Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

[JayUtah]

You don't observe tone or body language...

Asked and answered. If you can't write effectively, choose a different way to express yourself.

No, Nonpareil's knowledge of nuclear medicine is lacking.

You specifically questioned his knowledge of AI research, a topic we determined months ago you really know nothing about. By the way, are you claiming expertise in nuclear medicine?

The only person I've seen that has a problem with my posts in this thread is you.

Where is that fantasy coming from?

This topic shouldn't engender the volumes of posts that you've directed towards me...

It's not the topic. It's your passive-aggressive approach to the scientific aspects of the topic. Please tell the world exactly what volume of writing is objectively suitable to your statements. Are you trying to shame your critics away from a thorough examination of your statements?

...attacking me, rather than the argument...

Argument? Don't you mean opinions and assumptions?

If you feel you have been inappropriately attacked, submit my posts for moderation.

I can only assume that it is the topic that bothers you and you would prefer that I shut up about it.

Asked and answered. You assume far too much about your critics, and you fall all over yourself trying to put those assumptions in their mouths.

If someone is unwilling to discuss a topic...

People are unwilling to discuss the topic on your passive-aggressive terms. By and large people oppose your misuse of science to support your beliefs. I agree with that opposition. You base your opinions and assumptions on misguided and inexpert interpretations of sciences you invoke. No one forces you to try to explain your beliefs scientifically. But if you choose to do so, and choose to do it on a skeptic forum, you will properly be taken to task if you err. This is appropriate.

 

[Jodie]

Are these scientific reasons or, shall we say, private and intuitive reasons? You don't have to lay them out if you don't want to. But the problem is that historically speaking, trying to find scientific justifications for conclusions that aren't scientific observations.

I hear what you are saying Jay, no, they weren't intuitive assumption type things like dreams. It was just a couple of incidents that happened that logically can't happen without getting into all of the details.

Your error is to believe that the sciences you choose to emphasize are malleable enough to support those conclusions. You will literally have more success if you don't try to use science inappropriately. Now I can't speak for all skeptics, but there is a certain respect given to people who believe things for personal reasons and don't try to pretend there is an objective reason to believe them when there isn't.

My aim is to try understand how something works. It has to be related to the sciences in some way even if our level of scientific understanding doesn't reflect that yet. Afterall, the purpose of the scientific method is to find meaning in all the chaos. Right or wrong, I'ld rather look to science for answers than some fairy tale.

The difference between you and your critics is that you are only half scientific. You're trying to mix the natural and the supernatural, and you are crapping all over science to do so. In contrast your critics are being entirely scientific.

That might matter if we were talking about climate change but we are talking about life after death when we aren't certain exactly what the life part is yet.

 

[JayUtah]

The latest argument was about my interpretation of what an observer actually means when discussing physics. Rather than correct me when I asked for clarification you went into diatribes about my expertise...

Asked and answered. Your "latest" argument was promptly addressed, for which you expressed gratitude. The arguments you're complaining about, where your expertise was called into question, were the much broader concepts that cannot be summarized in a post or two. I told you how to get that education.

Your larger gripe appears to derive from the outrageous concept that you should actually acquire some competence in the fields you invoke and suggest support your beliefs. You demand that people tell you in detail how you're wrong, but that can only be done after you have acquired the proper foundational knowledge. You say you want to be corrected, but you take no responsibility yourself for your own education.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes, just like I know water runs out of a pipe into my bath tub but I couldn't tell you what pipe to fix if it was broken.

False analogy.

You have no evidence for life after death.

I have my reasons for believing that there is more to this world than we understand.

I'm sure you do. But no one cares.

Unless you have evidence to support those beliefs, they carry precisely zero weight in this discussion.

You don't observe tone or body language in forum posts and your approach is argumentative where as I'm looking for discussion, especially with topics like these that have no evidence to support either position.

There is evidence to support one position. It just isn't yours, so you like to pretend that it isn't there by saying "yes well if magic is real then maybe it could work".

And this is an argument. This is a forum where arguments take place. That is rather the point. If you have a position, you should be able to present an argument to support it, and be able to rebut arguments against it. And yes, this is a form of discussion. It may not be one that you particularly like, but if you are going to post on a forum dedicated to skepticism and rationality, you should expect this sort of thing.

No, Nonpareil's knowledge of nuclear medicine is lacking.

You did not question my knowledge of nuclear medicine. You questioned my knowledge of AI research - which, while not an expert, I do have some education in.

As for nuclear medicine, I very much doubt that you are much more knowledgeable there than anyone else here would be - and it doesn't matter anyway, as this is yet another field that has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not consciousness persists after death.

The only person I've seen that has a problem with my posts in this thread is you.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

 

[Nonpareil]

That might matter if we were talking about climate change but we are talking about life after death when we aren't certain exactly what the life part is yet.

Standard god of the gaps nonsense.

Lack of a full, precise definition does not preclude the possibility of a functional definition.

By any functional definition of "life", we know that there is no life after death.

 

[Jodie]

Asked and answered. If you can't write effectively, choose a different way to express yourself.

See, you are not attacking the argument, you are attacking my style.

You specifically questioned his knowledge of AI research, a topic we determined months ago you really know nothing about. By the way, are you claiming expertise in nuclear medicine?

Not at all but when someone states that physics isn't involved in biology then they are incorrect, period.

Where is that fantasy coming from?

The consciousness that resides inside my brain

It's not the topic. It's your passive-aggressive approach to the scientific aspects of the topic. Please tell the world exactly what volume of writing is objectively suitable to your statements. Are you trying to shame your critics away from a thorough examination of your statements?

No, you simply don't like what I'm saying so you question an expertise that I don't claim to have, then it's the way I express myself, and now I'm shaming you, since your the only critic that I seem to have. This has absolutely nothing to do with life after death which has very little scientific evidence available for either position.

If you feel you have been inappropriately attacked, submit my posts for moderation.

I'ld rather address it directly with you in the context of the topic of this thread

Asked and answered. You assume far too much about your critics, and you fall all over yourself trying to put those assumptions in their mouths.

That is what you've done.

People are unwilling to discuss the topic on your passive-aggressive terms. By and large people oppose your misuse of science to support your beliefs. I agree with that opposition. You base your opinions and assumptions on misguided and inexpert interpretations of sciences you invoke. No one forces you to try to explain your beliefs scientifically. But if you choose to do so, and choose to do it on a skeptic forum, you will properly be taken to task if you err. This is appropriate.

You mean you, I don't see any other people having as big an issue with my style as you seem to be having. And you have deemed yourself as appropriately taking me to task? I believe you need to re-evaluate your motives.

 

[JayUtah]

It was just a couple of incidents that happened that logically can't happen without getting into all of the details.

I assume you're referring to your dream in which your mother appeared, perhaps among other things. Since I know about the dream and not the other things, let's stick with that for an example.

My aim is to try understand how something works. It has to be related to the sciences in some way even if our level of scientific understanding doesn't reflect that yet.

Science already explains your dream. It just doesn't explain it in the way you like. Rather than accept a psychology explanation, you postulate a bunch of nonsense that vaguely alludes to quantum theory in order to explain it in a way that lets you believe in supernatural concepts. It is that misuse and postulation that irks your critics, not the topic per se.

I'ld rather look to science for answers than some fairy tale.

Then don't lash out at your critics when they shoot down your desired explanations. They know science. The problem is that you won't let go of the fairy tale. You want to rewrite the fairy tail in scientific formulae to make it less fantastical. It just doesn't work that way. You can't use the perception of mystery in esoteric sciences to create allowances for fairy-tale notions.

That might matter if we were talking about climate change but we are talking about life after death when we aren't certain exactly what the life part is yet.

Sure, you can point to all manner of uncertainly in the topics you raise. The skeptical approach is to stick with what can be observed, but that's not really the conundrum. The problem arises when you invoke sciences you haven't mastered, and parlay your lack of understanding of them as reasons to hold onto your particular interpretation of the uncertainties about which you have formulated your beliefs.

A vast majority of the people on the planet don't understand advanced theoretical physics. You're one of them. And that's not really anything to be ashamed of, but you can't pretend that everyone you come in contact with is similarly benighted. Therefore you can't pretend that not all your critics can't see the problems with your invocations of science.

 

[bruto]

The water pipe analogy seems like a very poor one.

You don't understand how your bathtub works, but someone else certainly does.

 

[JayUtah]

See, you are not attacking the argument, you are attacking my style.

I'm disputing a point you raised. You choose a purely textual forum in which to express yourself, and then complain that your critics are unfair because they can't see your nonverbal communication. A reader might conclude that you are contriving excuses to blame your critics for impropriety.

Not at all but when someone states that physics isn't involved in biology then they are incorrect, period.

What does this have to do with either nuclear medicine or AI research? Physics is a mother science; it applies to nearly everything. That doesn't mean your concept of physics applies to biology in the way you insinuate it does. You reproduced Lanza's nonsense and call it physics and biology, but it's neither. It's new-age hogwash that alludes to scientific concepts but fails to achieve scientific validity.

Further, there is a difference between advanced theoretical physics and classical physics. Appeals to theoretical physics, specifically invoking its esoteric and little-understood properties, to support controversial ideas in biology is not the same as noting that biology requires only classical physics to make it work.

The consciousness that resides inside my brain.

You are claiming no one else has a problem with your approach and posting style. Are you really claiming that as a matter of fact?

This has absolutely nothing to do with life after death which has very little scientific evidence available for either position.

Yet you're the one invoking scientific topics and suggesting they support your beliefs. This implies that you have appropriate knowledge to make that suggestion. If you do not and don't claim to, why is it such a problem that people who do know the sciences dispute your application of them?

I'd rather address it directly with you in the context of the topic of this thread.

The Member Agreement specifically forbids personal attacks. You claim I am making personal attacks. Are you uncomfortable with someone else weighing in on whether that's true or not?

And you have deemed yourself as appropriately taking me to task? I believe you need to re-evaluate your motives.

You are not an expert on my motives. Principally, I object to the misuse of science to support irrelevant beliefs.

 

[Jodie]

False analogy.

You have no evidence for life after death.

And you have no evidence to support that life doesn't exist after death

I'm sure you do. But no one cares.

Then don't respond.

Unless you have evidence to support those beliefs, they carry precisely zero weight in this discussion.

Likewise.

There is evidence to support one position. It just isn't yours, so you like to pretend that it isn't there by saying "yes well if magic is real then maybe it could work".

No there isn't, if you think there is evidence to the contrary then link it. I am not the one typing the word magic in any of my posts

And this is an argument. This is a forum where arguments take place. That is rather the point. If you have a position, you should be able to present an argument to support it, and be able to rebut arguments against it. And yes, this is a form of discussion. It may not be one that you particularly like, but if you are going to post on a forum dedicated to skepticism and rationality, you should expect this sort of thing.

If you disagree then you should be able to present your evidence rather than falling back on " I don't have to."

You did not question my knowledge of nuclear medicine. You questioned my knowledge of AI research - which, while not an expert, I do have some education in.

I certainly did question your knowledge by asking if you had ever heard of magnetic resonance imaging. And whether you want to ignore it or not, the theory that mankind will eventually reach a singularity where we will one day blend with machines is relevant to this discussion, however you ignored it.

As for nuclear medicine, I very much doubt that you are much more knowledgeable there than anyone else here would be - and it doesn't matter anyway, as this is yet another field that has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not consciousness persists after death.

You are the one that stated physics had nothing to do with biology, physics is a part of the science of biology, biology relates to life after death , therefore it is relevant.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Not really, I understand just fine.

 

[Jodie]

Asked and answered. Your "latest" argument was promptly addressed, for which you expressed gratitude. The arguments you're complaining about, where your expertise was called into question, were the much broader concepts that cannot be summarized in a post or two. I told you how to get that education.

Your larger gripe appears to derive from the outrageous concept that you should actually acquire some competence in the fields you invoke and suggest support your beliefs. You demand that people tell you in detail how you're wrong, but that can only be done after you have acquired the proper foundational knowledge. You say you want to be corrected, but you take no responsibility yourself for your own education.

No it wasn't promptly addressed, however you did answer, and that's the kind of discourse I am looking for from you. Jay, you are the one griping, not me.

 

[Jodie]

Standard god of the gaps nonsense.

Lack of a full, precise definition does not preclude the possibility of a functional definition.

By any functional definition of "life", we know that there is no life after death.

If you define it as the physical aspect of a cell, then you are correct. Yet a single cell has no consciousness. The question is does consciousness survive death.

 

[Jodie]

I assume you're referring to your dream in which your mother appeared, perhaps among other things. Since I know about the dream and not the other things, let's stick with that for an example.

So what would like to discuss again?

Science already explains your dream. It just doesn't explain it in the way you like. Rather than accept a psychology explanation, you postulate a bunch of nonsense that vaguely alludes to quantum theory in order to explain it in a way that lets you believe in supernatural concepts. It is that misuse and postulation that irks your critics, not the topic per se.

I do believe we left that with me not being certain that it was actually my mother since I believe we are all one living an illusion of separation. There would be no need for her to tell me anything, the person could have been myself jut as well according to my belief.

Then don't lash out at your critics when they shoot down your desired explanations. They know science. The problem is that you won't let go of the fairy tale. You want to rewrite the fairy tail in scientific formulae to make it less fantastical. It just doesn't work that way. You can't use the perception of mystery in esoteric sciences to create allowances for fairy-tale notions.

I could be right. None of you have provided any evidence that I could be wrong because that evidence doesn't exist. I'm lashing out at the insults that result from you because you don't like it when I point that out to you.

Sure, you can point to all manner of uncertainly in the topics you raise. The skeptical approach is to stick with what can be observed, but that's not really the conundrum. The problem arises when you invoke sciences you haven't mastered, and parlay your lack of understanding of them as reasons to hold onto your particular interpretation of the uncertainties about which you have formulated your beliefs.

How do we observe consciousness?

A vast majority of the people on the planet don't understand advanced theoretical physics. You're one of them. And that's not really anything to be ashamed of, but you can't pretend that everyone you come in contact with is similarly benighted. Therefore you can't pretend that not all your critics can't see the problems with your invocations of science.

I'm not ashamed because all I have to do is decide to learn it. I can't assume everyone that states that they know what they are talking about actually does, either, although you aren't one of them when it comes to the topic of physics. It's not the problem that they have with my understanding of science that bothers me, I won't put up with the insults. We can keep going on and on about this for as long as you want to discuss it, but let's be clear about what the real problem is, that the loudest protestants have the greatest psychological need for life to be finite.

 

[Jodie]

I'm disputing a point you raised. You choose a purely textual forum in which to express yourself, and then complain that your critics are unfair because they can't see your nonverbal communication. A reader might conclude that you are contriving excuses to blame your critics for impropriety.

No, let's be specific Jay, you said I claimed to be an expert, then you stated it was how I posted my statements that insinuated I was an expert, then it was my passive aggressive style.....I think the majority of the readers can adequately conclude what your problem is since none of that has anything to do with the topic.

What does this have to do with either nuclear medicine or AI research? Physics is a mother science; it applies to nearly everything. That doesn't mean your concept of physics applies to biology in the way you insinuate it does. You reproduced Lanza's nonsense and call it physics and biology, but it's neither. It's new-age hogwash that alludes to scientific concepts but fails to achieve scientific validity.

It is nonsense now that you've explained what the observer really means. However, you can't separate the sciences using one result from this or one result from that without looking at the implications of those results across the board.

Further, there is a difference between advanced theoretical physics and classical physics. Appeals to theoretical physics, specifically invoking its esoteric and little-understood properties, to support controversial ideas in biology is not the same as noting that biology requires only classical physics to make it work.

Albeit biocentrism is dead in the water, however, I don't think you can adequately explain biological processes without including physics as a whole. Wouldn't that leave you with only a partial explanation?

You are claiming no one else has a problem with your approach and posting style. Are you really claiming that as a matter of fact?

Not since I stopped posting in the bigfoot threads.

Yet you're the one invoking scientific topics and suggesting they support your beliefs. This implies that you have appropriate knowledge to make that suggestion. If you do not and don't claim to, why is it such a problem that people who do know the sciences dispute your application of them?

It isn't.

The Member Agreement specifically forbids personal attacks. You claim I am making personal attacks. Are you uncomfortable with someone else weighing in on whether that's true or not?

Let your conscience guide you if you need affirmation on that one, my opinion on the matter isn't going to change.

You are not an expert on my motives. Principally, I object to the misuse of science to support irrelevant beliefs.

And you are also not an expert on my motives. You are free to correct whatever misunderstandings I might have regarding science but you are not allowed to insult or attack me because you don't like what I'm saying. That is, according to your own stated principles, inappropriate.

 

[Mojo]

The first principle of biocentrism suggests that what we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.

I don't have any issues with that so far, do you?

Yes: it allows equivocation between reality and our perceptions of reality.

 

[Pixel42]

You are claiming no one else has a problem with your approach and posting style. Are you really claiming that as a matter of fact?

Count me in as a poster who objects strongly to Jodie's attempts to invoke science she does not understand in support of her fantasies, and who has previously made that clear. The only reason I haven't done so recently is that you've been making the case far better than I could.

 

[Donn]

Count me in as a poster who objects strongly to Jodie's attempts to invoke science she does not understand in support of her fantasies, and who has previously made that clear. The only reason I haven't done so recently is that you've been making the case far better than I could.

Ditto.

 

[Donn]

And I still think physics is the crux of all other sciences and it will eventually describe what in old religions was thought of as the spirit realm.

You anticipate the day physics will eventually degrade so low that it overlaps the corpse of religion's putrescence? For your words can conclude no other. The only way a hard-working athlete can join the slobs on the couch, in perpetuum, is to favour snacks and beer, withgoing all exercise and discipline.

 

[PainKiller]

And you have no evidence to support that life doesn't exist after death

There is evidence for poo poo after death.

While some muscles spontaneously contract after death — and though all muscles eventually tighten into rigor mortis — others are loosening their grip entirely. Meanwhile, the part of your brain that regulates involuntary functions is shutting down. Specifically, the region of your brain that controls the muscles that hold your sphincter closed becomes incapacitated following death. Just like those rare occasions where you laughed so hard you peed in your pants, you will pee and poop in the spontaneous relaxation of your muscles following death. In fact, it’s not just the muscles but also the gas produced inside your body following death that will cause peeing and pooping. There’s really not much to say about this, right? Death is simply not pretty, nor was it meant to be.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-fo...l-you-7-postmortem-responses-dead-body-314404

 

[JayUtah]

If you disagree then you should be able to present your evidence rather than falling back on " I don't have to."

You are the claimant affirming that life persists after death. You have the burden of proof. If you cannot meet it, you don't get to say you are somehow still reasonable because your opponents did not present an affirmative refutation.

You are the one that stated physics had nothing to do with biology...

I can find several instances in which Nonpareil said that quantum mechanics doesn't have anything to do with claims made by biocentrism. Can you show me where he expanded that to include all biology and all physics?