God

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

No...you are not getting the point.   All spiritual matters are not 'beliefs' as you think. You are confusing religion with secular spirituality.

NDE's for example, are not a belief.  They are not 'woo'. They are real experiences and point to a real after-life.

NTS and torri have beaten me to it: the "having experiences" is fine; the "point to a real after-life" is the woo.

It's you who's not getting it. As I just explained to you the difference between a hypothesis and a "whatever pops into your head", why is that?     

[Sriram]

Incorrect.  They are real experiences but 'pointing to a real after-life' is a woo interpretation.

Why is it 'woo'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Why is it 'woo'?

Because it’s not based on knowledge, experience or observation. It’s equivalent to “it points to Charon, the ferryman of the dead, tying up his boat”. For epistemological purposes it’s just white noise.

[ippy]

'Woo' is all in your head, ippy!     

Is the idea of parallel universes 'woo'?  Is the idea of a String 'woo'? Is the idea of 11 dimensions 'woo?  Is time travel 'woo'? Is the many worlds hypothesis 'woo'? Is the idea of consciousness participating in the creation of the universe 'woo'?  Is non-local influence of particles 'woo'?

Its all about our biases and the Two boxes syndrome.

I am aware that the human idea of logic can be thrown out when looking into the area of quantum mechanics, since right back from Richard Feynman's days but I'm sorry your credibility diminishes for me when you start referring to old scripture, assuming scripture is the correct word to describe Hindu writings, from ancient beliefs as possibilities. 

ippy.

[Sriram]

NDE's are 'ancient beliefs'? 

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Because it’s not based on knowledge, experience or observation. It’s equivalent to “it points to Charon, the ferryman of the dead, tying up his boat”. For epistemological purposes it’s just white noise.

What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?

[Stranger]

What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?

No, saying they point to a real afterlife is not based on experience and observation.   

[ippy]

What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?

There's nothing I've seen anywhere that suggests that N D Es are anything more than mind shutting down such as flying to high in a plane without supplementary oxygen.

ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?

The NDEs are based on experience and observation; claiming them to point to a supposed afterlife on the other hand isn't - that's the woo part. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's nothing I've seen anywhere that suggests that N D Es are anything more than mind shutting down such as flying to high in a plane without supplementary oxygen.

ippy.

How does it suggest that the mind is shutting down.
Do you think that if your awareness of time shut down before the rest of your consciousness you would experience a state in which time had no relevence?
How would this go if your conscience was still on but your mechanisms of guilt suppression had shut down?

[Sriram]

I have already provided scientific opinion on NDE's in another thread. Here it is again...


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full

*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.

As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach

In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..

it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.

Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.

*************

[ippy]

How does it suggest that the mind is shutting down.
Do you think that if your awareness of time shut down before the rest of your consciousness you would experience a state in which time had no relevence?
How would this go if your conscience was still on but your mechanisms of guilt suppression had shut down?

No idea what you're writing about here Vlad?
ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what you're writing about here Vlad?
ippy.

You said NDE are the mind shutting down. What evidence do you have that this is happening or is it because you've just heard it said?

If the mind is shutting down and you lose your sense of time but not your awareness what state would you be in?

[ippy]

I have already provided scientific opinion on NDE's in another thread. Here it is again...


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full

*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.

As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach

In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..

it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.

Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.

*************

So I've been told the symptoms of high altitude without oxygen are so similar there seems to little difference between the two explanations.

Isn't mind a biological function that's a product of the brain? I suppose there's all sorts of things that anyone could make up to say different, I'll go for the former, why keep on trying to introduce woo into almost everything?

ippy.

[Dicky Underpants]

All the evidence points to Genesis being written in the middle of the 1st century BCE quite a long time after Moses purportedly lived. Not only that but it's not even the work of a single author.
At least one, although I have been an atheist for more than 30 years now.

You should note, Jeremy, that elsewhere he is on record as saying Moses may or may not have existed.
Either he's the most diligent wum I've come across, or he's got his head so far up his arse, he's wearing himself as a wig.

[Sriram]

So I've been told the symptoms of high altitude without oxygen are so similar there seems to little difference between the two explanations.

Isn't mind a biological function that's a product of the brain? I suppose there's all sorts of things that anyone could make up to say different, I'll go for the former, why keep on trying to introduce woo into almost everything?

ippy.

Your complaint seems to be....'why do you insist on pushing me out of my old science comfort zone?'   

[Stranger]

Your complaint seems to be....'why do you insist on pushing me out of my old science comfort zone?'   

First, this another manifestation of your rather silly assertion that people are talking about "old" science and things are moving in the direction you like - which, without evidence, resembles a playground taunt rather than a serious comment.

Second, I'm wondering if you even read all the article you quoted above, which, despite emphasising that we might not be able to explain NDEs using current science, was not being nearly as closed-minded and dogmatic about it as you were in #72 when you said that NDEs "point to a real after-life."

[Sriram]

Its quite simple!  I am of the opinion that NDE's point to a real after-life. No doubt about that.

If you insist that NDE's are merely brain generated images due to lack of oxygen or whatever....then there is the scientific opinion that NDE's cannot be brushed off quite so easily. That is what the above link is about.

I have posted the link earlier in the NDE thread.

[Stranger]

Its quite simple!  I am of the opinion that NDE's point to a real after-life. No doubt about that.

And it's certainty without evidence that makes it woo. It's not impossible that there is an afterlife and that NDEs have something to do with it, but we have no solid evidence whatsoever and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.

If you insist that NDE's are merely brain generated images due to lack of oxygen or whatever....then there is the scientific opinion that NDE's cannot be brushed off quite so easily. That is what the above link is about.

I have posted the link earlier in the NDE thread.

Whereas the article is clearly sympathetic to the notion of going beyond physical explanations, it offered no solid evidence for the view, and was largely about pointing out that we don't currently have a full explanation (or didn't then, it was eight years ago).

[Sriram]

And it's certainty without evidence that makes it woo. It's not impossible that there is an afterlife and that NDEs have something to do with it, but we have no solid evidence whatsoever and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.

Whereas the article is clearly sympathetic to the notion of going beyond physical explanations, it offered no solid evidence for the view, and was largely about pointing out that we don't currently have a full explanation (or didn't then, it was eight years ago).

There is no solid evidence for many of the things that scientists speculate on. Much of it could be proved wrong eventually.

Similarly, with the evidence that we have, an After-life is a possibility and that's all that needs to be acknowledged. You cannot dismiss it outright as a 'belief' or as 'woo' (whatever that is!  ).  That is what the link is about.

[torridon]

There is no solid evidence for many of the things that scientists speculate on. Much of it could be proved wrong eventually.

Similarly, with the evidence that we have, an After-life is a possibility and that's all that needs to be acknowledged. You cannot dismiss it outright as a 'belief' or as 'woo' (whatever that is!  ).  That is what the link is about.

Likewise, invisible magic fairies at the bottom of my garden in also then, a possibility. Like gods, goblins and ghosts, they are mythological beings with no provenance in science and no detail of definition.  The notion of after-life is about as plausible as these for the same reasons.

[Sriram]

Likewise, invisible magic fairies at the bottom of my garden in also then a possibility. Like gods, goblins and ghosts, they are mythological beings with no provenance in science and no detail of definition.  The notion of after-life is about as plausible as these for the same reasons.

That is a silly comparison that you people keep coming up with.   

NDE's actually happen....and they point to an after-life.  It has not been proven conclusively that the experience is entirely due to brain generated hallucinations.  The possibility of an after-life being real is acknowledged by scientists in the link given. That is all I am talking about.

Comparing this situation with fairies and unicorns is childish.

[torridon]

That is a silly comparison that you people keep coming up with.   

NDE's actually happen....and they point to an after-life.  It has not been proven conclusively that the experience is entirely due to brain generated hallucinations.  The possibility of an after-life being real is acknowledged by scientists in the link given. That is all I am talking about.

Comparing this situation with fairies and unicorns is childish.

You missed the point, NDEs happen, but claiming them as evidence of after-life is as childish as seeing a rainbow and claiming there to be a pot of gold at the end.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is a silly comparison that you people keep coming up with.   

And maybe a bit of Douglas Adam's quoting virtue signalling too.

[Sriram]

You missed the point, NDEs happen, but claiming them as evidence of after-life is as childish as seeing a rainbow and claiming there to be a pot of gold at the end.

How exactly??!!