U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2012, 12:04 PM
 
7,801 posts, read 5,664,630 times
Reputation: 2979

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
I have heard that the stories that come from NDE are really just hallucinations caused by a lack of oxygen in the brain
Certainly that is one cause, but remember when we are resuscitating someone we also pump their body full of all kinds of chemicals AND electricity too. So there are all kinds of things going on putting the brain under all kinds of stresses, strains and activities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
Quantum physics experiments indicate that reality is not as it appears.
Indeed, and we have much to learn and in fact you are erring towards one of my fields here on which I know more than most. However the point is that such uncertainties and lack of knowledge are not in themselves evidence for anything you want to make up.

What I mean by this is that you can literally append "... because we do not know everything and reality is not always what it seems" to just about anything. Like this:

Homeopathy works, you can not say it does not because we do not know everything and reality is not always what it seems. Fairies exist and you can not say they do not because we do not know everything and reality is not always what it seems. Aliens might be able to travel here and abduct people for anal probing, how can you say they are not because we do not know everything and reality is not always what it seems.

You can make anything up and instead of evidencing it just go on about what we do not know and what is not as it seems. This is NOT evidence and it is NOT argument and it is NOT substantiation at all. You are still just making things up and then using peoples ignorance in certain fields to add credibility to your other wise baseless claims.

And whats comical for me is that people who play the "because we do not know everything and reality is not always what it seems" card will reject that same argument from other people who are espousing things THEY think are nonsense. The homeopathy guy meets the alien abduction guy and they both recognise that the "because we do not know everything and reality is not always what it seems" is just poor form from the other. They then do not recognise it in themselves.

So simply jumping from "Reality is not as it seems" to "therefore this is all a simulation" is a completely baseless non sequitur. At Best.

All that should be capturing your attention is the fact that in uncontrolled circumstances the anecdotes roll in. The second you place some control on it, such as making sure it really is impossible for the NDE patient to see the hidden object unless they actually DO leave their body.... the positive results stop dead. If this does not tell you what is going on then I am unsure what else will ever convince you that the NDE spiel really is baseless and unsubstantiated nonsense at this time.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 01-31-2012, 12:43 PM
 
2,665 posts, read 2,358,199 times
Reputation: 1473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
So simply jumping from "Reality is not as it seems" to "therefore this is all a simulation" is a completely baseless non sequitur. At Best.
Good thing that's not what I did, then.

Clearly, you did not read the paper to which I linked, nor do you seem to understand the implications of the double slit experiment previously mentioned.

In a nutshell, the results of the experiment are quite literally IMPOSSIBLE if our reality were physical and objective. A single particle cannot become two particles, interfere with itself, and then merge back into a single particle. It's physically impossible. Conservation of mass and all of that.

They hypothesis that the particle doesn't actually physically exist unless and until it's measured, but rather it's a calculated, simulated, probabilistic particle that is rendered on demand as required explains the results, because such a thing would behave as a wave of probability. Waves, as we know, interfere with themselves when passed through a double slit.

The VR hypothesis also neatly explain a whole host of other scientific oddities that make no sense in an objective reality. Why light takes the fastest but not necessarily shortest path between point A and point B. Why there is a maximum speed of light in the first place. Why time is relative, and space warps. It explains why quantum tunneling works. It explains why every electron in the universe is EXACTLY like every other electron.

Did you know the universe, quite literally, has a frame rate? It's called a Planck Time. Google is your friend.

And, if you want to go down the rabbit hole, kindly explain to me how light, that propagates and exists as waves, and waves require a medium in which to propogate, (can't have sound with air or water waves without water) travels through the vacuum of empty space?

If you want to argue with me, feel free, but argue facts and science.

The hypothesis that the particle is objectively physical fails this experiment. Experimental results trump assumptions.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-31-2012, 01:09 PM
 
7,801 posts, read 5,664,630 times
Reputation: 2979
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
Good thing that's not what I did, then.
Nor did I say you did, I merely use it as an example based on things you did say. However what you did do is not exactly much better. The idea of "simulations" pops into your post literally out of nowhere and it is just another example of ideas some people have but have no basis for.

As I said you are erring into one of my fields so declarations that I did not understand experiments in that field are nothing more than assumptions. Not drawing the same conclusions from such experiments as you does not equate to me not understanding them, especially when those conclusions are unfounded.

However your declarations that the results are impossible are clearly nonsense. Firstly the fact they happen shows they are possible. It is our job to explain that and find out why, but looking at something that is happening and saying it is impossible is just a nonsense. Especially if you are going to cite things like conservation of mass laws which do not hold at certain levels and so not apply in this case. If you think conservation of mass is applicable at all to that experiment then it is not I but you that has failed to understand either the experiments or the implications of them. Thankfully when real scientists see something unexpected they do not throw their hands up and declare it impossible, but go and seek an explanation for it.

Light behaves in ways equivolant to both particles and to waves. This is complicated and interesting and the implications are too, but they are not what you want them to be and not applicable to people in beds who are ill having experiences while under, clinically dead or under duress.

However in short all you have done here is shown that certain areas of physics are complex. Nothing more. What relevance this has to the thread is opaque to me other than a bait and switch retreat from the thread topic. I have no idea what your point is and rather suspect you do not either. As I said before, simply saying the universe is complex and hard to understand does not give you license to simply make up things about it such as are on this thread... consciousness leaving the brain and going for a wander.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-31-2012, 02:55 PM
 
2,665 posts, read 2,358,199 times
Reputation: 1473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Firstly the fact they happen shows they are possible.
If a particle is always a particle, the results are impossible. Ergo, a particle isn't always a particle. If physical matter is real, it is always real. It can't be sometimes real and sometimes not.

The VR hypothesis predicts and is explained by the results.

With the physical reality hypothesis, the predicted results do not occur, nor are they possible. A particle cannot move in a bent path unless acted upon by an outside source. Except they do.

Quote:
Thankfully when real scientists see something unexpected they do not throw their hands up and declare it impossible, but go and seek an explanation for it.
Or in this case, make one up. Wave/particle duality sounds like magic to me. When and how does a particle decide to become a wave? The other way? More importantly, how does it know when we're peeking?

Quote:
However in short all you have done here is shown that certain areas of physics are complex. Nothing more. What relevance this has to the thread is opaque to me other than a bait and switch retreat from the thread topic.
If it can be proved that we live in a VR that means our consciousness is one of two things:

1- Sentient, self aware "computer subroutines". (And I use the term metaphorically, not literally.
2- Fundamental. The only REAL thing.

Regardless, if either of the above is true, it means we do (or at least can, subroutines can be disabled (and restarted)) "survive" death. If that is so, then we experience something during that transition. NDEs appear to be a glimpse of that something.

Quote:
I have no idea what your point is and rather suspect you do not either.
Then A: You really haven't read what I've said, and B: You STILL haven't clicked on the link I provided earlier. Had you done so, you'd at least understand where I'm going, even if you disagreed with it.

Quote:
consciousness leaving the brain and going for a wander.
Mine has done that. With quantifiable and testable results. Unfortunately it was not in a controlled environment, and I've no idea how I did it, but it was enough to convince me.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-31-2012, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 11,930,098 times
Reputation: 3747
Default Facts are facts, ma'am, and you haven't given us any yet!" the late Sgt. Joe Friday.

In either case, gentlemen, the problem with NDEs is that they don't seem to pass muster in the true final end-game test, as in: how can one prove that one has had a valid & quantifiable NDE? Not to mention that the attending surgeon or doc has to sorta fix an official time of death. Else, you're not dead at all, and never were. I'm talking real, unavoidable death.

Well but OK: lets' look at that final end-point proofy thing: You could validate your own NDE by identifying something you claim to see, but not just that you were looking down on your own body.

Or: by identifying something that is otherwise physically unavailable to you in the OR. The colorful but empty box in the other room for example.

Or: by possibly providing details in the exact conversation you claim to have had with good old Aunt Tilly (who died 25 yrs ago) during your NDE, but who also happened to now be loitering around the ER operating room to see if you, her nephew, now recumbent on the table, might truly pass on, or survive and claim an NDE.

Aunt Tilly also knew, only her and your brother, what color Uncle John's underwear was the day he was summarily ground up by the family John Deere tractor out on the field. And she tells you, and your brother, who also knew, confirms it! Voila, as French scientists often say!

Other circumstances might also provide solid verifiable facts that only an NDE could provide. Sadly, such non-anecdotal evidence does not yet exist. So despite the quantum shifts my body's molecules might well take en-route to a transient death experience, none of it has provided any good supporting evidence.

Again, it's all speculation until someone can actually come up with that sort of real-time proof. Speculation about transient molecular wave theories as they might related to NDEs don't really help here. But I will also add; physicists, for whom I have the greatest respect in their courageous and relentless attempts to figure it all out, still have to speculate.

I don't think anyone here can say, with any degree of absolute confidence, that such things as light speed (those French guys say they briefly exceeded it!), or the makeup of light (Waves? Particles? Special thoughts from God? Or?) are in any way absolute. That's only wild-a$%p speculation!

Fact is, we simply don't know (yet), but we are nonetheless curiously looking for some sort of Greater Unifying Theory. Even Mystic the Great has to admit that there is not yet absolute truth and fact available to us mere mortals about much of anything out there. But eventually, given those danged research physicists, there may well be further facts uncovered. Fact is, I'm betting on it!

But this does not all then auto-default to God either, now does it? Unless you simply want to give up on any further investigating or thinking and take your place at the kneeling pews. That's another issue.

Well, QED as "they" say. Nighty night, y'all!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-31-2012, 08:16 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,943 posts, read 5,206,960 times
Reputation: 1346
Reading Plato's The Republic was all I needed to know about NDE's. In it, a Greek Hellenist had a religious experience while he was "dead" for a week. The experience reaffirmed and elaborated what his environment had taught him and his own likely subconscious desires.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-01-2012, 01:36 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 5,664,630 times
Reputation: 2979
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
If a particle is always a particle, the results are impossible.
Again just because a result goes against expectation this does not mean it is "impossible". The very fact you observed it happen shows it is possible. The task of the scientist is to explain the observation, not to throw their hands up in the air and declare it all "impossible" or "magic" and cry and whinge. In fact the area of Quantum Science is full of things that go against our expectations such as particles of different types popping in and out of existence and much more.

The rest of your posts is an "If it can be proved..." style of rhetoric. I prefer to talk about the data and evidence we currently have, not the data and evidence you imagine we might have in the future or ideas we might or might not prove in the future.

The conversation I am having is whether there is any reason here and now to put any stock in the metaphysical or supernatural interpretations of Near Death Experiences.

The conversation you are having appears to be that if something you just made up out of nowhere turns out some day to be true then perhaps this will allow you to put stock in the metaphysical or supernatural interpretations of Near Death Experiences.

Two different conversations therefore and we are therefore talking past each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
but it was enough to convince me.
How convenient for you. Your own baseless, unverifiable and unsubstantiated anecdote was enough to convince you. Quelle Surprise. Now let us return to the evidence and arguments we can actually present shall we.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-01-2012, 04:46 AM
 
Location: UK
121 posts, read 147,338 times
Reputation: 27
[quote=Nozzferrahhtoo;22785812]
I am saying the opposite. I am saying there is not only no reason to think they have had a mystical or magical experience, but that there is much data explaining how their experience is very real and how it can come about naturally at the level of the brain.


I have difficulty understanding your English! Did you mean to say you have reason to think they have had a mystical or magical experience, when you used two negatives together. OR

You consider that there is no reason to think they have had a mystical or magical experience. Which one did you mean when you wrote this sentence?

If you meant to say the former, so be it. But if you meant to say the latter, then, I have a few questions to raise!

You claimed that you have data to explain how NDE can be brought about in controlled laboratory situation; is it right? Then, show me the data or the reference you are quoting.
You have now encroached my field. I will see how much effort your experiment had simulated the near death condition; what sort of controls have been used; have the experiments been approved by ethics committee? Are they reproducible? How did they record the results objectively or were they just based upon subjective feelings.
A lot of information or biased information is available nowadays, but very few unbiased and good information is available. This is the reason why educated people have to do critical analysis on papers before deciding it as good and applicable information.


There are a lot of things science could not come to terms with. If you measure everything with scientific experiments, and try to explain them in much mundane approaches, then, try to replicate or explain these public performances by well know magicians like David Blaine from USA and Dynamo from UK.

1. How did David Blaine levitate in front of everybody on the street?

2. How did Dynamo manage to walk on the Thames in front of everybody; no place for using planks or glass platforms in the Thames as the river is flowing hard and the police patrol boat was going around Dynamo before he was picked up in the middle of the river.

Try to explain scientifically or replicate with your scientific experiments if they are not MAGIC!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-01-2012, 05:49 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 5,664,630 times
Reputation: 2979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneytinhtut View Post
I have difficulty understanding your English! Did you mean to say you have reason to think they have had a mystical or magical experience, when you used two negatives together.
Is English not your first language? The "not only no" construct is not a double negative. However I have said it very many different ways now. I see no mystical or magical aspect to the experiences at all.

I have said that many different ways and the context of my entire posts say the same, so I am not sure how a mere difficulty with English can be giving you trouble. It could not be clearer that I am discounting any mystical or magical explanation for these experiences.

Again... the experiences are very real. No one is denying that here. What is causing those experiences is what is being discussed. I see no reason on offer to think the cause is mystical, magical, metaphysical, supernatural or any of those things.

The brain during these experiences is clearly under a monumental amount of stress. It is therefore no surprise that such brains experience unusual things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneytinhtut View Post
You claimed that you have data to explain how NDE can be brought about in controlled laboratory situation; is it right? Then, show me the data or the reference you are quoting.
I already have numerous times. I am not sure why I am being asked to repeat myself. What I have said is that aspects of NDE are reproducible such as the feeling of being outside ones body.

I am citing the word of VS Ramachandran for one who works with patients who have Parietal lobe damage.

The Transcranial stimulation studies on normal subjects from UCLA for example were able to effect the Parietal lobe in such ways as to cause the same experiences or the experience of a "presence" being with the subject.

The work of Micheal Percinger is interesting. His "God Chair" can stimulate such experience in people.

These are the same things people talk about with NDEs... the feeling of floating outside the body or the presence of another entity with the patient for examples.

The rest of your post talks about bias in the reports of the subjects and it is great to bring that up. All such experiments are going to be affected by that and we have to do our best to account for that...

... what we notice however is that people ignore entirely such issues of bias when considering the uncontrolled anecdotes of patients who report these NDEs and if we are to be concerned about bias at all I think we need to be concerned about them in ALL cases, not just the cases that suit us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidneytinhtut View Post
1. How did David Blaine levitate in front of everybody on the street?

2. How did Dynamo manage to walk on the Thames in front of everybody
The whole point of illusion is that these people did NOT levitate or walk on water. They just made it appear that they did. While it is fun to work out how they did it I am not sure what it has to do with science or NDEs or this thread.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-01-2012, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 11,930,098 times
Reputation: 3747
Red face Or......

Unless Sydneytinhtut actually believes these obviously illusory events really happened.

Naaahh.. Surely not.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top