According to NDE reports, the person doesn't feel like being someone else during NDE but feels like being in a different state of mind with a different kind of perception. As if you removed a perceptual filter, or put on a different perceptual filter.
Interaction between body and soul
- Thread starter litewave
- Start date
-
- Tags
- neuroscience physics
According to NDE reports, the person doesn't feel like being someone else during NDE but feels like being in a different state of mind with a different kind of perception. As if you removed a perceptual filter, or put on a different perceptual filter.
As I clarified, it is apparent to the near-death experiencer.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Elaborate. I've been under general anesthesia. It passes as lost time, which is not the same as amnesia. The amnesia that sometimes follows the use of general anesthetic is not simply the spot-forgetting of some event that occurred right around the time it was used.
Memory formation while under anesthesia has nothing to do with a life review -- i.e., of recalling past memories.
And...?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This just repeats the claim. You're attributing the effects we call "near-death experience" to the separation of the soul from the body. What evidence supports this attribution?
Do you remember anything from the time you were under anesthesia?
Amnesia under anesthesia means that formation of memories under anesthesia is impaired. That's what I mentioned as a possible reason why many survivors don't remember an NDE.
I don't have enough data to conclude whether a soul exists.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. That means we can conclude nothing about whether I had a "lost" NDA. You're colossally missing the point. You're trying to rehabilitate an anti-correlation in your data using an argument from silence. No matter how many times you repeat the argument or underscore the silence, the argument suddenly doesn't become logically valid.
That's too kind. Your arguments all presume the existence of a soul. Some even go on to presume that certain physical symptoms must be the effects of a soul. But you have no evidence a soul exist, much less that it has the properties necessary to do all that you attribute to it. For that reason your claims are non-starters.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Nope. NDE on the operating table. I know from direct experience that you are frantically shovelling the bovine fecal product. Not my problem, it is yours alone.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Baloney. Had one, and that simply is a made up claim out of whole cloth. As far as I am concerned, I am a first hand witness and you can take your baloney for an unlikely anatomical excursion.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
By analogy suppose you are simulating a collection of particles following the laws of physics.
For convenience you allow yourself a back door to move particles from one place to another with your mouse pointer.
Do you have to change the physical laws that the particles follow in order to do that? No. The particles can just follow the same laws in the simulation and you can allow your mouse pointer to alter certain variables.
For example if the particles in your simulation are behaving according to the Dirac equation then you do not need to add another term to the Dirac equation to allow for your mouse to drag a particle to a different location. Indeed that would be a very inefficient way of achieving this.
If someone asks does the mouse pointer obey Lorentz invariance then the question would be meaningless because your mouse pointer is not part of the simulation.
If you ask "how far apart is particle A in my simulation from particle B in my simulation?" then you can get a sensible answer. If you ask "how far is my hand from particle B in my simulation" it makes no sense because your hand is not part of the simulation and yet it can make changes to the simulation.
A supernatural force, if there was such a thing, would be like that. The supernatural realm would act according to a different set of rules and our physics would be implemented on those rules just as our simulations physics are implemented on the physics of our world.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Can't speak for Jay but I do. So what?
Bullplop. I was post op interviewed. It's bullplop.
You have no data at all. Not even sufficient to suspect "souls" even exist. That is a bigger concession than you seem to realise.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
It is a little like arguing that we could not possibly be part of any simulation where the programmers had the power to intervene because if they had the power to intervene then there would have to be an extra term to the Dirac equation which represented this power and we would have to ask if the power of the programmers to intervene in our simulation respected Lorentz invariance.
But of course if we were part of a simulation where the programmers could intervene, we would not expect to see any of those things. The programmers might decide whether or not to make their interventions respect Lorentz invariance on a case by case basis.
The same would be true for a supernatural realm. If there was a supernatural realm then our physics would be, in a sense, a simulation.
And I should add that I do not waste any time worrying if there is a supernatural realm, nor any time worrying that we are part of a simulation.
But of course if we were part of a simulation where the programmers could intervene, we would not expect to see any of those things. The programmers might decide whether or not to make their interventions respect Lorentz invariance on a case by case basis.
The same would be true for a supernatural realm. If there was a supernatural realm then our physics would be, in a sense, a simulation.
And I should add that I do not waste any time worrying if there is a supernatural realm, nor any time worrying that we are part of a simulation.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So what, indeed. Here's a though experiment :--
Administer general anesthetic to a person. The possible outcomes (non-exhaustive) regarding NDE and memory include:
1. Subject does not have an NDE and remembers that he did not.
2. Subject does not have an NDE but cannot remember whether the did or not.
3. Subject has an NDE and remembers that he dide.
4. Subject has an NDE but does not remember that he did.
Cases 2 and 4 are hopelessly conflated. No matter how much data you collect for the other cases, you can never resolve the number of NDEs that the data from cases 2,4 silently represents. The empirical picture here is second fiddle to the error in categorical reasoning.
Last edited:
So you can't conclude that you didn't lose memory of an NDE either, especially when you know that anesthesia commonly causes amnesia.
Sure, I argue how the soul could interact with the body while eluding observations of physicists and neuroscientists. Because, as you see, a common argument against such an interaction is that physicists or neuroscientists would have detected it.
So what did you experience?
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Please, no.
I'm willing to read your thoughts but I really don't want to get side-tracked with something that, so far, in my opinion, is clear enough so can be discussed on their own terms.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
It may have already been mentioned, but...
... Similar experiences to NDE's are reported by folks in G-Force studies. It causes passing out, life review, etc.
... NDE's also involve views/interactions with living people.
... NDE descriptions follow traditions of the areas in which they are involved, which are often contradictory between traditions.
... Similar experiences to NDE's are reported by folks in G-Force studies. It causes passing out, life review, etc.
... NDE's also involve views/interactions with living people.
... NDE descriptions follow traditions of the areas in which they are involved, which are often contradictory between traditions.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, don't rewrite the statement. :Because there is no data, we can draw no conclusion. That means what it says. You're still trying to argue from silence to say it can only improve the chances. That's not how it works.
You have no evidence. You aren't therefore arguing, you're speculating. And a pile of speculation carefully tailored to thread the needle to your desired conclusion is circular reasoning.
It's not my 'baloney' but reports from other first hand witnesses. Welcome among many first hand witnesses.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
How many of them have you interviewed?
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
It's a common argument because it's a fact. Your fantasies are baseless.