Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes there is far too much misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not about the name or personality of the scientist, rather about the method they use to derive their conclusions. And then the conclusions are challenge robustly until they are accepted by the consensus.
Even once a consensus has been achieved, science is not talking about absolute truths, instead it is saying what is most likely based on the evidence we have. This can and does change, which is intrinsic to science.
One of the best things about science, is any good study has a section understanding the potential problems and shortcomings of the study. This is simple self-awareness. Other areas can learn from science on this. I very rarely hear from people who have beliefs beyond what the direct evidence suggests, who also understand the limitations of their beliefs. You seem to be one of those rare people - you believe in reincarnation but also understand the possible limitations of the method you used to reach that conclusion.
Careful about too much mention of science, because there are a few people in this forum very quick to start talking about the "religion of scientism" in order to throw you and all reasonable contrary consideration about this sort of thing under the bus of their anti-science views and opinions. Very quick and anxious for their next chance. You'll see...
Yes there is far too much misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not about the name or personality of the scientist, rather about the method they use to derive their conclusions. And then the conclusions are challenge robustly until they are accepted by the consensus.
Even once a consensus has been achieved, science is not talking about absolute truths, instead it is saying what is most likely based on the evidence we have. This can and does change, which is intrinsic to science.
One of the best things about science, is any good study has a section understanding the potential problems and shortcomings of the study. This is simple self-awareness. Other areas can learn from science on this. I very rarely hear from people who have beliefs beyond what the direct evidence suggests, who also understand the limitations of their beliefs. You seem to be one of those rare people - you believe in reincarnation but also understand the possible limitations of the method you used to reach that conclusion.
I thank you for the posts you often contribute in this forum and for elevating the discussion to the "higher ground" that doesn't last too long in these threads as a general rule. Also for explaining yourself the way you do even if not well appreciated by those who all too often don't respect the basics you want to explain.
Curious, if I may. Why do you "want to believe in reincarnation/rebirth?"
Isn't it this sort of desire for a specific conclusion that inhibits our ability to consider these sorts of subjects or issues objectively? Isn't that yet another common "problem in this country?"
Because it is standard Buddhist belief, and I'm a Buddhist. But, I am a cherry picking Buddhist (which we are supposed to be).
I agree about his writing style, Cruithne. Obviously, I do not agree with all his views but the case against physicalism is well done. My views would center on different reasons for the apparent dissociative barrier. I may read some of the other essays, but I am skeptical of their objectivity. I suspect Kastrup had to address the paranormal for this particular audience. I am pleased that Irkle brought them to our attention in this thread!
I haven't had an NDE but I do have relatives who have. I think I mentioned that my principal antagonist on the old IANDS forum was a woman who'd had two profound NDEs, one in in childhood and one in young adulthood, yet was a militant atheist/anti-theist - albeit not a naturalistic atheist since she was convinced she'd experienced the Other Side.
Neither have I had a NDE, but I have a friend who had a coughing fit that made him start to black out due to lack of oxygen (he could not breathe in until he remembered a boxing / martial arts medical trick). He did see the tunnel and light, which would definitely be due to lack of oxygen.
But that is not my belief on NDEs, that is just one explanation for part of the experience. I accept there is much more to this, as in my post you quoted but for some strange reason did not address (false memories after the event and Intraoperative awareness).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The medical/scientific NDE literature is very robust. The phenomenon has been and is being studied from pretty much every conceivable approach. I don't think anyone believes NDEs are the last word in consciousness studies. They are simply one body of reasonably persuasive evidence.
The one aspect of NDEs that I find most compelling is (1) the frequency with which NDE experiencers encounter relatives, friends and acquaintances who are in fact dead; (2) the dead who are encountered are often not those who were closest to the experiencer and thus might have been "expected" if the NDE were merely a fantasy or delusion; (3) in a number of cases, the NDE experiencer did not even know the person who was encountered was dead and had no reason to think he or she might be dead; (4) in many cases, the NDE experiencer didn't even recognize the dead until after the NDE, when the individual was recognized in a family photograph; (5) other NDEs have involved encounters with dead brothers or sisters the experiencer didn't even know about because the mother had concealed their existence; and, lastly, (6) encounters with people who are actually still living and might have been "expected" aren't unheard-of but are comparatively few and far between, which against cuts against an explanation such as fantasy or delusion.
The literature may be robust, but there are many suspect cases as well. And as I mentioned, there are problems with these kind of studies because of the the difficulty of indepth monitoring of patients during surgery.
As to the points you find compelling, they are all anecdotal, and all have natural explanations when one understands how our brain plays tricks with our selves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I have a very difficult time even hypothesizing a mundane explanation for this body of evidence, apart from the typical last resort of a debunker - everyone is lying, fantasizing, wish-fulfilling, yada yada. I'm reminded of James H. Hyslop. a psychologist and Professor of Ethics and Logic at Columbia University who was also one of the really serious early psychical researchers. After hearing all the skeptical "explanations" for a series of very impressive mediumistic communications from his late father, he said: "I believe I was speaking with my late father. It's the simplest explanation and fits the facts the best."
By 'last resort', you are clearly referring to plausible alternatives, but you have to pretend they are last resort because that is the game you play, using debating tactics to win instead of addressing the actual arguments.
I was considering posting some of my views and arguments against NDEs being actual experiences, but from your posting history we can see you are not here for a honest discussion, so I do not see why I should waste my time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Oh, Pim von Lommel, who doesn't impress Harry? He has been a practicing cardiologist for 50 years and has devoted 35 years to the medical-oriented study of NDEs and consciousness. He has published extensively, including in peer-reviewed journals such as The Lancet and the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. But don't dismiss Harry's "lack of confidence" too quickly - he has a college degree, or at least says he does.
You should stop the snark (after all, you say you have done the work but still push creationist lies as a threat to real science ). My post based on 4 years of genuine study that you dismissed as a simple Google search can be verified if you was genuinely interested in looking at all angles. And my degree is based on decades of work done by neuroscientists, so I am familiar with the actual science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I will steer you to the wildly biased and entirely critical Wikipedia entry, which is so far into the ozone that it contains a neutrality warning from the Wiki folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_van_Lommel. My guess would be that Harry's actual knowledge of von Lommel doesn't exceed the borders of Wikipedia.
Instead of guessing and getting it wrong, why do you not simply ask? I admit I am not familiar with any of his work, but I have discussed NDEs with professional people interested in them, who have mentioned that his work on NDEs leaves a lot to be desired.
There is also the fact that he is a cardiologist, so his profession is irrelevant. You would not go to him to have brain surgery, would you?
But you remain with the ad hominems and name dropping, it appears to be the only thing you are actually capable of, or interested in.
Because it is standard Buddhist belief, and I'm a Buddhist. But, I am a cherry picking Buddhist (which we are supposed to be).
I am a little surprised about this answer from you...
Regardless what religion you may adopt, why the want for any certain outcome after death? If simply because you are a Buddhist, why do you want to be a Buddhist? Do notions about an after-life help you with this one? If yes, how so?
Again if you don't mind my drilling down a bit here...
Careful about too much mention of science, because there are a few people in this forum very quick to start talking about the "religion of scientism" in order to throw you and all reasonable contrary consideration about this sort of thing under the bus of their anti-science views and opinions. Very quick and anxious for their next chance. You'll see...
Do not fear LearnMe. It is already under the bus and for good reason. Even Science does not require the total devotion and worship you display. Science is based on curiosity, inquiry, and confirmation, not blind faith on either the subject nor the PhD's. Particularly beware the PhD's, the deities of Science. They will do and say anything for the money. As proven by this Mother Load of a "contest."
I'm not sure why all the negative comments. We often challenge theists to provide substantiation for things , and when they do we blow it off and kvetch. Read them or not, I'm not sure why the need to bash the link.
I have read a little, and what little I read wasn't hard science, but sort of anecdotal experiences.Maybe others will have a little hard science in them. I think hard science could be done on NDEs, hopefully more will be done in the future. But the contest will make for some interesting reading.
I am a little surprised about this answer from you...
Regardless what religion you may adopt, why the want for any certain outcome after death? If simply because you are a Buddhist, why do you want to be a Buddhist? Do notions about an after-life help you with this one? If yes, how so?
Again if you don't mind my drilling down a bit here...
Generally following Buddhist belief can lead to a reduction of suffering and a more moral life. Those two goals alone seem rather noble to me.
If reincarnation/rebirth is/are true, then that brings about a higher level of fulfillment of Buddhist teachings. A total end to suffering, as well as the knowledge that our life goes on into the future.
You may continue to drill down, if you wish. It's a good thing to do.
I'm not sure why all the negative comments. We often challenge theists to provide substantiation for things , and when they do we blow it off and kvetch. Read them or not, I'm not sure why the need to bash the link.
I have read a little, and what little I read wasn't hard science, but sort of anecdotal experiences.Maybe others will have a little hard science in them. I think hard science could be done on NDEs, hopefully more will be done in the future. But the contest will make for some interesting reading.
My feeling is the data received from people, such as the ones about possessions in the prize winner’s paper can be corrupt. Where is the evidence that the oral evidence is not corrupt and coached?
I do believe Self and Consciousness is real and mystical and can be experienced. How it is experienced is unique to each individual, each mind experiences it differently. Evidence in this respect is meaningless. To me this whole project seems a big circus and nothing else.
Can science eventually have hard data? May be but it would not change anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). My post based on 4 years of genuine study that you dismissed as a simple Google search can be verified if you was genuinely interested in looking at all angles. And my degree is based on decades of work done by neuroscientists, so I am familiar with the actual science.
