Merged Near Death Experience Study

[Donn]

Declaring another universe - fiat lux! - is simple rhetoric. You don't obtain an actual thing by speaking it.

Multiverses are hypothetical. When they are evidenced, you will find they made an impact on our universe.

All this is beside the point, which is: a thing that does not interact in any way with you can be stated to not exist. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Um, no.

Consider the Teapot...

 

[Slowvehicle]

"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.

Only if you are happy to extend the meaning of "exist" to include things with no substance, no interactions, and no effect...

Which you, in desperation,may be.

 

[bruto]

"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.

How would you know? You can imagine something that does not exist, and your imagination, then, exists because it affects you, and you are part of the universe. You can create an idea. But if a thing does not itself interact with the universe, then you cannot follow it back past your imagination unless you commit the foolery of declaring that nothing can be imagined without having existed before you imagined it.

 

[Nonpareil]

"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.

Only if your definition of "exists" is shoddy enough to include literally everything that has ever been imagined by anyone, ever.

This is a logical fallacy.

Really? Show me which, then.

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

In no way, shape, or form is that true.

 

[bruto]

Only if your definition of "exists" is shoddy enough to include literally everything that has ever been imagined by anyone, ever.



Really? Show me which, then.



In no way, shape, or form is that true.

It's worse than that. If we can only imagine things that already exist (rather than bringing ideas into existence themselves) then, unless we magically create existence retroactively through imagination (a time traveling feat difficult even for a god, I think), then everything we might possibly imagine must exist before we imagine it, whether or not we ever do. All possibilities are real, all possible universes exist. Imagine a flying purple people eater snacking on a hobbit, and bingo, its occurrence to your mind proves that it already existed somewhere.

But wait! If it existed before it occurred to you, then it interacted with your mind, which is part of the universe, and so it squeezes out of Maartenn's grasp.

Reality is a slippery thing when it isn't real.

 

[MaartenVergu]

I wonder how scientists induced an NDE?
How did they know that the experience was exactly the same experience as an NDE?
They did the experiment with people who had an NDE, so they could confirm that it was like an NDE? I don't think they did.
Did they see the tunnel, the light, the peaceful feelings, a lifereview and the words: it's not your time yet?

 

[Nonpareil]

I wonder how scientists induced an NDE?
How did they know that the experience was exactly the same experience as an NDE?
They did the experiment with people who had an NDE, so they could confirm that it was like an NDE? I don't think they did.

So we're just ignoring the points made against us, then? All right. Fair enough. The fingers-in-ears defense has been a standard throughout history, after all. A billion six-year-olds can't be wrong.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

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.

Ok, but no interaction means *NO* interaction. There are no portals, no gateways, it doesn’t affect your dreams, we don’t occasionally see things from the other universe and call them ghosts. Because those things *are* interactions.

And if there are no interactions, then as far as we are concerned the other universe might as well not exist. Because nothing in that universe can ever effect anything in our universe in any way. It could stop existing tomorrow and we’d never have any way of knowing.

And if it does have interactions with our universe, no matter how fleeting or subtle, even if it only effects someone’s dreams, there will be some way to detect it and measure it, even if only theoretically.

 

[Donn]

So we're just ignoring the points made against us, then?

^ This.

What do you have to say about recent points, Maartenn? Why the subject change?

 

[steenkh]

"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.

Yes, but how would you know about it when there is no interaction? It is completely futile to think about the existence of things that you by definition cannot ever know about.

 

[Belz...]

"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.

Do you think you could slow down for a moment and understand what people are telling you ? It's not that it doesn't exist. But if it has no effect on our universe (none means you cannot perceive it, because that would be an effect) then it is the same as not existing, from our point of view.

 

[Belz...]

I wonder how scientists induced an NDE?
How did they know that the experience was exactly the same experience as an NDE?
They did the experiment with people who had an NDE, so they could confirm that it was like an NDE? I don't think they did.
Did they see the tunnel, the light, the peaceful feelings, a lifereview and the words: it's not your time yet?

That is an argument from personal experience. Science doesn't work that way. Just because _you_ feel something doesn't mean it has any basis in reality, even if the experience itself is real.

You are proceeding from false premises. First of all, NDEs are not as similar as you claim, which is the very core of your argument. Second, even if they were, it wouldn't prove that they are of a supernatural origin. As we said, the human brain is similar across almost every single human being, so under similar conditions we expect it to react in a similar way. Thirdly, we cannot assume the existence of the supernatural; we must detect it, which would of course make it non-supernatural ("natural"). Fourth, we have already explained that something either can interact with our universe, which is required for you to perceive it, and entails that we can detect it with other instruments (consciousness isn't a special form of existence), or it can't, in which case you cannot perceive it, and it might as well not exist, even if it does.

Re-read that paragraph a few times before snapping a response at me.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Belz... when scientists claim they have induced an NDE, they must define first what an NDE is. Otherwise their experiment is meaningless.
it's OBE, seeing the tunnel, meeting the beautiful bright light, peaceful feelings, a life review with moral lessons and the words: 'it's not your time yet.' That's, most of the time, the experience of people who had an NDE.
When these components were not part of the induced experience, their claim is wrong that they induced an NDE. Scientists must define 'an NDE' before they induce it. Otherwise they don't know what they are inducing.


And I changed the subject because I gave all the arguments I have, Nonpareil. And you have another opinion obviously. You don't see the fallacies in your own 'reasoning'.

The fallacies are:

"when you can't prove x, x does not exist."

It's not because you are unable to prove something (yet), that x does not exist.

"something is real when it interacts with our Universe"

In the multiverse hypothesis there are universes postulated as being 'real' wich are not interacting with our universe.

 

[Akhenaten]

Belz... when scientists claim they have induced an NDE, they must define first what an NDE is: it's OBE, seeing the tunnel, meeting the beautiful bright light, peaceful feelings and the words: 'it's not your time yet.'

When and by whom was this scientific definition established?

Where might I be able to peruse the document which contains it?

That's, most of the time, the experience of people who had an NDE.

How do you know this? Have you interviewed them all?

When these components were not part of the induced experience, their claim is wrong that they induced an NDE.

How did you get to be the arbitrator of these things?

That's pure logic thinking.

No, it's a bare assertion without even a scintilla of evidential support.

 

[MaartenVergu]

When and by whom was this scientific definition established?

Where might I be able to peruse the document which contains it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

The traits of a classic NDE are as follows:

The notice of unpleasant sound or noise (claimed by R. Moody).
A sense/awareness of being dead.
A sense of peace, well-being and painlessness. Positive emotions. A sense of removal from the world.
An out-of-body experience. A perception of one's body from an outside position. Sometimes observing doctors and nurses performing medical resuscitation efforts.
A "tunnel experience". A sense of moving up, or through, a passageway or staircase.
A rapid movement toward and/or sudden immersion in a powerful light. Communication with the light.
An intense feeling of unconditional love and acceptance.
Encountering "Beings of Light", "Beings dressed in white", or similar. Also, the possibility of being reunited with deceased loved ones.
Receiving a life review, commonly referred to as "seeing one's life flash before one's eyes".
Receiving knowledge about one's life and the nature of the universe.
Approaching a border,[20] or a decision by oneself or others to return to one's body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return.
Connection to the cultural beliefs held by the individual, which seem to dictate the phenomena experienced in the NDE and the later interpretation thereof.


Kenneth Ring (1980) subdivided the NDE on a five-stage continuum. The subdivisions were:
Peace
Body separation
Entering darkness
Seeing the light
Entering the light

(source Wikipedia)

How do you know this? Have you interviewed them all?

Pim Van Lommel did. Read his book. And there are many interviews on Youtube.
When you do an effort to listen to these people, most of the time they talk about:
an out of body experience, a tunnel, a beautiful light, a feeling of peace and love, the words: it's not your time yet, and suddenly being back in their bodies.
They also come back with a whole new set of values.

Give me the scientific experiment were scientists induced such an NDE with these ingredients.
I don't think that you can give me such an example.

 

[Donn]

And I changed the subject because I gave all the arguments I have..

So, your modus operandi is to list your "argument", ignore all those who engage them and give you many thoughts and ask many questions, and then march onto the next "argument"?

You advance by ignorance and intend only spam.

Good to know.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Donn, nonparaleil can't admit that he/she made some logical fallacies.
So, I'm not going to repeat it endlessly.

The fallacies are:

"when you can't prove x, x does not exist."

It's not because you are unable to prove something (yet), that x does not exist.

"something is real when it interacts with our Universe"

In the multiverse hypothesis there are universes postulated as being 'real' wich are not interacting with our universe.

 

[Donn]

That is untrue, Maartenn. Go read the posts again.

 

[turingtest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

The traits of a classic NDE are as follows:

The notice of unpleasant sound or noise (claimed by R. Moody).
A sense/awareness of being dead.
A sense of peace, well-being and painlessness. Positive emotions. A sense of removal from the world.
An out-of-body experience. A perception of one's body from an outside position. Sometimes observing doctors and nurses performing medical resuscitation efforts.
A "tunnel experience". A sense of moving up, or through, a passageway or staircase.
A rapid movement toward and/or sudden immersion in a powerful light. Communication with the light.
An intense feeling of unconditional love and acceptance.
Encountering "Beings of Light", "Beings dressed in white", or similar. Also, the possibility of being reunited with deceased loved ones.
Receiving a life review, commonly referred to as "seeing one's life flash before one's eyes".
Receiving knowledge about one's life and the nature of the universe.
Approaching a border,[20] or a decision by oneself or others to return to one's body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return.
Connection to the cultural beliefs held by the individual, which seem to dictate the phenomena experienced in the NDE and the later interpretation thereof.


Kenneth Ring (1980) subdivided the NDE on a five-stage continuum. The subdivisions were:
Peace
Body separation
Entering darkness
Seeing the light
Entering the light

(source Wikipedia)


Pim Van Lommel did. Read his book. And there are many interviews on Youtube.
When you do an effort to listen to these people, most of the time they talk about:
an out of body experience, a tunnel, a beautiful light, a feeling of peace and love, the words: it's not your time yet, and suddenly being back in their bodies.
They also come back with a whole new set of values.

Give me the scientific experiment were scientists induced such an NDE with these ingredients. I don't think that you can give me such an example.

Read this article, and consider the implications. I've already asked you if you've taken into account people who come as near death with no experiences at all, and proposed that, without this consideration, you're inferring a universal "objective reality" from an incomplete data set; now you need to consider another set of data- people who only believe they are near death, and have the same experiences as those who actually are. Do you understand what this suggests?

Since you like logical fallacies so much, here's one for you- "circular thinking." You're defining these things as "near death experiences," and then defining near death experiences as only these things; without considering anything outside that self-limited data set, and (as I've said before) that "near death" is as much a part of the phrase as "experiences," you're clinging to what are only dreams as all your evidence for your "objective reality."