Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

[MaartenVergu]

double

 

[steenkh]

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.

Read it again: the first reactions you got were criticisms of the study, which is based on poor assumptions.

Then you tried to defend the study by referring to Kastrup's academic credentials, and that failed too because his credentials have nothing to do with this study.

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

Do they?

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

Kastrup is destroying his own reputation with papers like this. Or rather, he has chosen to drop his science reputation in order to gain reputation with the woo crowd.

 

[bruto]

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

Yup, nothing more dangerous to science than skepticism. The poor orphans of truth, shivering lonely on the drear and naked shingle.

Wow, what awesome power. We must be careful not to become drunk with it, or next thing you know we'll be doing it to politicians.

If only.

 

[Donn]

Startling how well Maartenn's English improves when the ropes beckon.

 

[Steve001]

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).

I've listen to Kastrup; he like all philosophers attempts to convince his readers by logical argument. In all of philosophical history I've not heard of any philosopher doing anything more than opining. Everyone has opinions, his are no more note worthy than anyone elses.

 

[Steve001]

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.

Stephen Hawking a cosmologist by profession is a very smart well educated man yet when he ruminates about God I pay no more attention to him than I would to the average man or woman on the street. In short he has no expertise on the subject of God.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Well, given that you have yet to spell my user name correctly, what are we to think of the arguments presented?

 

[EHocking]

Abaddon All Hope.
I did pages ago...

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well, given that you have yet to spell my user name correctly, what are we to think of the arguments presented?

Wait, so you're not the head of the Swedish disco mafia?

 

[MaartenVergu]

Newton's laws of motion and gravity break down when confronted with speeds close to the speed of light and strong fields of gravity. Einstein's curvature of spacetime is the theory which can also explain these exotic phenomena.

The materialistic theory to explain and describe consciousness and the brain breaks down when confronted with exotic phenomena like NDE's and the experience of other realms using drugs.

A new, broader theory is needed.

Kastrup talks about 'a collective consciousness' (when we die or before our birth) wich act like 'a multiple personality disorder' in this world. Multiple personalities are created in this world, but we become one again (unity) in a collective consciousness when we die.

In this collective consciousness, everything is connected with everything.

Kastrup says that all worlds are mental. There are no non-mental worlds. But Kastrup is not a solipsist. We share the same mental world in this world. As an ex-CERN worker he knows that on the deepest level, there are only concepts. Concepts about the material world.
This world is mental.

Kastrup, concludes that his theory has more explanatory power then the current materialistic view.

A lot of scientists who are supporting the holographic universe hypothesis are going in the right direction.

 

[MikeG]

.......The materialistic theory to explain and describe consciousness and the brain breaks down when confronted with exotic phenomena like NDE's and the experience of other realms using drugs...........

Just because you so badly want it to be as you describe doesn't make this reality.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Newton's and Einstein's theories are valid because the calculations hold up.
Kastrup saying 'yeah, but what if there's an afterlife' is absolutely not more suited to explain gravity than the existing theories.

In fact 'yeah, but what if I'm right because of something mysterious that can't be proven' can't explain anything at all.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Newton's and Einstein's theories are valid because the calculations hold up.
Kastrup saying 'yeah, but what if there's an afterlife' is absolutely not more suited to explain gravity than the existing theories.

What a simplification of his very nuanced concepts. No wonder that you can't appreciate his thinking. You are using a strawman by simplifying his ideas.

For people who are interested in the nuanced concepts of ex-CERN worker Bernardo Kastrup about the fundamental nature of reality, please watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkTUnCy41Ak&t=2390s

 

[Steve001]

Newton's laws of motion and gravity break down when confronted with speeds close to the speed of light and strong fields of gravity. Einstein's curvature of spacetime is the theory which can also explain these exotic phenomena.

The materialistic theory to explain and describe consciousness and the brain breaks down when confronted with exotic phenomena like NDE's and the experience of other realms using drugs.

A new, broader theory is needed.

Kastrup talks about 'a collective consciousness' (when we die or before our birth) wich act like 'a multiple personality disorder' in this world. Multiple personalities are created in this world, but we become one again (unity) in a collective consciousness when we die.

In this collective consciousness, everything is connected with everything.

Kastrup says that all worlds are mental. There are no non-mental worlds. But Kastrup is not a solipsist. We share the same mental world in this world. As an ex-CERN worker he knows that on the deepest level, there are only concepts. Concepts about the material world.
This world is mental.

Kastrup, concludes that his theory has more explanatory power then the current materialistic view.

A lot of scientists who are supporting the holographic universe hypothesis are going in the right direction.

Just like I said in a previous post to you, logical argument (opining) proves nothing. You must demonstrably present evidence that upholds your opinions.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

What a simplification of his very nuanced concepts. No wonder that you can't appreciate his thinking. You are using a strawman by simplifying his ideas.

I was using your description of his ideas.
How does a collective consciousness provide better models of gravity than Newton or Einstein? What can we do with the consciousness hypothesis that can't be done with the existing theories?

 

[Donn]

The materialistic theory to explain and describe consciousness and the brain breaks down when confronted with exotic phenomena like NDE's and the experience of other realms using drugs.

NDE's are not exotic phenomena. Your inerrant foot-marksmanship is.

Kastrup, concludes that his theory has more explanatory power then the current materialistic view.

Well, of course he does.

 

[MaartenVergu]

How does a collective consciousness provide better models of gravity than Newton or Einstein?

It's the same as asking: can Einstein's theory of gravity explain microbiological phenomena or subatomic behavior? Of course not. It can only explain gravity.
Kastrup's theory about the mind as an 'ontological primitive' can not explain gravity, but it can explain phenomena of the human mind, which cannot be explained by the current materialistic theories of the brain. (like NDE's, OBE's etc.) And it provides a perspective for the fundamental nature of reality.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

It's the same as asking: can Einstein's theory of gravity explain microbiological phenomena or subatomic behavior? Of course not. It can only explain gravity.
Kastrup's theory about the mind as an 'ontological primitive' can not explain gravity, but it can explain phenomena of the human mind, which cannot be explained by the current materialistic theories of the brain. (like NDE's, OBE's etc.) And it provides a perspective for the fundamental nature of reality.

No... YOU were the one who said that Kastrup's theory had better explanatory power than Einstein or Newton...

Newton's laws of motion and gravity break down when confronted with speeds close to the speed of light and strong fields of gravity. Einstein's curvature of spacetime is the theory which can also explain these exotic phenomena.

<snip>

Kastrup, concludes that his theory has more explanatory power then the current materialistic view.

But now you deny that his consciousness theory is applicable to physics.
Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant and you were saying that Kastrup is the new Einstein.
What do you believe his theory explains that current models don't?

ETA: explanatory power is not the same as liking an answer better...

 

[MaartenVergu]

You misunderstood me. Einstein's theory can explain gravity and speed better then Newton did, because Einstein's theories can explain the exotic phenomena or the extremes.
(huge masses and very high speeds)

I used the difference between these theories of gravity as an analogy to explain how Kastrups 'mental worlds-view' is a broader theory which can also explain NDE's and psychedelic trips to hyperreal worlds. The materialistic theories about consciousness and the brain cannot explain these phenomena.
We are talking here about a theory which explains the phenomena of the mind better.

We are not talking about a theory of gravity.

 

[MikeG]

.........it can explain phenomena of the human mind, which cannot be explained by the current materialistic theories of the brain. (like NDE's, OBE's etc.) ............

There you go again.

"I don't understand the explanations" or "I don't accept the explanations" is not the same as "there is no materialistic explanation".