Merged Near Death Experience Study

[Belz...]

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.

Yes, it's possible. But if it does, then it is irrelevant, because we can never detect that universe in any way, and you could never perceive it in any way. Therefore it CANNOT be the source of NDEs, because it's an experience; a perception; an interaction/detection.

 

[Belz...]

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'.

Hallucinations usually are.

And at least we know those exist and are responsible for this sort of experience. For parallel universes ? Nada.

 

[MaartenVergu]

@nonpareil

You claimed: "when there is no proof, it doesn't exist"

Can you tell me how someone can proof (with the scientific method) that he had a dream about a horse and a cow f.e.
How does he proof that he had that particular dream and not some other dream?


Suddenly you have an image in your mind. How are you going to proof with the scientific method that you had that specific image in your mind and not some other image. Please use your best tools of science to proof it.
(you can't).

When your personal definition of 'reality = must interact with our universe' is right, what about some mathematical ideas? Are a perfect circle and its properties 'real'?
is PI real? How does a perfect mathematical object interact with the Universe? How does a true mathematical logic sheme like A + B = C therefore C-B=A "interact with the universe'?

 

[MaartenVergu]

Answer me:

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.

 

[Akhenaten]

Answer me:

<snip>

Seems fairly pointless.

You claim to already have all the answers you need and you refuse to even consider any dissent to them.

Go ahead and publish, I say.

 

[Belz...]

Answer me:

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?

Again I say: you are defining NDEs to have the components you WANT them to have. That isn't scientific.

 

[MaartenVergu]

What is the scienfitic definition of 'an induced NDE' the scientists used for their experiments, Belz...?

 

[Nonpareil]

@nonpareil

You claimed: "when there is no proof, it doesn't exist"

At no point did I say that.

I said that if there can never be proof, even theoretically, it does not exist.

Pay attention.

Can you tell me how someone can proof (with the scientific method) that he had a dream about a horse and a cow f.e.
How does he proof that he had that particular dream and not some other dream?

By finding an accurate enough brainwave reader. Which, while it does not yet exist, is theoretically possible.

When your personal definition of 'reality = must interact with our universe' is right, what about some mathematical ideas? Are a perfect circle and its properties 'real'?
is PI real? How does a perfect mathematical object interact with the Universe? How does a true mathematical logic sheme like A + B = C therefore C-B=A "interact with the universe'?

Abstractions like mathematics and associated principles exist as thoughts, not as independent entities. As for how thoughts exist, see the above comment on dreams.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Abstractions like mathematics and associated principles exist as thoughts, not as independent entities.

Some philosophers or mathematicians say that 'a mathematical truth' is as real as a measurable object. It's even more true. (Plato)
Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.
see 'mathematical realism'.

 

[Donn]

Are you saying that thoughts about triangles do not interact with our universe in any way?

 

[MaartenVergu]

The thought interacts, but the triangle does not. A perfect triangle does not interact with reality. A perfect sphere does not interact with reality. Yet these things are real.

I looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

I cannot find your 'definition' about interaction, Nonpareil.

Can you give us a scientific source for your definition of 'real'?

 

[Donn]

If the thought is of a triangle, then the triangle is of thought.

 

[Nonpareil]

Some philosophers or mathematicians say that 'a mathematical truth' is as real as a measurable object. It's even more true. (Plato)

Some mathematicians also believed in alchemy, the luminiferous ether, and the four humors. What is your point? Even assuming that he wasn't speaking figuratively, Plato, while an important figure in the history of philosophy, was wrong about many things simply because there was less information available to him.

Mathematical realism

...is not some moronic claim that you can go out into the universe and find a pi floating around, but rather the position that the mathematical properties of the universe, like gravity, are not dependent on humans to observe them.

It does not help your position.

 

[MaartenVergu]

I looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

I cannot find your 'definition' about "interaction with the universe", Nonpareil.

Can you give us a scientific source for your definition of 'real', Nonpareil?

 

[Nonpareil]

The thought interacts, but the triangle does not. A perfect triangle does not interact with reality. A perfect sphere does not interact with reality. Yet these things are real.

I looked it up.

They are real only in that they exist as abstractions within the human mind.

Also, for some reason, I laughed for a good minute after reading "I looked it up". No clue why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

I cannot find your 'definition' about interaction, Nonpareil.

Can you give us a scientific source for your definition of 'real'?

I already did.

"Exists" means "to have objective reality or being". To fulfill this condition, an entity must necessarily be objectively detectable.

It isn't a particularly hard concept.

 

[MaartenVergu]

It isn't a particularly hard concept.

You know that philosophers are still discussing about 'what is reality?', 'what can we know?' etcetera.
So, it's not an easy question with an easy answer. There are many different concepts.


When someone had an NDE and he or she is telling us that:
-It's difficult to use words to tell about it ('using words to describe it' is all we have).
- It felt more real than our world here.

than we can discuss about the fact wich status we must give to such an experience or hallucination.
When different people, who do not know eachother, experience the same 'hallucination', then this hallucination has some status of 'being real'.
Some people argue that 'its because we are wired the same'. But that's not a strong argument. Because we don't have the same dreams, although we are wired the same.

Philosophers are still discussing and there is not one theory about 'what is real'?. So, it's not that simple.

 

[Donn]

Some people argue that 'its because we are wired the same'. But that's not a strong argument. Because we don't have the same dreams, although we are wired the same.

Sure we do. There's a great number of things to dream about, but all our dreams share the same elements of the reality we have all grown up in: Earth and the physical laws that bind us.

So, you fly, you swim, you run, you walk, you fear, you rejoice, you eat, you hunger. It's all a recycling of the every day.

Each dream is not identical, but the characters and props are all drawn from our common sources.

Philosophers are still discussing and there is not one theory about 'what is real'?. So, it's not that simple.

You only want it to be complicated so you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Nonpareil]

You know that philosophers are still discussing about 'what is reality?', 'what can we know?' etcetera.
So, it's not an easy question with an easy answer. There are many different concepts.

It actually is. What's hard is getting people to accept the answer.

This is a common problem, with humans.

More seriously, that is a gross oversimplification of the actual questions being tackled by philosophers.

When someone had an NDE and he or she is telling us that:
-It's difficult to use words to tell about it ('using words to describe it' is all we have).
- It felt more real than our world here.

than we can discuss about the fact wich status we must give to such an experience or hallucination.
When different people, who do not know eachother, experience the same 'hallucination', then this hallucination has some status of 'being real'.

It was already real. Hallucinations exist.

Some people argue that 'its because we are wired the same'. But that's not a strong argument. Because we don't have the same dreams, although we are wired the same.

Actually, a good many dreams are commonly experienced by the vast majority of the population. Forgetting to put on pants, for example.

 

[bruto]

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.

And thus it violates your suggestion that things can exist, or be known to exist, with no connection whatsoever. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Belz...]

What is the scienfitic definition of 'an induced NDE' the scientists used for their experiments, Belz...?

I'm not playing your definitions game when you are utterly unwilling to even acknowledge the points that people post for your benefit. At least do so, and we'll talk about your own questions.