Merged Near Death Experience Study

[Nonpareil]

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'.

You haven't shown any.

You do know that there are defined logical fallacies, yes? You don't just get to declare "fallacious" and then walk away. You have to actually back it up.

For example, saying that we should give your proposed undetectable sleep paralysis demons any sort of consideration whatsoever, and ignore the proposition that there is an invisible unicorn outside my house right now, is an example of the fallacy of special pleading.

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.

And this is an example of the strawman argument fallacy. At no point have I argued that something does not exist just because it can't be proven yet.

What I have argued is that if something can never be proven, ever, under any circumstances, even in theory, because it has no measurable effect whatsoever on our universe, then it does not exist.

Being unable to prove something right now doesn't make it nonexistent. But if something cannot ever, even in theory, be detected in any way, then it meets the definition of nonexistence. There is literally no difference between it and any given imaginary entity.

"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.

If these universes are ever proven to be real, guess how it will happen?

That's right. By measuring the effect it has upon our universe. If there is literally no effect from these proposed other universes upon our own, ever, then detecting them is impossible, multiverse theory has no supporting evidence, and it will be discarded. On the other hand, if detecting them is possible, it will necessarily be because something in our universe is different because they are there, and so they meet the definition of existence.

Which makes your entire argument the most basic logical fallacy of all: the non sequitur. "If multiverse theory is true, then this definition is wrong!" Well, no. This definition is valid even if multiverse theory is true.

So where, again, is the fallacy?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Donn, nonparaleil can't admit that he/she made some logical fallacies.
So, I'm not going to repeat it endlessly.<snip of yet another repetition>

...I'll just leave that there.

You are still ignoring the fact that however fluidly you want to define "NDE"s, they truly have nothing al all to do with "D" and are heavily culturally biased on the "E" bit...

There's also that whole lack of evidence thing...

ETA: ninja-ed, eloquently, by turingtest; such is the experience of hanging out with smart people. Well said, sir!

 

[turingtest]

...I'll just leave that there.

You are still ignoring the fact that however fluidly you want to define "NDE"s, they truly have nothing al all to do with "D" and are heavily culturally biased on the "E" bit...

There's also that whole lack of evidence thing...

ETA: ninja-ed, eloquently, by turingtest; such is the experience of hanging out with smart people. Well said, sir!

Awwww...pee-shaw, tweren't nuthin, sir.
(I am wondering if Maartenn is getting any of this, though. If the only people who get it are the people who already got it, it's just preaching to the choir.)

 

[Nonpareil]

Awwww...pee-shaw, tweren't nuthin, sir.
(I am wondering if Maartenn is getting any of this, though. If the only people who get it are the people who already got it, it's just preaching to the choir.)

Unlikely. You get used to talking to brick walls here.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Awwww...pee-shaw, tweren't nuthin, sir.
(I am wondering if Maartenn is getting any of this, though. If the only people who get it are the people who already got it, it's just preaching to the choir.)

Unlikely. You get used to talking to brick walls here.

Still worth doing, given the propensity for such to declare "victory" because posters have simply stopped repeating the litany of how fundamentally wrong are the arguments nailed on the doors of reason.

 

[MaartenVergu]

I still have no answer to my question:

How is it possible that scientists claimed to have induced an NDE while their subjects never experienced one; How do they know that it had all the properties of an NDE?
Answer: they cannot know that. They had to use subjects who already had had an NDE; People who experienced an NDE during cardiac arrest f.e. can tell the scientist wether the induced hallucination is similar to an NDE or not.
So, scientists can't know that they really induced an NDE when their subjects never experienced one.

 

[Donn]

I still have no answer to my question:

Imagine that.

 

[Nonpareil]

I still have no answer to my question

Y'know, it's funny. I was thinking exactly that.

Where are those fallacies?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I still have no answer to my question:

How is it possible that scientists claimed to have induced an NDE while their subjects never experienced one; How do they know that it had all the properties of an NDE?
Answer: they cannot know that. They had to use subjects who already had had an NDE; People who experienced an NDE during cardiac arrest f.e. can tell the scientist wether the induced hallucination is similar to an NDE or not.
So, scientists can't know that they really induced an NDE when their subjects never experienced one.

...still ignoring the "D" part, ain'cha?

 

[MaartenVergu]

That's right. By measuring the effect it has upon our universe. If there is literally no effect from these proposed other universes upon our own, ever, then detecting them is impossible

You are right. Detecting them is impossible. But it does not mean they cannot exist.
It's theoretically possible that a universe exists, but it has no connection with our universe whatsoever.

Let's assume that your definition is a good definition.
The experience is an interaction.

 

[Donn]

You are right. Detecting them is impossible. But it does not mean they cannot exist.
It's theoretically possible that a universe exist, but it has no connection with our universe whatsoever.

Ah, a micro inch of progress. Now - so what? It may exist. How does this help you?

 

[Nonpareil]

You are right. Detecting them is impossible. But it does not mean they cannot exist.

Yes, it does. Again, that is the definition of non-existence.

I propose to you that leprechauns are real, but they can never be seen, touched, heard, smelled, tasted, detected via infrared or magnetism or blacklight or even a complete circle of Wizards of the Tength Arpeggian Order, armed with a full battery of assorted animal skulls, candles, bubbling cauldrons, magic staffs, and twenty-seven sacrificial virgins on standby, all focusing their power into the casting of a single instance of Woddeley's Magnificent Midget Detector.

Then I am wrong in saying that leprechauns are real, because there is no difference between them and any other imaginary entity. Arguing otherwise is special pleading.

That is exactly what you are doing for your proposed alternate dimensions.

Let's assume that your definition is a good definition.
The experience is an interaction.

The near-death experience, you mean? There is no difference between your proposed alternate-universe explanation and simple hallucinations.

So, again, it's a leprechaun.

 

[MaartenVergu]

The near-death experience, you mean? There is no difference between your proposed alternate-universe explanation and simple hallucinations

It's your assumption that it is a 'simple hallucination'.
People say that it was very vivid and that 'it was more real then here'.
So, 'simple hallucinations' is your assumption.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's your assumption that it is a 'simple hallucination'.
People say that it was very vivid and that 'it was more real then here'.
So, 'simple hallucinations' is your assumption.

Grammar and lexicon--our only tools against the darkness...

 

[Donn]

It's your assumption that it is a 'simple hallucination'.
People say that it was very vivid and that 'it was more real then here'.
So, 'simple hallucinations' is your assumption.

Okay. Hyper complicated hallucinations. Then.

So complex to beggar the imagination of genius. So complex as to be fractal to the tenth power of recursion in their fern-like roots of negative numbers.

There you go. Does that make it better?

 

[Nonpareil]

It's your assumption that it is a 'simple hallucination'.
People say that it was very vivid and that 'it was more real then here'.
So, 'simple hallucinations' is your assumption.

No, "simple hallucinations" is the default, since we know that hallucinations exist and that feelings such as these fall within the known bounds.

Please read up on the burden of proof. Jumping from "strange experience that still falls within the known boundaries of hallucinations" to "it's actually another dimension" violates this principle, and is a non sequitur.

Which, by the way, is a fallacy.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

It appears that we have different definitions of "scientific".

And different understandings of the quote function, although that's the least of your problems.

The traits of a classic NDE are as follows:
The notice of unpleasant sound or noise (claimed by R. Moody).

By this definition, I've had several NDEs. Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber are responsible for quite a few of them.

Who the hell is R.Moody anyway?

A sense/awareness of being dead.

Oxymoron doesn't even begin to cover the level of detachment from reality implicit in this idiotic "observation".

A sense of peace, well-being and painlessness. Positive emotions. A sense of removal from the world.

Beer.

An out-of-body experience. A perception of one's body from an outside position. Sometimes observing doctors and nurses performing medical resuscitation efforts.

Pethidine.

A "tunnel experience". A sense of moving up, or through, a passageway or staircase.

Poltergeist as seen by Jo Beth Williams.

A rapid movement toward and/or sudden immersion in a powerful light.

The Great Escape as seen by Steve McQueen.

Communication with the light.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind as seen by Richard Dreyfuss

An intense feeling of unconditional love and acceptance.

Molly. Sometimes known as eccy.

Encountering "Beings of Light", "Beings dressed in white", or similar. Also, the possibility of being reunited with deceased loved ones.

Elysium. (the Greek place, not the movie)

Receiving a life review, commonly referred to as "seeing one's life flash before one's eyes".

Facebook.

Receiving knowledge about one's life and the nature of the universe.

Cannabis Sativa

Approaching a border,[20] or a decision by oneself or others to return to one's body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return.

Tron.

Connection to the cultural beliefs held by the individual, which seem to dictate the phenomena experienced in the NDE and the later interpretation thereof.

All of the previously-mentioned recreational drugs.

Kenneth Ring (1980) subdivided the NDE on a five-stage continuum.

<snip>

So did Steven Spielberg.

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

Pim Van Lommel did. Read his book.

He did no such thing and no, I prefer non-fiction.

And there are many interviews on Youtube.

Srsly?

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.

In exactly the same way that if you asked a random selection of people about their impressions of a galaxy-wide conflict between opposing forces of good and evil they'd describe Star Wars.

Go figure.

They also come back with a whole new set of values.

Cite please.

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.

Scientists?

Movie directors do it all the time.

 

[Akhenaten]

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


<snip>

The evidence so far indicates that yes, you are.

Just as you'll forever refuse to embrace the quote function.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's right. By measuring the effect it has upon our universe. If there is literally no effect from these proposed other universes upon our own, ever, then detecting them is impossible

You are right. Detecting them is impossible. But it does not mean they cannot exist.

What it means is that they may just as well not exist.

More to the point, how do you know they exist?

It's theoretically possible that a universe exists, but it has no connection with our universe whatsoever.

How is this functionally different from its not existing at all?

Let's assume that your definition is a good definition.
The experience is an interaction.

Interaction with what? An undetectable Otherverse?

You appear to misunderstand the nature of 'interaction'.

 

[Belz...]

Belz... when scientists claim they have induced an NDE, they must define first what an NDE is. Otherwise their experiment is meaningless.

And you go on to define it as something very specific, which is NOT what we observe in real life. Of course, if you ignore all the cases where the NDE is different than what you want it to be, they are all the same !

Just like if I define "life" to include only plants, animals are, by definition, not alive. But that's silly.