God

[ippy]

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

Or could it be this rather simplistic idea of mine, where I'm inclined to look for some form of credibility in any statement I read or hear?

ippy.

[torridon]

How exactly??!!

They are equally implausible and gain traction in human minds only by virtue of their appeal to parts of us that don't want to accept reality.  Seems like some people will go to lengths to convince themselves that they don't die when they die. 

[Sriram]

They are equally implausible and gain traction in human minds only by virtue of their appeal to parts of us that don't want to accept reality.  Seems like some people will go to lengths to convince themselves that they don't die when they die. 

No...!    If a person sees a rainbow and claims that there is a real rainbow....it is valid.  The pot of gold doesn't come into it.

You are claiming that the rainbow is not real and it is merely a brain generated hallucination. That is nonsense.

[torridon]

No...!    If a person see a rainbow and claims that there is a real rainbow....it is valid.  The pot of gold doesn't come into it.

You are claiming that the rainbow is not real and it is merely a brain generated hallucination. That is nonsense.

No, my analogy would be that the rainbow is real, but the pot of gold is the wishful thinking imaginary part.  Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.

[Sriram]

No, my analogy would be that the rainbow is real, but the pot of gold is the wishful thinking imaginary part.  Like claiming to be still being alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful part of your NDE claims.

It is an actual experience. You are asserting (with no evidence at all) that it is imagination. Scientists (as in the link) acknowledge that it cannot be brushed off like that.

[torridon]

It is an actual experience. You are asserting (with no evidence at all) that it is imagination. Scientists (as in the link) acknowledge that it cannot be brushed off like that.

Having experience is a phenomenon of living things.  Dead people don't have experience, neither do rocks or piano concertos or bus stops.

[Sriram]

No, my analogy would be that the rainbow is real, but the pot of gold is the wishful thinking imaginary part.  Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.

'Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.'

What??!!

[torridon]

'Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.'

What??!!

Yep.  Its a fantastical incoherent nonsense claim.

[Sriram]

Having experience is a phenomenon of living things.  Dead people don't have experience, neither do rocks or piano concertos or bus stops.

What kind of a circular argument is that??!!      Your assumption is your conclusion.   

[torridon]

What kind of a circular argument is that??!!      Your assumption is your conclusion.   

Its a conclusion from evidence.  Have you ever seen a bus stop enjoying the smell of napalm in the morning ?

[Sriram]

Thanks torridon.     I think I'll end with that! 

[torridon]

Probably for the best.  I think the virus has gotten into my brain 

[Stranger]

It is an actual experience. You are asserting (with no evidence at all) that it is imagination.

The experience isn't imaginary. It is the afterlife that almost certainly is.

Scientists (as in the link) acknowledge that it cannot be brushed off like that.

Except they didn't really. Even though the authors seem to want to believe in something not explainable by current science, all they were actually able to do was raise questions about some of the current ideas and say that it hasn't been fully explained yet.

The word "afterlife" only appears three times in the article, once warning against jumping to that conclusion and twice in the context of psychological expectations. So even with their bias, they stop short of explicitly suggesting it as an explanation. They also specifically reference Popper with regard to falsifiability. We would need a hypothesis of an afterlife that made testable predictions. I'm not aware even of a proposal for such a hypothesis.

[Sriram]

The experience isn't imaginary. It is the afterlife that almost certainly is.

Except they didn't really. Even though the authors seem to want to believe in something not explainable by current science, all they were actually able to do was raise questions about some of the current ideas and say that it hasn't been fully explained yet.

The word "afterlife" only appears three times in the article, once warning against jumping to that conclusion and twice in the context of psychological expectations. So even with their bias, they stop short of explicitly suggesting it as an explanation. They also specifically reference Popper with regard to falsifiability. We would need a hypothesis of an afterlife that made testable predictions. I'm not aware even of a proposal for such a hypothesis.

You keep talking about 'belief'...as though it is some mythology.  NDE's are real and the after-life is therefore a real possibility. It needs to be examined further but it is not a 'belief'.  People of  different cultures and even many non religious people have had NDE's and OBE's.

Understanding reality is important...whatever it is. Biases are dysfunctional.

[Stranger]

You keep talking about 'belief'...as though it is some mythology.

It is.

NDE's are real and the after-life is therefore a real possibility.

Of course NDEs are real but it simply doesn't follow that there's an afterlife. You can say anything is a possibility if you can't actually falsify it. What is lacking is any actual evidence, let alone enough to question all the evidence we have that suggests an afterlife is impossible.

It needs to be examined further but it is not a 'belief'.  People of  different cultures and even many non religious people have had NDE's and OBE's.

Again, nobody is questioning that people have the experiences.

Understanding reality is important...whatever it is.

Indeed.

Biases are dysfunctional.

And dogmatism, based on flimsy or non-existent evidence, doubly so.

[torridon]

You keep talking about 'belief'...as though it is some mythology.  NDE's are real and the after-life is therefore a real possibility.

Still making the same fundamental epistemic flaws in logic, vis :

Rainbows are real and therefore pots of gold at the end are a real possibility.

Doesn't follow.

[Sriram]

Still making the same fundamental epistemic flaws in logic, vis :

Rainbows are real and therefore pots of gold at the end are a real possibility.

Doesn't follow.

What....??!!   Oh, well...never mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What....??!!      Oh, well...never mind.

Why are you struggling with this? Imagine that before thunder was understood someone said, “it’s quite simple! I am of the opinion that thunder points to a real Thor. No doubt about that.”

Could you see the problem with that? Sure enough thunder/NDEs are based on experience and observation, but your attribution of cause isn’t. It’s just a fantastical claim with nothing to justify it. Saying, “but it’s not impossible” is epistemically no more useful than saying the same thing about Thor. 

[Sriram]

The experience is itself about the after-life. It is not about some 'feeling' that is attributed to an imaginary after-life. 

If one experiences thunder, the thunder exists. It is not some hallucination in the brain. Attributing it to Thor does not figure in the discussion at all.  If one sees a rainbow...the rainbow exists. It is not an illusion generated in the brain.  The  pot of gold does not figure in the experience at all.

These are fallacious arguments.

[Stranger]

The experience is itself about the after-life. It is not about some 'feeling' that is attributed to an imaginary after-life. 

Utter drivel. The afterlife is an interpretation of the experience. Even the article you quoted warns against jumping to the conclusion it's about an afterlife.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The experience is itself about the after-life.

How on earth would you justify that remarkable claim?

It is not about some 'feeling' that is attributed to an imaginary after-life.

That’s exactly what it is. What else could we call it when there’s no path from the experience itself to the claimed explanation for it?   

If one experiences thunder, the thunder exists. It is not some hallucination in the brain.

So far, so good…

Attributing it to Thor does not figure in the discussion at all.

Yes it does if you’re daft enough to assert that that’s what thunder “points to”. The same goes for asserting that an NDE "points to" an afterlife.     

If one sees a rainbow...the rainbow exists. It is not an illusion generated in the brain.

Yep. Well done.

The  pot of gold does not figure in the experience at all.

That’s right, it no more figures in the experience of a rainbow than an afterlife figures in the experience of an NDE. Thor, pots of gold and an afterlife alike are all conjectures that begin where the experience and observation run out – they’re just unqualified speculations.   

These are fallacious arguments.

Nope. If you still think so though, then by all means try to explain why.

[Sriram]

You people are is severe denial. I guess nothing can be done....

Cheers.

Sriram

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You people are is severe denial. I guess nothing can be done....

Cheers.

Sriram

Ah, the sight of Sriram bailing when confronted by an argument he's unable to rebut. 

[Stranger]

You people are is severe denial. I guess nothing can be done....

It's quite amusing really. Even the article you yourself quoted* in an attempt to claim you had scientific support warns that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion you have. Trying to insist that the experience is the conclusion is just nonsensical.

Until and unless you learn about logic and evidence (yes, I have read the nonsense on your blog about it) you're probably right, nothing can be done.   

* And you even quoted the relevant section: "[NDE's] apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife...", see #85.

[Sriram]

How long do you want to carry on this 'yes, it is'...'no, it isn't'...discussion?!

You are never going to admit that the after-life is a real possibility as experienced through NDE's.  I am never going to say that NDE's are entirely brain generated illusions. 

So...cheers.