Near Death Experiences

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I am unsure what the number of people who did not have NDEs has to do with anything. The point is that there are certain known, reproducible brain states that cause the sensations in question.

When dying and being resuscitated all kinds of random chemicals and electricity is being pumped into the patient to "save" them. This means we should fully expect random results and experiences from this. Some people will have no experiences, some people will. Some people will have experiences of being outside their body, some people will not. Some people will have memories, some people will not.

So, if anything, the fact that the majority of people have no experiences at all is to be expected. Not puzzled over. In fact reading the paper in question even the authors talk about how the 12% figure is over stated and figures closer to 5% are relevant.

[Oleg Bach]

There is no such thing as near death - It is either dead or alive..oh - and if you see the LIGHT - do go to it - run the other way.

[Oleg Bach]

Correction - never "go to the light" - maybe near death experience would be best described as a warning of the oblivion to come...No one has ever reported back after a fully dead experience...It will always remain the great mystery...coming to the edge of death does not show death - just the edge.

[Oleg Bach]

But in the alternative - I do believe that in dreams you can see the other side - on occassion..these are rare.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

No, that would be to give you much more credit than I think you deserve as I do not think you have the imagination for it.

Since you have yet to even address, much less refute a single data point that I've presented, since you've clearly not read the papers I've linked multiple times, and since you appear to think that ad hominum attacks amount to a debate strategy, I'm done with you.

If you'd like to debate the science, to point out where my (or other's) observations or interpretations are invalid, by all means we can discuss that.

But "you're too stupid to even be taken seriously" is not a debate strategy I'm going to rebut any further.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I have noticed people who say "I am done with you" are the people most likely to keep replying to you, so you will forgive me if I assume for now that you are not done as you claimed and I reply anyway, safe in the knowledge that you will retract your own statement and be far from done. Though I have been proved wrong before, I doubt I will in this.

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

since you appear to think that ad hominum

I think your understanding of "ad hominem" is about as strong as your spelling of it.

Ad hominem is when you say someone is wrong because of some flaw on their part. For example if I said "Your point on physics is wrong because you are just a biologist" this would be ad hominem. I engaged in no such thing so now you are just making things up about me in order to save face in your retreat from the thread. Just like this...

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

But "you're too stupid to even be taken seriously" is not a debate strategy

I never said any such thing yet you put it in quotes. I not only never said those words I never said anything like it in the post you are replying to. All I said was I never once credited you with making up the VR idea, that I was aware someone else did, and I have no reason to think you capable of having done it. That is all and I see nothing wrong with that. It is not an insult, even if you choose to take it as one. If a huge block was moved and someone said "I do not think you moved it, you do not seem to have the physical strength to do it" people never get offended. If you say "I do not think you thought of that idea yourself, you do not seem to have the imagination for it" people do. One wonders where the difference is however.

Now to return to the actual content of my post and the topic of this thread, both of which you entirely ignored by getting offended over things I never said or did.....

The point I am making is that you appear to be putting forward things that currently are open questions and using those open questions to make up anything you want. The particle/wave duality of science for example is a surprising observation and we need to explain it. That is what we are trying to do. Until that point however you can not use that open question to justify making things up about the world.

As you saw we had one user on this thread say "I saw a magician on tele do something I can not explain, so that must mean there is magic, and magic means there must be some magic explanation for NDEs". That is essentially a distillation of his view.

I do not compare you to him lightly, as what you are offering here is essentially the same thing only less egregious as thinking television illusion is real magic. The best I can do however is distill your position down to "I saw an experiment result I can not explain, so that must mean there is magic, and magic means there must be some magic explanation for NDEs".

The sole back up for this is a complete misunderstanding of "prediction" in science and a theory predicting a result and a hypothesis being compatible with a result. The difference is not slight. We can make up lots of things that are COMPATIBLE with the observations of wave/particle duality. That is not the same as prediction, and that is not the same as substantiating your hypothesis. If you think either then you have completely misunderstood the practice of science.

Nor are you even showing that the VR theory DOES predict any such thing. To do so you would have to actually product a working Theory of VR and show that particles within such a system would actually act like the ones we observe. All you are doing is imagining a VR system and declaring... based on nothing but the fact it supports your fantasy.... that this is how particles within it would act.

And if assuming, based on nothing but it's compatibility with wave/particle duality.... that this entire universe is a VR simulation, is the best thing you can offer to explain sensations experienced when close to death on a hospital table.... sensations we already have explained and can reproduce almost at will.... then I am not sure why my issue with your position is so opaque to you. I can only hope that it is not so opaque to the majority of people still following this thread with interest, if indeed any still are after the ravings of the "illusionists prove there is magic" user before you.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

This is rich coming from the guy who just openly insulted posters and declared that he wished them dead. You do not get to make such comparisons any more. In a forum dedicated to the free exchange of ideas you simply insult those who disagree with you and imagine their deaths. This says more about you than I ever could and I can not describe how useful it was to have you write what you did in post #76. I hope you never delete it, I intend to link back to it as often as possible from this day forth so everyone can see just who you are.
And maybe if I link back to it often enough then some day you will re-read it and YOU will see yourself for who you are. Right now you clearly do not.

Rather than engage in anything remotely similar to serious thinking and reasoning beyond the surface and superficial . . . you continue to pursue a campaign of obnoxiousness and disagreeableness. Both I and Dental are making very deep philosophical points and you are making egotistical superficial retorts.

We are discussing Near Death experiences and I expressed a desire for you to experience one not so Near so you could appreciate the reality of it and stop your assault in your arrogant certainty about things you are ignorant about. You obviously intend to make it the heart of your campaign against intelligent discourse . . . as you do with your use of magical and mystical as pejoratives. No one is fooled.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The question does not make any sense. All the brain states are real regardless of whether they occur naturally or artificially. The only difference is in what is causing them. So I am not sure what your point is.

That could not be more obvious. Brain states exist for a reason. Just because we only know and can identify those connected with our known sensory inputs from our reality . . . does not make the others less so. Over 95% of our reality is beyond our known sensory systems. To presume that the other brain states are NOT sensing anything from that 95% is extreme bias. Producing the brain states artificially does nothing to suggest that the actual conditions they are supposed to respond to do not exist. We do not pretend that because we can artificially stimulate the known sensory paths that therefore there really are no actual inputs from reality that use them.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

No you did not say "not so near" you said "not just near" in other words you want it to go all the way. Now that the admin edited your post I can see why you would take the chance to pretend you said something else, but I wisely saved the text.

As per usual the majority of your post is just name calling. In one post we see "superficial", "obnoxious" "disagreeable" "egotistical" " arrogant" "ignorant". You simply can not stop yourself can you. No evidence.... no problem.... just go on a personal insult campaign instead.... your entire approach.

No there is no "deep philosophical points" on offer here. Two users are just offering "I can not explain X, so there must by magic, and magic means there must be some thing more to NDEs than just brain states under stress". And you are just offering "Yes they are just brain states and we can explain them and even reproduce them in normal situations but because they are happening close to death this makes them _special_"

You seem to be ruled by context in your approach to everything. Reproducible and explained brain states in the context of nearly dying suddenly become something else more lofty and special. People dream all the time but dozing off while meditating and having a dream means the dream is suddenly something else more lofty and special.

Yet I see nothing from you explaining why perfectly normal and explainable things, put in a different context, suddenly become special and requiring a different explanation to the one that works in all the other contexts. I am litterally agog for an explanation to this and I do not get one from you. Ever. And when I do ask for one you either go on a rampage of insults or start wishing me dead. What gives?