an increase in an immune response in the endometrial tissue within the uterus which affects implantation. I'm not sure how or if these changes have impacted areas significantly yet where fertility rates still remain high.

 

[Jodie]

I haven't gone through Scientology initiation, either, but I know there is no Xenu.

There is no evidence whatsoever for biocentrism. If you disagree, present it.

It's not based on anything that isn't known scientifically, such as my favorite multiworld theory. It's based on biological research related to neuroscience, brain architecture, physics in how the mind interfaces with the exterior world, and humans as the observer. And yes, you do need to read at least some of the source material before you reject it, otherwise, you are treating science as a belief system and not as a process for reasoning.

Example, sing this verse to the tune of "Jesus Loves Me"

"I'm a human, yes I know, because my science tells me so!"

There is no fundamental difference in the mind set.

Only in the most trivial sense. Gravity technically has an effect on my desktop computer, but it doesn't enter into the conversation when we discuss how it works.

What do you suppose is holding the molecules together that make up you?

Quantum mechanics does not offer a mechanism by which consciousness can exist outside of the brain. Nor does it offer evidence to support biocentrism.

If an entire universe can evolve from nothing I don't think you can just dismiss that supposition out of hand. You can't separate physics from biology or from chemistry, which all play a part in how our bodies work

It is irrelevant.

In this case, I think it's simply a lack of recognizing the relevance.

No. I am honestly appraising the evidence that there is.

It is definitively against both biocentrism and the idea of consciousness existing outside of the brain.

No, it isn't. If you think so, show me your evidence.

It is mundane. There is no hyperbole here, no argument to be had. The act of childbirth is not supernatural or in violation of any laws of physics. It is completely, utterly, absolutely mundane.

There is nothing dull about childbirth and I see it as a spiritual experience. It is an honor to be given the responsibility of nuturing a pregnancy and bringing new life into the world.

If you want to use hyperbole to describe children as "little miracles", that is your business. But do not attempt to act as though that description carries any weight whatsoever in discussions like this.

My opinion on that is not based on the spiritual but on the statistical likelihood that anyone ever manages to produce viable offspring given the odds. That does indeed make it miraculous.

 

[Jodie]

Physics doesn't care about your opinion. Or mine, for that matter. That's what makes it such a powerful science.

I don't disagree

That's cute. You're still no more a physicist than I am an obstetrician.

I don't claim to be.

Handwaving. That physics is a "natural science" doesn't mean it supports all the hogwash you wish to read into it.

You keep saying that but you never go into any depth about why you think that my thoughts are hogwash.

I suggest no more earth-shattering an idea than that one should know what one is talking about. You didn't answer my questions about fraudulently misrepresenting your profession, so I can't really take your latest objection seriously.

I have no idea what you are talking about, how have I misrepresented anything?

You're invoking a science that takes years to master, and you don't know the first thing about it. Literally you don't know the first thing. Why should we indulge your ignorance? Nothing about participation in this discussion ostensibly requires knowledge of advanced physics. You're the one who brings it up, voluntarily without any provocation. Why do you think you can do that and just get a pass? If you don't know the science, you will be taken appropriately to task by those who do. Welcome to the real world.

I'm still waiting on the science from those who supposedly know and remonstrate the most but I haven't seen it yet. All I've seen is a bunch of posturing.

 

[Nonpareil]

It's not based on anything that isn't known scientifically

Except the claim that the universe exists because of life.

It's based on biological research related to neuroscience, brain architecture, physics in how the mind interfaces with the exterior world, and humans as the observer.

Oh, good. That makes proving me wrong very easy, then: simply present said research.

And yes, you do need to read at least some of the source material before you reject it, otherwise, you are treating science as a belief system and not as a process for reasoning.

No more so than I need to read Dianetics before rejecting Scientology, the Bible before rejecting Christianity, or the various books by homeopaths which try to pretend that their nonsense is based on science. I know the principles. They are demonstrably false.

If you disagree, present your evidence.

What do you suppose is holding the molecules together that make up you?

If an entire universe can evolve from nothing I don't think you can just dismiss that supposition out of hand. You can't separate physics from biology or from chemistry, which all play a part in how our bodies work

And yet the strong nuclear force, gravity, and so forth are all irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of neuroscience and consciousness.

I would ask you to present your evidence regarding quantum mechanics being a special case, but as has already been established, you do not have the education necessary to do so.

In this case, I think it's simply a lack of recognizing the relevance.

Then present your evidence.

No, it isn't. If you think so, show me your evidence.

Literally everything we know about humans, life in general, and consciousness.

I must repeat this. I am not being hyperbolic. Literally everything we know indicates that there is no life after death and consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain. Indeed, as consciousness is brain activity, the idea itself is nonsensical and self-contradictory.

There is nothing dull about childbirth

I did not say there was. I said that childbirth was mundane, which, in this context, very clearly means "not supernatural".

My opinion on that is not based on the spiritual but on the statistical likelihood that anyone ever manages to produce viable offspring given the odds.

Which, given the existence of humans, are quite good.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't claim to be.

I disagree. Many times you have told your critics they must not understand the science or the referenced articles if they don't agree with your interpretation of them. You are clearly trying to argue from a position of knowledge, but you don't have the knowledge.

When it comes to advanced theoretical physics you are undeniably a layman, and your hobbyist dabblings are not a good enough basis for proposing novel, original applications of it. Or for accusing your critics of some shortfall of understanding.

No one is forcing you to appeal to one of the most complicated and counterintuitive sciences we know. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be seen as some sort of physics guru, but you don't want to have gone through what everyone else has who knows the science.

You keep saying that but you never go into any depth about why you think that my thoughts are hogwash.

Go back and read the middle part of this thread. I've refuted your hogwash at length, only to be ignored then as now.

I have no idea what you are talking about, how have I misrepresented anything?

You misrepresent practically every example of quantum mechanics that you cite. You don't know the difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves. You wrongly believe quantum effects were thought to be isolated to individual particles. You don't know what "dimension" means in the context of quantum electrodynamics, which means you don't know what "degrees of freedom" are, and those are crucial to properly understanding Gerlich's findings, which have nothing even remotely to do with "biocentrism" or any other supernatural nonsense you've proposed over this thread.

See the previous portions of this thread for the details.

I'm still waiting on the science from those who supposedly know and remonstrate the most but I haven't seen it yet. All I've seen is a bunch of posturing.

You're the one blustering. You're the one bringing up quantum mechanics and claiming it supports this or that. Most of your arguments are simple non sequiturs, to which no affirmative rebuttal is possible or necessary. You are the claimant, and you bear the burden to show -- to any degree of detail your critics deem necessary -- how the references you cite support the claims you're making supposedly on that basis. And no one is going to let you just handwave that from a position of admitted ignorance, no matter how loudly you scream "ad hominem!" at them.

 

[JayUtah]

Which, given the existence of humans, are quite good.

This sounds a lot like the "special snowflake" arguments that are being proposed in other threads in this forum.

 

[PainKiller]

Jodie can you please explain in simple words what evidence (case studies) show us evidence suggestive of life after death. Near-death experiences are subjective experiences they can never give us empirical scientific evidence for life after death. Can you tell me what objective scientific evidence you have (I am not interested in anecdotes). Please don't list fraudulent mediums or ghost stories...

Its 7am in the morning and I have had no sleep, so I don't have a chance right now to read through every page on this thread... so in brief please. Tar.

 

[Jodie]

I disagree. Many times you have told your critics they must not understand the science or the referenced articles if they don't agree with your interpretation of them. You are clearly trying to argue from a position of knowledge, but you don't have the knowledge.

When it comes to advanced theoretical physics you are undeniably a layman, and your hobbyist dabblings are not a good enough basis for proposing novel, original applications of it. Or for accusing your critics of some shortfall of understanding.

You've yet to show me how I'm wrong.

No one is forcing you to appeal to one of the most complicated and counterintuitive sciences we know. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be seen as some sort of physics guru, but you don't want to have gone through what everyone else has who knows the science.

I've never claimed to be a physics guru, that would be your claim.

Go back and read the middle part of this thread. I've refuted your hogwash at length, only to be ignored then as now.

Sure, about dimensions and how we are all one, existing simultaneously in multiple dimensions, hence consciousness could exist outside our bodies. You refuted it but that wasn't proof or even evidence.

You misrepresent practically every example of quantum mechanics that you cite. You don't know the difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves. You wrongly believe quantum effects were thought to be isolated to individual particles. You don't know what "dimension" means in the context of quantum electrodynamics, which means you don't know what "degrees of freedom" are, and those are crucial to properly understanding Gerlich's findings, which have nothing even remotely to do with "biocentrism" or any other supernatural nonsense you've proposed over this thread.

So explain what they are if you are so concerned with how I'm presenting the concepts as I understand them.

You're the one blustering. You're the one bringing up quantum mechanics and claiming it supports this or that. Most of your arguments are simple non sequiturs, to which no affirmative rebuttal is possible or necessary. You are the claimant, and you bear the burden to show -- to any degree of detail your critics deem necessary -- how the references you cite support the claims you're making supposedly on that basis. And no one is going to let you just handwave that from a position of admitted ignorance, no matter how loudly you scream "ad hominem!" at them.

I owe you absolutely nothing. I've stated opinions only, I make no claims to my expertise, but you, on the other hand have made those claims and yet.............nothing.

You can continue to post "You're Wrong" in the biggest font available but it still means nothing unless you demonstrate for the audience how that person is wrong.

 

[Nonpareil]

I owe you absolutely nothing. I've stated opinions only

No, you have made claims of fact.

Incorrect claims, such as "biocentrism has supporting evidence" and "quantum mechanics indicates the primacy of consciousness/supports biocentrism". And you have been corrected on them.

 

[Jodie]

Jodie can you please explain in simple words what evidence (case studies) show us evidence suggestive of life after death. Near-death experiences are subjective experiences they can never give us empirical scientific evidence for life after death. Can you tell me what objective scientific evidence you have (I am not interested in anecdotes). Please don't list fraudulent mediums or ghost stories...

Its 7am in the morning and I have had no sleep, so I don't have a chance right now to read through every page on this thread... so in brief please. Tar.

To my knowledge there are no case studies suggestive for life after death. What you get are anecdotal stories that are all different depending on the person. The largest study being done now is looking for patterns in what people remember after cardiac arrest but it still won't be hard core evidence even if patterns are ever established.

What I post here is what I consider to be circumstantial evidence only at best, the latest being Biocentrism and the "Universe from Nothing" research. I'm also fond of the many worlds theory and the idea of multiple dimensions. I don't think we exist here completely trapped in a body and I see our minds/bodies as being a tool to use to observe this reality.

I base some of that opinion on the research showing that we can perceive ourselves as outside of our own bodies. The conclusion is that this an illusion but I also think it is equally possible that being limited to our bodies might also be an illusion. They never address that in these types of studies, it just seems to be a foregone conclusion that we exist only in our body.

I also borrow ideas from AI research and research in biology specifically concerning neuroscience and psychology. I'm not thrilled with the idea of transhumanism but if you are to consider that future possibility, you also have to consider consciousness that can exist outside of the human body assuming that consciousness is what we think of as self awareness.

There is no way to discuss this in simplistic terms. However, I don't think you can strictly look at life after death through one lens of science, be that physics, biology, chemistry, or even psychology and say, " Ok, here is your evidence for or against life after death or for life without a body".

 

[Donn]

What I post here is what I consider to be circumstantial evidence only at best..

Why bother, here of all places? You should have the idea, by now, that circumstance and anecdote are all flawed ways of reasoning about a position.

Have your beliefs. State them such. Cease this spluttering cough of pseudo expertise in science. What you're doing is writing dull science fiction by drawing from what inspires you — however, this process in lesser hands always denigrates its very inspiration.

Yours are lesser hands.

Now, hold your ire: so are mine. I'm not educated enough to venture any opinion about science, often feeling lost in a sea of technobabble and impossible math. Because I know where I stand, it grates to see others of same putting on airs.

 

[steenkh]

What I post here is what I consider to be circumstantial evidence only at best, the latest being Biocentrism and the "Universe from Nothing" research. I'm also fond of the many worlds theory and the idea of multiple dimensions.

From one layman to another: Biocentrism is as far as I understand a hypothesis invented in order to support the idea of consciousness outside bodies, it is not evidence for it. "Universe from nothing" has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness, and it is no so in science that if one controversial hypothesis turns out to be true, then every other controversial hypothesis must also be true. The Many-World-Interpretation does not mean that lots of other worlds actually exist, or that everything is possible, and the extra dimensions in string theory has nothing to do with parallel universes.

Sorry, that is how I see it.

I don't think we exist here completely trapped in a body and I see our minds/bodies as being a tool to use to observe this reality.

I think it would be great if you are right, but I just cannot see any credible evidence to support it.

 

[JayUtah]

I also borrow ideas from AI research and research in biology specifically concerning neuroscience and psychology.

I'm not going to address you use of biology.

I am, however, very qualified to evaluate your attempt to invoke artificial intelligence research to support your claims. You may remember that you didn't do very well at showing a mastery of the relevant concepts, and ended up making outrageous claims. And yes, before you fling your standard comeback, there were detailed rebuttals from me.

Your "borrowing" of ideas from various sciences you haven't mastered to support your beliefs seems to be a wholesale misappropriation. You simply declare that those sciences say what you need them to say, and then try to shift the burden of proof when someone objects.

Unlike Donn, I am professionally and academically qualified to address many of the scientific topics you raise. I agree with his characterization that you're not doing anything that could reasonably be called science or scientific. You're simply writing weak science fiction and praying that your reader willfully suspends his disbelief.

 

[Nonpareil]

What you get are anecdotal stories that are all different depending on the person.

Which are not evidence.

What I post here is what I consider to be circumstantial evidence only at best, the latest being Biocentrism and the "Universe from Nothing" research. I'm also fond of the many worlds theory and the idea of multiple dimensions. I don't think we exist here completely trapped in a body and I see our minds/bodies as being a tool to use to observe this reality.

Unfortunately, in order to carry any weight at all, you must be able to present some sort of actual evidence that these things say what you think they do and that these things are actually true.

I base some of that opinion on the research showing that we can perceive ourselves as outside of our own bodies. The conclusion is that this an illusion but I also think it is equally possible that being limited to our bodies might also be an illusion.

And you are wrong.

They never address that in these types of studies, it just seems to be a foregone conclusion that we exist only in our body.

Well, it's a conclusion, certainly.