Human experience shouldn't be what it is

What you think about how you think.
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:53 am

Omniverse AKA Matt MSV7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGaB5 wrote:... I do think very hard about these things since I am a very intellectual individual and do engage myself in deep intellectual discussion ...

Here is Matt MSV7, the intellectual, singing his latest video game compositions for us lucky skeptics. (Some people have been archiving Matt's videos for six months or so, before he deletes them. I won't show the more disgusting ones)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-FClkKSRN4

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:14 am

Just "saying it" doesn't make it true.

You still didn't answer a direct simple question.

My mind is closed to claims of validity that cannot provide consistent explainable experimental results. Does this lead to rejecting true notions? Yes.... from time to time but it avoids accepting 1000 times more poppycock.

Its a time management issue.[/quote]

Omniverse wrote:I'm not concerned about time management.
Hence the horrible mismanagement.


Omniverse wrote: I am instead concerned what is the actual right (rational) mindset to have.
Consider not confusing rational with irrational.


Omniverse wrote: I do not think that the rejecting mindset these skeptics have towards this nde/paranormal research is a rational mindset.
More confusion. What you think, with rational. OH the EGO of irrational people. Kinda like white food.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:43 pm

Omniverse wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Are you closed minded in failing to answer the question? Or is that open minded in your world??


I actually cannot continue any further with that discussion because I don't know anything more in regards to the nde/paranormal research. But, from what I have gathered, it seems to me that, as long as we have peer reviewed research, it all has to come down to a debate to determine whether this research has actual evidence or not. I have posted a link to IANDS which is the peer reviewed source of ndes. But since skeptics still claim there is no evidence, then it is clear to me that no peer reviewed source will satisfy these skeptics. Therefore, that only leaves us with a debate to sort things out and figure out whether this research has actual evidence or not.
Here's the problem: You've only read "research" from what interests you, and those are the studies of the biased proponents of NDEs. You refuse to read any material that counters your viewpoint, or accept any such material as valid. I know, because I've presented you with such evidence, and you've ignored its conclusions (failed the test).

Skeptics have reviewed the material presented by both factions of this issue, and weighed it as to whether it constitutes evidence or not. We are, therefore, in a better position to call BS than you are.

Example: You claim that a lack of pupillary response proves that the patient was clinically dead at the time of the NDE. This fails to take into account two things:
1. That a lack of pupillary response only proves that the optic nerve is not firing, and there could be a number of reasons for that (brain death is only one), and
2. Since a NDE is not time-stamped like a video, you have no proof as to when it occurred relative to the patient's state of consciousness, heart action, and brain activity.

Had you read material from the skeptical side, you would know this and not make or accept such a ridiculous argument. In fact, the studies I posted here (and provided links for) proved that this argument was wrong (and it's the very thing about which bobbo is asking). I'm sure that NDE proponents are making other such arguments that seem entirely reasonable to you...and they're just as ridiculous.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:08 pm

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Are you closed minded in failing to answer the question? Or is that open minded in your world??


I actually cannot continue any further with that discussion because I don't know anything more in regards to the nde/paranormal research. But, from what I have gathered, it seems to me that, as long as we have peer reviewed research, it all has to come down to a debate to determine whether this research has actual evidence or not. I have posted a link to IANDS which is the peer reviewed source of ndes. But since skeptics still claim there is no evidence, then it is clear to me that no peer reviewed source will satisfy these skeptics. Therefore, that only leaves us with a debate to sort things out and figure out whether this research has actual evidence or not.
Here's the problem: You've only read "research" from what interests you, and those are the studies of the biased proponents of NDEs. You refuse to read any material that counters your viewpoint, or accept any such material as valid. I know, because I've presented you with such evidence, and you've ignored its conclusions (failed the test).

Skeptics have reviewed the material presented by both factions of this issue, and weighed it as to whether it constitutes evidence or not. We are, therefore, in a better position to call BS than you are.

Example: You claim that a lack of pupillary response proves that the patient was clinically dead at the time of the NDE. This fails to take into account two things:
1. That a lack of pupillary response only proves that the optic nerve is not firing, and there could be a number of reasons for that (brain death is only one), and
2. Since a NDE is not time-stamped like a video, you have no proof as to when it occurred relative to the patient's state of consciousness, heart action, and brain activity.

Had you read material from the skeptical side, you would know this and not make or accept such a ridiculous argument. In fact, the studies I posted here (and provided links for) proved that this argument was wrong (and it's the very thing about which bobbo is asking). I'm sure that NDE proponents are making other such arguments that seem entirely reasonable to you...and they're just as ridiculous.


There is the difference between refusing to read and refusing to accept material out of a bias as opposed to being open minded. Even though I have read the material by skeptics, my refusal in accepting it as fact is out of an open mindset. I am still open minded towards the possibility of the soul, paranormal, and afterlife being real. Even though it appears to you and other skeptics that I am being biased, I am not. As a matter of fact, it could be your bias which is judging me as being biased. I also said that I was undecided on the issue of the idea of the soul, afterlife, and the paranormal. This means that I have actually never accepted the findings/arguments presented by both the nde/paranormal researchers as well as skeptics. I am merely presenting these arguments/findings from the nde researchers to the table because it could be the case that skeptics are being close minded. Or maybe they are not being close minded and they are actually right. I do not know yet. Even after everything that has been discussed in this topic, I still do not know and am not going to jump to any conclusions just yet.

In order for me to come to a conclusion, then I have to be absolutely certain of it. It doesn't matter what you or any other skeptics say here. The only way I can come to a definite conclusion one way or the other would be through extensive research into both the nde/paranormal research, the material by skeptics, and the debates. Like I said, I am not willing to dedicate my life to this research. I have only done enough research to at least become curious and open minded towards the possibility that the skeptics are being close minded. I have also become open minded towards the idea that the nde/paranormal research might have actual evidence that is only being denied/rejected by skeptics. Even if I did dedicate my life to this research, who knows, it could be the case that I would still remain undecided on the whole issue. Maybe it is nothing more than just an ongoing debate where I wouldn't be able to come to any given conclusion one way or the other.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8109
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Poodle » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:05 pm

I think you're biased when you say we're biased in thinking you're biased.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:07 pm

Poodle wrote:I think you're biased when you say we're biased in thinking you're biased.


No, I said it could be the case that the skeptics are being biased in thinking that I am being biased. Since I know that I am not biased, then maybe it is not a bias on their part judging me as biased. Rather, it could be a misconception these skeptics are having about me.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:18 pm

bias: to think of one's self as unique on issues of our common humanity.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:43 am

Omniverse wrote: Since I know that I am not biased,
Try again. You know and we all know you are a habitual liar. You have never read anything on NDEs. You adopted this new trolling topic for this forum as it was an existing ongoing discussion. On other forums you claim to suffer PTSD or claim you were raped as a five year old, or suffer depression or have lost your ability to compose music. You did this while simultaneously loading up your childlike music compositions on children's video game forums to lure young children. You are almost 30 years old.

Let me prove it to everyone. Matt MSV7? Do you have a psychiatrist? What has he or she told you your problem is?
:lol:

Here is Matt MSV7s deleted You tube video for skeptics, sung by Matt MSV7. He threatened to kill himself unless we helped him get better and write more compositions. (A group of people are saving these you tube videos as Matt deletes them.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LW2acdO7H4

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:54 am

Here is Omniverse AKA Matt MVS7 telling skeptics about his tales of woe. It is his real voice, although he has edited out the breath gaps to make it sound more earnest. ( A group of people have been saving Matt MSV7's you tube videos which he has been desperate to delete. I will explain why later)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuilagUcLvA

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:59 am

Omniverse wrote:Even though I have read the material by skeptics, my refusal in accepting it as fact is out of an open mindset.
Do you refuse to accept that pi = 3.14159 because your "open mindset" says there's a possibility that it might actually equal three?

Omniverse wrote:It doesn't matter what you or any other skeptics say here.
We didn't come looking for your opinion; you came looking for ours. If you don't like it, leave and stop wasting our time. Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:08 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Even though I have read the material by skeptics, my refusal in accepting it as fact is out of an open mindset.
Do you refuse to accept that pi = 3.14159 because your "open mindset" says there's a possibility that it might actually equal three?

Omniverse wrote:It doesn't matter what you or any other skeptics say here.
We didn't come looking for your opinion; you came looking for ours. If you don't like it, leave and stop wasting our time. Image


You are giving a false analogy here. Let me explain. We have the peer reviews for the nde research which is, again, IANDS as I've said before. You say that the peer reviewed research done by materialistic scientists proves that brain=mind. But we also have the peer reviewed research done by the nde researchers as well as the paranormal research which they claim contradicts the research you've pointed out earlier. They say that their research is evidence for the paranormal and ndes being a soul independent of the body. They are saying that their research is undeniable proof that the soul, paranormal, and the afterlife are real phenomena just like how you are saying that the research conducted by materialistic scientists is undeniable proof that brain=mind.

If I met two people on the street and each one says that their view is undeniable proof, I cannot trust either of them. Until I have thoroughly investigated both of their views and have thoroughly investigated the debate these two people were having, I cannot come to any definite conclusion. So, in the meantime, I would have to remain in a position where I cannot trust either of these people. Therefore, this analogy I have given here is the right analogy since I am not someone who is like a blatantly delusional person who denies undeniable facts about reality. The fact of the matter is, you could be missing some findings, arguments, etc. in regards to this nde/paranormal research that would clearly establish their research as having real evidence.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:18 am

Omniverse wrote:We have the peer reviews for the nde research which is, again, IANDS as I've said before......
No we don't. You are lying again. Link us to any scientific paper from IANDS and list the scientists who peer reviewed that same paper.

Why do you lie so much? :lol:

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:45 am

Omniverse wrote:Let me explain.

Let me explain. Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:47 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Let me explain.

Let me explain. Image


I've posted some very important things in that post that warrants a continuation of our discussion. But if you are going to just give up now, then fine. But you are free to read that post anytime and continue our discussion any time.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:59 am

Omniverse wrote: I've posted some very important things in that post that warrants a continuation of our discussion.


Matt MVS7 : "I refuse to read anything. Therefore how can I have an opinion?"
Skeptics : "You can't, so piss off"
Matt MSV7 : "How can skeptics have an opinion? "
Skeptics : "We look at the real existing peer reviewed hypotheses and supporting experiments concerning NDEs. If you have any conflicting scientific papers, post them here"
Matt MSV7 : "I can't find any. I'd rather stalk children on forums."

End of Story.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:09 am

Omniverse wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Let me explain.

Let me explain. Image


I've posted some very important things in that post that warrants a continuation of our discussion. But if you are going to just give up now, then fine. But you are free to read that post anytime and continue our discussion any time.

I have posted some very real evidence in this thread that you have utterly ignored. I'm not giving up; I simply refuse to waste time on someone who's only interested in reading his own comments, and who repeats the same blather in nearly every post. Buh-bye.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:12 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Let me explain.

Let me explain. Image


I've posted some very important things in that post that warrants a continuation of our discussion. But if you are going to just give up now, then fine. But you are free to read that post anytime and continue our discussion any time.

I have posted some very real evidence in this thread that you have utterly ignored. I'm not giving up; I simply refuse to waste time on someone who's only interested in reading his own comments, and who repeats the same blather in nearly every post. Buh-bye.


But I cannot trust any of this because the nde/paranormal researchers might have the evidence on their side and it might be you who is wrong. If you really are right, then I cannot see that. I do not have the sufficient education, knowledge, and training that would enable me to see that. Therefore, it is not any emotional biases which is preventing me from seeing that. Rather, it would just be ignorance, logical fallacies, etc. which is preventing me from seeing that.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:29 am

Omniverse AKA Matt MVS7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGAB5 wrote: But I cannot trust any of this because the nde/paranormal researchers might have the evidence on their side.
Find that evidence and present it to us. Don't post here again until you find it. :lol:

Omniverse AKA Matt MVS7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGAB5 wrote: I do not have the sufficient education, knowledge, and training that would enable me to see that.
Stalking children on children's forum must also be very time consuming for you.

In this video Matt MVS7 tells his life story and why he trolls science and skeptic forums. (This is a rehosting. Matt MVS7 deleted all of these from his own account)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aJeSKWVLv4&index=12&list=PLyVYnRYQOpIpUFRVHm59-AhLlOIBl0V22

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:15 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Let me explain.

Let me explain. Image


I've posted some very important things in that post that warrants a continuation of our discussion. But if you are going to just give up now, then fine. But you are free to read that post anytime and continue our discussion any time.

I have posted some very real evidence in this thread that you have utterly ignored. I'm not giving up; I simply refuse to waste time on someone who's only interested in reading his own comments, and who repeats the same blather in nearly every post. Buh-bye.


I am not being who you are making me out to be. If the research that you have presented to me is blatantly proof that brain=mind, then I cannot see that since I lack the sufficient knowledge, training, and education that would enable me to see that. It would instead be ignorance that is preventing me from seeing that and it would be ignorance which would be leaving me with an open mind towards the idea that the nde/paranormal research could have actual evidence.

If there were a person who was open minded towards the possibility that the magical stories that little children come up with are true, then it would appear as though this person is delusional, insane, emotionally biased, ignoring the people who would tell him/her that these stories are not true, etc. But this is not the case. This person simply hasn't been around children to actually know, become familiar with them, etc. to know that these people were right all along. Therefore, I am just simply not familiar with neuroscience in the same sense that this person in my analogy is not familiar with little children. So, as you can see here, you are making a big mistake about me. What would be blatantly obvious to you is not obvious to me.

In regards to the research you have pointed out to me which you claim is obvious proof that brain=mind, why is it that you think the nde/paranormal researchers would argue against it? It could be the case that they are not having any emotional bias driving them to argue against this research. Rather, it could be the case that these nde/paranormal researchers are simply not familiar with neuroscience. They could be ignorant, have logical fallacies, etc. just like how Deepak Chopra makes his claims out of ignorance of physics as Sam Harris pointed out to him in a debate with him.

As for me, I am open minded towards the possibility that there is actual evidence for the mind being separate from the brain. But you say there cannot be any other possibility and that brain=mind is the only possibility here. But, like I said, I cannot see that there is no other possibility since I would be ignorant. It is not the case that it is obvious to me that there cannot be any other possibility, but choose to deny and reject this anyway.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Matt MVS7 Trolling Thread No5

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:22 am

I instructed you not to post on this forum again until you find one scientific paper with evidence for paranormal NDEs Let us know when you do that. :lol:

Omniverse AKA Matt MVS7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGAB5 wrote: I am not being who you are making me out to be. If the research that you have presented to me is blatantly proof that brain=mind, then I cannot see that since I lack the sufficient knowledge, training, and education that would enable me to see that. It would instead be ignorance that is preventing me from seeing that and it would be ignorance which would be leaving me with an open mind towards the idea that the nde/paranormal research could have actual evidence.

If there were a person who was open minded towards the possibility that the magical stories that little children come up with are true, then it would appear as though this person is delusional, insane, emotionally biased, ignoring the people who would tell him/her that these stories are not true, etc. But this is not the case. This person simply hasn't been around children to actually know, become familiar with them, etc. to know that these people were right all along. Therefore, I am just simply not familiar with neuroscience in the same sense that this person in my analogy is not familiar with little children. So, as you can see here, you are making a big mistake about me. What would be blatantly obvious to you is not obvious to me.

In regards to the research you have pointed out to me which you claim is obvious proof that brain=mind, why is it that you think the nde/paranormal researchers would argue against it? It could be the case that they are not having any emotional bias driving them to argue against this research. Rather, it could be the case that these nde/paranormal researchers are simply not familiar with neuroscience. They could be ignorant, have logical fallacies, etc. just like how Deepak Chopra makes his claims out of ignorance of physics as Sam Harris pointed out to him in a debate with him.

As for me, I am open minded towards the possibility that there is actual evidence for the mind being separate from the brain. But you say there cannot be any other possibility and that brain=mind is the only possibility here. But, like I said, I cannot see that there is no other possibility since I would be ignorant. It is not the case that it is obvious to me that there cannot be any other possibility, but choose to deny and reject this anyway.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:27 am

Omniverse AKA Matt MVS7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA markGaB5 wrote: This person simply hasn't been around children to actually know,
....and you know a lot about children by doing exactly what?........ :frown:

Tags: Zelda Matt MVS

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3069
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:33 am

I know I'm right, therefore I'm right.
QED.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests