Merged Near Death Experience Study

[Slowvehicle]

Yes - an interaction with their own consciousness.

As, for instance, a dream, or an optical illusion, or an hallucination.

 

[MaartenVergu]

This 'interaction'-argument is not convincing. It's not because a parallel world does not interact with our world, that this parallel world does not exist.
There can be a portal to this world, but no interaction.

 

[tsig]

Non sequitur. It's not because you can't prove it, that it doesn't exist.



It depends on your definition of 'real'. What are your (arbitrary?) criteria for 'real'? When many people have had the same experience of an altered reality, it can be called 'real'.



Non sequitur again. A parallel Universe don't have to have soms sort of effect on another parallel Universe.

Then it looks a lot like a non existent one.

 

[PixyMisa]

This 'interaction'-argument is not convincing. It's not because a parallel world does not interact with our world, that this parallel world does not exist.
There can be a portal to this world, but no interaction.

A portal is interaction.

 

[Hellbound]

A portal is interaction.

Just to add a bit, a portal, by definition, interacts with both universes. Otherwise, it's not a portal.

A portal that doesn't interact with both universes doesn't exist.

 

[Belz...]

Their is an interaction with consciousness.

You don't know that. That is your speculation, remember ? If there is an interaction, then we can detect it. Consciousness is a physical process, not a supernatural entity.

This 'interaction'-argument is not convincing.

What do you mean, 'not convincing' ? It's the only thing that can be convincing. Think about it for two seconds. How do you know that something exists if not because it leaves traces, and how does it leave traces, if not via interaction between molecules, atoms or particles ? How do you know that someone passed through a particular point ? Footprints ? Other clues ? Those result from interactions between the person and their environment. In fact, if the person didn't interact with it, they couldn't move, breathe or indeed exist, as their molecules wouldn't stay together, etc.

If something is perceived by your consciousness, then it interacts with it, and since your consciousness interacts with your body and its environment, that "something" is detectable at least indirectly.

It's not because a parallel world does not interact with our world, that this parallel world does not exist.

That's true but I've already answered this: if something CANNOT impact our world, it is as though it doesn't exist, even if it does.

There can be a portal to this world, but no interaction.

Impossible. See above.

 

[steenkh]

I seriously doubt that the brain remembers birth in any way, in large part because usually your eyes are closed when this occurs, and also because memory isn't a flight recorder.

I recently read that experiments with rats and memory showed that certain hormones that helps the brain grow, at the same time erase memories. This is probably the reason why we cannot remember anything from the very first years (except implanted memories of what people have later told us) and very very little from the early years.

 

[steenkh]

This 'interaction'-argument is not convincing. It's not because a parallel world does not interact with our world, that this parallel world does not exist.
There can be a portal to this world, but no interaction.

If you know about it, then you have an interaction. Your brain has received information about this world, so something has interacted with the molecules in the brain to give it that information about the other world.

We know that we have exhausted all possible interactions with molecules at the temperature/energy range of the kind of world that a brain can operate in, and there are no interactions with with alternative worlds.

 

[Belz...]

I recently read that experiments with rats and memory showed that certain hormones that helps the brain grow, at the same time erase memories. This is probably the reason why we cannot remember anything from the very first years (except implanted memories of what people have later told us) and very very little from the early years.

Not only that, but our brain has a certain capacity, and I suspect that it "forgets" things to make space for new experiences regularily.

 

[Hellbound]

Not only that, but our brain has a certain capacity, and I suspect that it "forgets" things to make space for new experiences regularily.

I don't know that it necessarily forgets things like that. The brain is a more fluid storage system, and works more on associations between various ides/sensations rather than storing discreet events. Memories are not so much replayed as reconstructed from associated bits and pieces. As those bits and pieces become associated with more and more memories, it gets harder to sort them. A lot of things get "blended together" (for lack of a better term), or mixed with other pieces of memory, and lose some fidelity.

Of course, this is my understanding, and I reserve the right to be wrong

 

[Belz...]

I don't know that it necessarily forgets things like that. The brain is a more fluid storage system, and works more on associations between various ides/sensations rather than storing discreet events.

Yes, of course. What I meant was that, however the brain does its thing to store new memories, it must damage or twist old ones once in a while. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a result of the process, new, false memories are fabricated through incorrect associations.

 

[Nonpareil]

Non sequitur.

Nope.

It's not because you can't prove it, that it doesn't exist.

Yep. That's the definition of existence. If something exists, there must be a way to show that it does, even if that method is only theoretical. Otherwise, there is literally no difference between it being real and it not being real - which means that, by definition, it isn't.

It depends on your definition of 'real'. What are your (arbitrary?) criteria for 'real'?

I have already given them, but in case someone else is still confused, something is "real" when it has an effect on the rest of the universe. If it has no effect on the rest of the universe, then saying it is real is no different than arguing that there is an invisible, undetectable dragon sitting in my lap right now.

When many people have had the same experience of an altered reality, it can be called 'real'.

Yes, hallucinations are real.

Non sequitur again. A parallel Universe don't have to have soms sort of effect on another parallel Universe.

Then so far as either universe is concerned, the other is not real. There is literally no difference between "this has no effect on our universe, ever" and "this does not exist".

Why? Who says so?

The content of an NDE-experience has an effect on the people and their lives. It has a detectable effect on their ideas and human behaviour. It has a detectable effect on people who listen to this NDE-stories.

Because that's the only definition of "exists" that has any actual meaning. Any other criteria are useless, as they allow one to argue that the aforementioned invisible, undetectable dragon could exist.

And this is the actual definition of "exists" according to Merriam-Webster. All I have done is explain what is meant by "real".

The content of an NDE-experience has an effect on the people and their lives. It has a detectable effect on their ideas and human behaviour. It has a detectable effect on people who listen to this NDE-stories.

Again, yes. Hallucinations are real.

This 'interaction'-argument is not convincing. It's not because a parallel world does not interact with our world, that this parallel world does not exist.
There can be a portal to this world, but no interaction.

A portal is interaction.

 

[Hellbound]

Yes, of course. What I meant was that, however the brain does its thing to store new memories, it must damage or twist old ones once in a while. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a result of the process, new, false memories are fabricated through incorrect associations.

I figured, but wanted to add the clarity for any lurkers that might be out there. There's still a lot of people who think we're walking video recorders

 

[steenkh]

Not only that, but our brain has a certain capacity, and I suspect that it "forgets" things to make space for new experiences regularily.

Maybe, maybe not. Some people have an affliction that make them remember almost everything, being able to remember random newspaper headlines that they read on a certain date 20 years ago. Of course there must be a limited capacity, but it seems to be very very large, and I am not sure if it is really necessary to clean out old stuff in order to store new stuff. But there could be other reasons for cleaning out old stuff, such as sanity. Apparently those people who remember that much do not see it as a boon.

 

[SusanB-M1]

This 'interaction'-argument is not convincing. It's not because a parallel world does not interact with our world, that this parallel world does not exist.
There can be a portal to this world, but no interaction.

I recommend having a look at the 'Quantum Field theory' thread in Science.

 

[MaartenVergu]

There is literally no difference between "this has no effect on our universe, ever" and "this does not exist"

This is a logical fallacy. You talk about a "this" in the first sentence, so your assumption is that 'this' exists.
When you talk about a thing and you are saying that this thing has no effect on our universe, you imply that this thing exists.
By saying that there is no interaction between two dimensions, you imply that there are two dimensions. So it's not logically to say that it means that one of these dimensions does not exist.

 

[Belz...]

No, I can refer as the Death Star as "this", and I know it doesn't exist. Damn, Maartenn, you are desperate.

 

[MaartenVergu]

"x has no effect on our universe'
therefore
x does not exist.

is a fallacy

x can still exist without having any interaction with our universe.

 

[Donn]

This is a logical fallacy. You talk about a "this" in the first sentence, so your assumption is that 'this' exists.

Please. He's referring to your proposed portals and universes.

 

[MaartenVergu]

No, that's not true.
He is defining something as real "when it interacts with our Universe".
i don't even think it's an official scientific definition of 'real'. It's an arbitrary one and a wrong one.

F.e. there can be another Universe not interacting with our Universe. They both exist, but there is just no interaction between them.
In the multiverse hypothesis it must be true that all other (infinite) universes must interact with ours, otherwise these universes don't exist? No. That's not what
the multiverse hypothesis inmplies.