Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

[Donn]

Donn,

The brain is not efficient anymore to function in this world, that's right.

Bernardo Kastrup says:

"The self-transcending character of experiences that accompany certain types of brain injury has been evocatively described by neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor, following a stroke that damaged her brain’s left hemisphere:

"my perception of my physical boundaries was no longer limited to where my skin met air. I felt like a genie liberated from its bottle. The
energy of my spirit seemed to flow like a great whale gliding through a
sea of silent euphoria. (Taylor 2009, 67)."


Consciousness is more enhanced, while the brain is malfunctioning more and more.

Even more significantly, “the magnitude of this decrease [in brain activity] predicted the intensity of the subjective effects” of the psychedelic (Ibid.). As such, the significant self-transcending experiences that follow psychedelic intake are—counterintuitively—accompanied by reductions of brain activity.
Source:http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i3_Kastrup.pdf

Well, no. Consciousness is not enhanced. It's simply not the same as it was. Depending on how severely broken the brain is, this difference is noticeably larger.

Say I grant you the notion that the brain is a radio and consciousness is modulated from outside — how does this change anything? If the radio is broken, the tuner is stuck, the aerial is bent, how does that correlate to an enhanced mind?

You want both:
1. A brain that is a proxy and
2. A brain that is not a proxy.

Make up your brain.

 

[malbui]

Two weeks ago I underwent some fairly chunky surgery. While I was under the knife my mind went to some amazing places, playing with dimensions and running time backwards and forwards. Evidence of some deeper cosmic truth or the effect on my maths and science-obsessed brain of enough heavy-duty anaesthetic to keep me under for the best part of four hours?

 

[abaddon]

Donn,

The brain is not efficient anymore to function in this world, that's right.

Bernardo Kastrup says:

"The self-transcending character of experiences that accompany certain types of brain injury has been evocatively described by neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor, following a stroke that damaged her brain’s left hemisphere:

"my perception of my physical boundaries was no longer limited to where my skin met air. I felt like a genie liberated from its bottle. The
energy of my spirit seemed to flow like a great whale gliding through a
sea of silent euphoria. (Taylor 2009, 67)."

Kastrup is a twit. Taylor is simply describing her experience, not claiming anything remotely connected to your claims.

And the left/right hemisphere malarkey has been debunked long since.

Consciousness is more enhanced, while the brain is malfunctioning more and more.

Even more significantly, “the magnitude of this decrease [in brain activity] predicted the intensity of the subjective effects” of the psychedelic (Ibid.). As such, the significant self-transcending experiences that follow psychedelic intake are—counterintuitively—accompanied by reductions of brain activity.
Source:http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i3_Kastrup.pdf

The more ones brain breaks down, the less reliable any "testimony" becomes. Again I ask, can you think of any other arena where you apply this borked logic?

Two weeks ago I underwent some fairly chunky surgery. While I was under the knife my mind went to some amazing places, playing with dimensions and running time backwards and forwards. Evidence of some deeper cosmic truth or the effect on my maths and science-obsessed brain of enough heavy-duty anaesthetic to keep me under for the best part of four hours?

Oh, I have been under the knife numerous times. It is all manner of fun what that does to you. Most recent was last November. Broke my ankle, had surgery and plates and pins inserted. Anyhoo, I came out of anaesthesia a wee bit early while they were closing up. It started with puzzlement as to why a disembodied leg seemed to be orbiting around me, then wait a minute, that's my leg. Why is my leg orbiting my head? Followed by, you moron, you are in the OR because you busted an ankle. Followed by back to black as they increased the dose. It is incredibly trippy when such is experienced. But it ain't real.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Kastrup is a twit.

Is that your argument??? On this forum?

Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer engineering with specializations in artificial intelligence and reconfigurable computing. He has worked as a scientist in some of the world’s foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the “Casimir Effect” of Quantum Field Theory was discovered).

Kastrup is not 'a twit'.

This is typical for some sceptics on this forum, when they can't find valuable counteraguments, they discredit the scientist or author of the article. Character assassination.

No, Bernardo Kastrup is a respectable scientist. Not 'a twit'.

 

[MaartenVergu]

And the left/right hemisphere malarkey has been debunked long since

Indeed, isn't it. So the explanation of neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Tayler that 'her right brain was causing these experiences' is indeed debunked long since.

It's because of a sudden lack of activity in her left side of the brain that her consciousness is suddenly 'like a genie liberated from its bottle'.
Not because of the activity in the right side of her brain. (debunked, like you said).

 

[bruto]

I realize that this has been a long and confusing thread, larded with misunderstanding, silliness, error and unclarity, but I must say even so I am a little confused. Here I thought that one of the fundamental principles being asserted was that the so-called near death experience is not simply a function of brain damage or shutdown. Yet now, it seems, we have affirmation of that by citing a neurologist who goes to great lengths to explain how her seemingly transcendent experiences were specifically caused by brain damage. In addition, we learn how wonderful it was through her account of the long, arduous, and hard-won struggle she put in to get out of it! Almost as if, perish the thought, she understood the difference between illusion and reality.

I do have a theory, though. I am willing to bet that if your brain completely ceases to operate, you will completely transcend all the trivial and annoying particulars of life, and achieve such a complete and mystical union with the universe that you will never again be bothered by worries or negative thoughts. It is unfortunate that you will be unable to transmit the thrill of it when it happens, so we must be content to thrill in anticipation.

 

[abaddon]

Is that your argument??? On this forum?

Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer engineering with specializations in artificial intelligence and reconfigurable computing. He has worked as a scientist in some of the world’s foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the “Casimir Effect” of Quantum Field Theory was discovered).

Kastrup is not 'a twit'.

This is typical for some sceptics on this forum, when they can't find valuable counteraguments, they discredit the scientist or author of the article. Character assassination.

No, Bernardo Kastrup is a respectable scientist. Not 'a twit'.

What? He is flat out bonkers. Is your google broken? The guy is a straight out nutbar.

 

[fibbermcgee]

I see Bernardo and Deepak are big fans of each other.
Here's a quote; "What Plato called the ‘world soul’ is simply God’s direct subjective perspective; the reverse side of the measurable universe. The measurable universe, in turn, is the obverse side of God’s soul. The Universe, thus, is God’s body".

 

[MaartenVergu]

I did not read everything what Bernardo Kastrup wrote. (Did you?)

The topic here is only his essay 'Self-Transcendence Correlates with Brain Function Impairment'.

The only criteria are: are his premisses true (scientific references) and is his logic valid?

That he wrote other essays with other ideas is not relevant here.

 

[MaartenVergu]

double

 

[steenkh]

I did not read everything what Bernardo Kastrup wrote. (Did you?)

The topic here is only his essay 'Self-Transcendence Correlates with Brain Function Impairment'.

The only criteria are: are his premisses true (scientific references) and is his logic valid?

That he wrote other essays with other ideas is not relevant here.

His other writings are relevant here if they undermine his scientific credibility. And you do not need to look long at his writings to see that he is a wooster through and through.

And by now it is clear that the present study is quite worthless, because he assumes the existence of a mind existing outside the brain, and his assumption that the brain should use more energy in order to produce more lifelike hallucinations is also unfounded.

Could the failings be a result of his education being in computer engineering rather than neurology?

 

[Donn]

Say I grant you the notion that the brain is a radio and consciousness is modulated from outside — how does this change anything? If the radio is broken, the tuner is stuck, the aerial is bent, how does that correlate to an enhanced mind?

Well, hell. I'll quote myself to repeat a simple question, shall I?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I realize that this has been a long and confusing thread, larded with misunderstanding, silliness, error and unclarity, but I must say even so I am a little confused. Here I thought that one of the fundamental principles being asserted was that the so-called near death experience is not simply a function of brain damage or shutdown. Yet now, it seems, we have affirmation of that by citing a neurologist who goes to great lengths to explain how her seemingly transcendent experiences were specifically caused by brain damage. In addition, we learn how wonderful it was through her account of the long, arduous, and hard-won struggle she put in to get out of it! Almost as if, perish the thought, she understood the difference between illusion and reality.

I do have a theory, though. I am willing to bet that if your brain completely ceases to operate, you will completely transcend all the trivial and annoying particulars of life, and achieve such a complete and mystical union with the universe that you will never again be bothered by worries or negative thoughts. It is unfortunate that you will be unable to transmit the thrill of it when it happens, so we must be content to thrill in anticipation.

This was the point I was trying to make to Maarten100, which he has clearly missed completely.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer engineering with specializations in artificial intelligence and reconfigurable computing. He has worked as a scientist in some of the world’s foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the “Casimir Effect” of Quantum Field Theory was discovered).

Not sure what relevance that has to this thread. One may be an expert in a certain field, only to be completely clueless in another, to wit: Linus Pauling was a Nobel Prize-winning chemist. He also promoted the idea that massive doses of Vitamin C would cure cancer.

Futhermore the quoted paragraph is a carbon copy of the gentleman's biography from his own website.

 

[MaartenVergu]

This is typical for some sceptical thinkers on this forum. They do not evaluate an idea, but they validate the idea, based on the background of the author or the writer.

In college, a professor will evaluate an exam of a student, based on the content of the thesis, the arguments, the logical reasoning, the premisses etc.
But not on the reputation of the student.
There are even colleges where every student has a number to avoid biases based on the knowledge of the professor about the student's background.
Don't judge the author of the article, but only analise the arguments and the content of the essay.

Even peer-review journals often ask to not put your name on your paper, to avoid biases based on your reputation.

Because when you judge an article based on the reputation of the writer, every next paper of the author will always be evaluated negative. And later on you can refer to that negative evaluation of his last paper (based on your idea of his repuation) to devaluate his next paper. Because sceptics will always say: he has a bad reputation.

Sceptics are actually destroying the reputation of well-respected scientists in the scientific community by their biases.

Don't evaluate a person, evaluate an idea.

I expect that we are evaluating ideas here on the forum. An evaluation based on the validity of the logic and the truth of its premisses.

I'm astonished that I have to tell the basics her on this forum about how to evaluate a scientific essay avoiding biases).

 

[Garrette]

What you have missed is that -- best case from your perspective -- is that both have been done, i.e., the critics of your argument have pointed out both the damning history of one person cited and the weaknesses in the argument (and paper) themselves.

You ignore the latter because you have no real response.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

This is typical for some sceptical thinkers on this forum. They do not evaluate an idea, but they validate the idea, based on the background of the author or the writer.

Yup, using someone's background and standing as an argument is in poor form:

Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer engineering with specializations in artificial intelligence and reconfigurable computing. He has worked as a scientist in some of the world’s foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the “Casimir Effect” of Quantum Field Theory was discovered).
No, Bernardo Kastrup is a respectable scientist.

Oops...

 

[MaartenVergu]

You don't have to do both. You only have to anlyse the idea, not the person.

Kastrup gave many scientific referencies in his essay. I didn't see any scientific reference on this forum for the claims here.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Yup, using someone's background and standing as an argument is in poor form:

It's indeed very sad that I had to explain that he has a background as a scientist and that he worked in CERN to respond that 'he is not a twit' (se Abbadon).

His background should not has to be an argument at all.

 

[Garrette]

You don't have to do both. You only have to anlyse the idea, not the person.

Kastrup gave many scientific referencies in his essay. I didn't see any scientific reference on this forum for the claims here.

The second was done. You continue to ignore that. The claim fails on its own merits.