Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

[Jodie]

Then I presume we'll no more puerile whining about how badly you've been insulted. Now do you have an argument that isn't either the aforementioned whining or attempts to psychoanalyze your critics? In fact, is there any argument from you that isn't some form of casting aspersions on your critics?

Back pedaling again, I see, to minimize your previous actions.

 

[JayUtah]

Now hold on a minute there, I've never said that religion was correct about anything.

Then how does your argument work? If the old religions were wrong about the "spirit realm" and physics confirms that wrong idea, then both religion and physics would be wrong and your argument is moot. If you're saying that the old religions said one thing about the "spirit realm," and physics findings describe something different, then that's not a confirmation. You can't have a both a sloppy definition and confirmation.

And you've acquired your stance by not being an expert in any field , other than physics, that might even remotely be involved in what consciousness actually is to be able to define its limitations.

How do you know what my "stance" is based on? How do you know what I am or am not qualified in? How do you know what consciousness is, such that you can speak so affirmatively about who else knows or doesn't know about it? You've equated it to such dissimilar sciences as quantum mechanics and artificial intelligence. Are you claiming any sort of knowledge superior to your critics that would let you draw these conclusions?

I'm sorry that the truth doesn't seem to fit into the debate format you choose to use.

The truth of what? That a burden of proof and a null hypothesis exist, and you can't meet them? The debate format you accuse me of choosing is called the scientific method. You may have heard of it. If you're going to invoke science on a skeptical forum, to attempt to support your beliefs, then the scientific method is something you had better learn to accommodate.

 

[JayUtah]

Back pedaling again, I see, to minimize your previous actions.

So no, you don't have an argument that rises above simply bad-mouthing and psychoanalyzing your critics.

 

[Nonpareil]

If you don't know what consciousness is all you can say about it after death is that it definitely isn't here.

Fortunately, we do know what consciousness is.

It is brain activity.

Like it or not, there is no evidence.

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it true.

Once again, you are confusing terms. Consciousness doesn't equal intelligence doesn't equal self awareness.

I'm really not.

That is why I said "consciousness", and not "intelligence" or "self-awareness".

I don't see it that way.

I am aware that you do not see it this way.

This is not the first time that you have been wrong.

All I'm saying is that if there is no agreement on what the theory of consciousness is then there can be no functional/complete definition.

Fallaciously equivocating between "functional" and "complete" does not help you. Again, we have a functional definition of consciousness.

This is sufficient to determine that consciousness does not persist after death.

Exactly, the car might still be in someone's garage or on another road.

False analogy.

And, before you say "but it's your analogy!", mine very deliberately ended without commenting on anything other than the difference between functional and complete definitions. You cannot stretch that to try and apply it to the burden of proof. Even if you could, all that would leave you with is the god of the gaps argument - which is a fallacy unto itself.

From your constant insertion of terms like "self-awareness" and attempts to attribute them to me, as well as your lack of comprehension when I present analogies and examples, I am starting to feel that you don't actually read my posts before responding.

Please do. It will save us all a lot of time.

I'll be happy to go back and link the insults in a PM for you.

Or simply post them here and stop whining.

Or maybe you should.

"I know you are, but what am I?" is not a particularly snappy comeback.

 

[Mojo]

The prestige is merely noting a similarity between Jabba's arguments and yours.

Well if the Jabba is that bad then that is an insult.

No, it isn't. It is a comment about your argument, not about you.

 

[Donn]

Consciousness. No, self awareness. No, keep up, I mean consciousness. C'mon people, I'm talking self awareness. Be conscious!

Repeat.

It's like listening to a politician behind a pulpit doing a spin.

 

[steenkh]

I am right that there is no evidence for either stance.

The absence of evidence for a an afterlife is actually evidence that there is no afterlife when the null hypothesis is that our understanding of physics is right. If consciousness is more than brain activity, then that consciousness is able influence physical matter in a fashion that is happening ubiquitously (there are lots of brains around) and yet such interaction has not been detected, and we are pretty certain that we know every kind of interaction that happens between particles at room temperature. Furthermore, this kind of interaction only happens within brains, and there is no evidence that brains consist of anything else than conventional matter.

So physics has the null hypothesis that has to be falsified if there is to be a life after death, it is not the other way round.

 

[Nonpareil]

The absence of evidence for a an afterlife is actually evidence that there is no afterlife when the null hypothesis is that our understanding of physics is right.

At this point, it isn't even a matter of the null hypothesis being that an afterlife does not exist. We do not merely lack evidence for an afterlife. We repeatedly, consistently, and universally find a complete lack of any where it would need to be in order to exist.

It's like someone telling you that there is an elephant sitting on a certain stretch of subway track and obstructing traffic. You can't walk out there on the track to look for yourself, but the null hypothesis is that there is no elephant. You then continuously observe trains taking that track and notably not hitting any elephants, talk to the conductors and ascertain that they saw no underground pachyderms, and get weird looks from the passengers when you ask them if they remember a loud thump and a series of trumpeting noises.

To argue that there still might be some form of afterlife, at this point in the discussion, is equivalent to maintaining that there still could be an elephant on the tracks.

 

[Donn]

At this point, it isn't even a matter of the null hypothesis being that an afterlife does not exist. We do not merely lack evidence for an afterlife. We repeatedly, consistently, and universally find a complete lack of any where it would need to be in order to exist.

It's like someone telling you that there is an elephant sitting on a certain stretch of subway track and obstructing traffic. You can't walk out there on the track to look for yourself, but the null hypothesis is that there is no elephant. You then continuously observe trains taking that track and notably not hitting any elephants, talk to the conductors and ascertain that they saw no underground pachyderms, and get weird looks from the passengers when you ask them if they remember a loud thump and a series of trumpeting noises.

To argue that there still might be some form of afterlife, at this point in the discussion, is equivalent to maintaining that there still could be an elephant on the tracks.

This is an excellent analogy.

We have seen how that elephant will be turned to smoke, be whisked away from harm and returned, be under the tracks, be immanent to the train-track materialist paradigm.

And so on; world without elephant.

 

[MaartenVergu]

James Whinnery MD studied the effects of high G forces on Navy Pilots to understand how they would react to the G forces of flying F-14s. These aircraft are capable of speeds twice the speed of sound.

Dr. Whinnery discovered that at the first stages of brain death, the pilots would have experiences similar to near death experiences. He was able to show that the experiences occured only after the pilots became unconscious, had seizures and loss of muscle tone. In other words, after complete unconsciousness, when they started the first stages of brain death, consciousness suddenly returned.

http://www.magarchive.tcu.edu/articles/2008-01-AN2.asp

 

[abaddon]

James Whinnery MD studied the effects of high G forces on Navy Pilots to understand how they would react to the G forces of flying F-14s. These aircraft are capable of speeds twice the speed of sound.

Dr. Whinnery discovered that at the first stages of brain death, the pilots would have experiences similar to near death experiences. He was able to show that the experiences occured only after the pilots became unconscious, had seizures and loss of muscle tone. In other words, after complete unconsciousness, when they started the first stages of brain death, consciousness suddenly returned.

http://www.magarchive.tcu.edu/articles/2008-01-AN2.asp

That's not what the article says.

He discovered that, essentially, blacking out is like unplugging a computer and then plugging it back in. The computer doesn't come back on all at once; it must reboot. Likewise, the dreamlets and out-of-body experiences seem to have been a result of the computers in our heads coming back online.

So you have posted an article demonstrating that NDE/OOBE are simply symptoms of an oxygen starved brain.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

James Whinnery MD studied the effects of high G forces on Navy Pilots to understand how they would react to the G forces of flying F-14s. These aircraft are capable of speeds twice the speed of sound.

Dr. Whinnery discovered that at the first stages of brain death, the pilots would have experiences similar to near death experiences. He was able to show that the experiences occured only after the pilots became unconscious, had seizures and loss of muscle tone. In other words, after complete unconsciousness, when they started the first stages of brain death, consciousness suddenly returned.

http://www.magarchive.tcu.edu/articles/2008-01-AN2.asp

You bolded the wrong part. Is should be:

Dr. Whinnery discovered that at the first stages of brain death, the pilots would have experiences similar to near death experiences.

Onset of brain death produces NDE like symptoms. Which runs counter to your ideas that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain.

Consciousness does not return because, as you imply with your bolding, it is not a product of the brain, but because the high G forces are no longer being applied.
If the pilots would be kept at 9 G for long enough, they'd stay unconscious, and after some time they'd suffer permanent brain damage.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Ok, let's quote an other study:

"Drs. Carhart-Harris, Nutt, and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the effects of psilocybin on brain activity in 30 experienced hallucinogen users. In this study, intravenous administration of 2 mg of psilocybin induced a moderately intense psychedelic state that was associated with reductions of neuronal activity in brain regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).
The mPFC and ACC are highly interconnected with other brain regions and are believed to be involved in functions such as emotional regulation, cognitive processing, and introspection. Based on their findings, the authors of the study concluded that hallucinogens reduce activity in specific “hub” regions of the brain, potentially diminishing their ability to coordinate activity in downstream brain regions. In effect, psilocybin appears to inhibit brain regions that are responsible for constraining consciousness within the narrow boundaries of the normal waking state, an interpretation that is remarkably similar to what Huxley proposed over half a century ago."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-psychedelics-expand-mind-reducing-brain-activity/

 

[MaartenVergu]

What I want to show you is that 'a starving brain' is associated with 'enhanced consciousness'.
Less brain activity : more consciousness. (at a certain point)

 

[Mojo]

Ok, let's quote an other study:

"Drs. Carhart-Harris, Nutt, and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the effects of psilocybin on brain activity in 30 experienced hallucinogen users. In this study, intravenous administration of 2 mg of psilocybin induced a moderately intense psychedelic state that was associated with reductions of neuronal activity in brain regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).
The mPFC and ACC are highly interconnected with other brain regions and are believed to be involved in functions such as emotional regulation, cognitive processing, and introspection. Based on their findings, the authors of the study concluded that hallucinogens reduce activity in specific “hub” regions of the brain, potentially diminishing their ability to coordinate activity in downstream brain regions. In effect, psilocybin appears to inhibit brain regions that are responsible for constraining consciousness within the narrow boundaries of the normal waking state, an interpretation that is remarkably similar to what Huxley proposed over half a century ago."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-psychedelics-expand-mind-reducing-brain-activity/

Hallucinogens affect the brain in ways that result in hallucinations.

 

[Mojo]

What I want to show you is that 'a starving brain' is associated with 'enhanced consciousness'.
Less brain activity : more consciousness. (at a certain point)

Did you understand what the article was actually about? It is discussing whether hallucinations are the result of increased or reduced activity in certain parts of the brain. It doesn't say that less brain activity means more consciousness.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Hallucinogens affect the brain in ways that result in hallucinations.

Why Near-Death Experiences Are Not Hallucinations

 

[Mojo]

Why Near-Death Experiences Are Not Hallucinations

If that's what you are arguing, why are you introducing stuff about hallucinations?

 

[MaartenVergu]

Have you ever had an NDE, Mojo? Have you ever had hallucinations? Did you experience the difference?
Do you think you know what you are talking about?

 

[abaddon]

Why Near-Death Experiences Are Not Hallucinations

Crank sites just don't cut the mustard. Tough luck.