Human experience shouldn't be what it is

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Matt MSV7 Trolling thread.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:04 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse AKA Matt MSV7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGaB5 wrote:-it all comes down to researching extensively

Set out and link us to one NDE event you have studied extensively?

You can't can you. You don't know any. You are too busy stalking children.


Here is your latest you tube video seeking help from innocent children with your music, on children's forums.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng5DyeMcG8o

The funniest part of that is "in my scientific mind." Trying to discuss science with him is like having a pillow fight where the pillows are laced with ether. Getting through the run-on sentences, misused words, and illogical concepts leaves me shaking my head and wondering how he doesn't fall down more frequently.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:10 pm

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Er...what? I'm perfectly capable of reading a scholarly study and establishing whether it's valid or not. And if it's outside my field of knowledge, I'm perfectly capable of researching the credentials of experts in the field and relying on their interpretation of the study. Arguing and debating with people like you isn't going to establish whether there is evidence.

No, this would not be the right way to do it because even this would be nothing more than a close minded conclusion.
You don't understand how science works.

Omniverse wrote:It doesn't matter what arguments you have to support your conclusion--it all comes down to researching extensively into the debates regarding this nde/paranormal research and drawing your honest and open minded conclusion as to whether there is evidence or not.
No, it doesn't. I don't have to waste my time listening to people who believe in leprechauns spew logical fallacies about why leprechauns exist in order to arrive at a logical conclusion. All I have to do is say, "Show me your evidence. Oh, you have none? Then sod off."

Omniverse wrote:I think that your skeptical arguments against this nde/paranormal research would also be your own apologia (personal opinion).
1. You're not thinking. At all.
2. That's not what "apologia" means.

Omniverse wrote:You would make your own arguments that attempt to support a materialistic view of ndes which is your opinion while the nde researchers would attempt to support their research which is their view.
Wrong again. I wouldn't waste time making arguments to support a "materialistic view of NDEs," and you have no idea of my viewpoint on NDEs, since I haven't elucidated any explanation for the phenomenon.

Omniverse wrote:You say that you are perfectly capable of drawing a conclusion regarding this nde research without having to resort to looking deep into the debates regarding the research.
Yes, I am. Because the believers are convinced that an NDE is caused by the soul leaving the body and having a conscious experience, and that's pure bovine excrement. There is no evidence for the existence of the human soul, so I can safely discard every single argument that includes that concept. This is called "logic."

Omniverse wrote:Again, I think you are just drawing a hasty and close minded conclusion based upon your own opinions. This is because whatever arguments you present here that attempt to support your conclusion are also debatable as well and will not silence the proponents since they would still have good arguments to come back at you regardless of what type of skeptical argument it is.
Again, you're not thinking. And my conclusions are not based on my personal opinions, but on the lack of scientific evidence regarding NDEs. My arguments, therefore, are not debatable, since they're based in fact. In a like manner, the proponents do not have good arguments, since they lack a factual foundation. See the difference? Your contention is solely based on your personal opinions, not on facts.

Omniverse wrote:Lastly, if I really am wrong and the skeptics really are right, then my own view here would not be based upon being a proponent myself. Rather, it would have been out of ignorance, logical fallacies, etc.
You are, and it is.


But how is it that you know that your position is based on fact and not just your personal opinion? How do you know that there is no evidence? It is as though you are implying that there is some way to look at something at face value and factually conclude whether there is evidence or not without having to look extensively into the debates regarding these claims. But I think it has to come down to looking into the debates to establish whether there is evidence or not for any given claim. That would even include the notion of the earth being flat. If you have looked into the debates to the point where you can honestly draw the conclusion that the arguments of these flat earth believers are blatantly dumbfounded and false, then that would be a valid conclusion.

Actually, as for claims such as fairies, one can dismiss these claims at face value since they are nothing but claims and no serious research has been put into it. It would be no different than dismissing the wild stories of young children. We can dismiss such stories because we know that children are wrong all the time with these stories. However, when it comes to claims that have serious research such as the nde research and the paranormal research, then that is when you should not dismiss these claims at face value. This is where you would have to look extensively into the debates regarding this research to find out if there really is actual evidence or not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:18 pm

Omniverse wrote:However, when it comes to claims that have serious research such as the nde research and the paranormal research, then that is when you should not dismiss these claims at face value.

Even when all the research shows the claims to be without merit?

.................I think not.

Prove me wrong...........provide link to peer reviewed confirmation of valid supernatural nde experience.
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?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:27 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Omniverse wrote:However, when it comes to claims that have serious research such as the nde research and the paranormal research, then that is when you should not dismiss these claims at face value.

Even when all the research shows the claims to be without merit?

.................I think not.

Prove me wrong...........provide link to peer reviewed confirmation of valid supernatural nde experience.


There has been peer reviewed confirmation for both the nde research and the paranormal research. But why bother presenting it here because skeptics have been dismissing it as not being any good peer reviewed research? I will give you an example. IANDS does the peer reviewing for the nde research. But I know skeptics will say that this is not a reliable peer reviewed source at all. So, even this is a debatable issue that I am left undecided on. One would also have to search extensively into the debates regarding this as well to draw a valid conclusion.

Lastly, you say that the research shows the claims as having no merit. Again, how do you know this at face value? You act as though there is some way to factually conclude at face value whether areas of research have evidence for their claims or not without having to look extensively into the debates regarding these areas of research. If there is such a way, then please share it to me. If these nde researchers and proponents of the afterlife/paranormal are not as dumbfounded as the flat earth believers, then I would share it to them and it should become clear to them how there really is no evidence for these phenomena.

Edit: Here is a link to the peer reviewed nde research. But, like I said, I know skeptics would just dismiss it and their dismissals and rejections being controversial and up for debate:

http://iands.org/research/publications/ ... udies.html

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:08 pm

Omniverse wrote:But how is it that you know that your position is based on fact and not just your personal opinion? How do you know that there is no evidence? It is as though you are implying that there is some way to look at something at face value and factually conclude whether there is evidence or not without having to look extensively into the debates regarding these claims.
I said nothing about "face value." You keep saying that. And I've already explained how I know there's no evidence. Let's try it again, this time with monosyllables:
1. The NDE view is based on the claim that the soul is real.
2. There is no proof that the soul is real.*
3. Thus, the NDE view is based on faith, not fact.
4. A view based on faith can be scorned out-of-hand, since it lacks proof.
*No one has ever measured a soul in terms of its mass (if it consists of matter) or its output (if it consists of energy). No one has ever located a soul within the human body and explained or theorized its biological function as an organ or organ system.

Omniverse wrote:But I think it has to come down to looking into the debates to establish whether there is evidence or not for any given claim. That would even include the notion of the earth being flat. If you have looked into the debates to the point where you can honestly draw the conclusion that the arguments of these flat earth believers are blatantly dumbfounded and false, then that would be a valid conclusion.
Life is short. I'm not going to waste any part of mine listening to delusional idiots who insist on believing in ideas that are contrary to established scientific fact. Therefore, there's no point in listening to Flat Earthers when a flat earth is scientifically impossible within the laws of physics. Even if I discount photographic evidence, science is on my side. Listening to insane people isn't going to change that.

Omniverse wrote:Actually, as for claims such as fairies, one can dismiss these claims at face value since they are nothing but claims and no serious research has been put into it. It would be no different than dismissing the wild stories of young children. We can dismiss such stories because we know that children are wrong all the time with these stories.
Oh. I see. You yourself have personal opinions about which claims have validity and which can be "dismissed at face value," something you hypocritically accuse me of doing. Has it occurred to you that my bull-shit detector is just better than yours? That my knowledge of science is just better than yours? As I'm sure your knowledge of the myriad musical themes of the Zelda video game series is better than mine.

Omniverse wrote:However, when it comes to claims that have serious research such as the nde research and the paranormal research, then that is when you should not dismiss these claims at face value. This is where you would have to look extensively into the debates regarding this research to find out if there really is actual evidence or not.
The only context in which one can use the word "serious" in conjunction with "NDE research" and "paranormal research" is that believers are seriously desperate for proof that they are special snowflakes whose egos won't end when they die. Hence, they are mangling the scientific method by beginning with their conclusion, then attempting to force the evidence to fit. By doing this, they are seriously wasting the lives they do have to spend. And, taking my own advice, I'm not wasting any more of mine explaining the obvious to you.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:18 pm

*No one has ever measured a soul in terms of its mass (if it consists of matter) or its output (if it consists of energy). No one has ever located a soul within the human body and explained or theorized its biological function as an organ or organ system.


This should not be the only determining factor when jumping to the conclusion that there is no evidence for the soul. If your position is solely predicated on this, then you are leaving out other possibilities the nde/paranormal researchers have considered and done research on. You keep on saying that there is no evidence that the soul is real, but do not explain how you actually know this. This makes it seem like your own close minded opinion. But, again, if your reason for thinking so is predicated on what I just quoted, then that is close minded as well since there is so much more to keep an open mind to in regards to the nde/paranormal research.

Life is short. I'm not going to waste any part of mine listening to delusional idiots who insist on believing in ideas that are contrary to established scientific fact. Therefore, there's no point in listening to Flat Earthers when a flat earth is scientifically impossible within the laws of physics. Even if I discount photographic evidence, science is on my side. Listening to insane people isn't going to change that.


But I don't think that the paranormal, soul, and afterlife contradict our established scientific facts. For example, Dean Radin would say this as well as other physicists. Even if it did, then it all comes down to whether there is evidence that consciousness survives death. As long as we have the evidence, then what you just said here has no negating value towards this nde/paranormal research. Again, to find out if there is actual evidence, one would have to look extensively into the debates regarding the nde/paranormal research in order to draw a valid conclusion.

The only context in which one can use the word "serious" in conjunction with "NDE research" and "paranormal research" is that believers are seriously desperate for proof that they are special snowflakes whose egos won't end when they die. Hence, they are mangling the scientific method by beginning with their conclusion, then attempting to force the evidence to fit. By doing this, they are seriously wasting the lives they do have to spend. And, taking my own advice, I'm not wasting any more of mine explaining the obvious to you.


This is close minded as well because nde researchers such as Pim van Lommel or even Eben Alexander care about this planet and wish for a better worldview that transcends our materialistic view. These people are not just being selfish and greedy in wanting to be special snowflakes. Furthermore, what you said later on here is close minded as well because the researchers might be going where the findings lead rather than trying to force these findings as evidence to support their worldview. These researchers could have just been interested to see if there is actual evidence for the soul, paranormal, and the afterlife. They might not have been starting out with a conclusion and trying to force their findings to fit that given conclusion.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8237
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 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:32 pm

Lots of coulds, shoulds, and mights in there. It's a very long-winded way of saying that you don't actually know, Omniverse. It's simply something that you like the idea of. Given your history of preferences, I'd give the whole thing up right now if I were you.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:43 pm

Omniverse wrote:But I don't think.

There. I fixed it for you.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:48 pm

Poodle wrote:Lots of coulds, shoulds, and mights in there. It's a very long-winded way of saying that you don't actually know, Omniverse. It's simply something that you like the idea of. Given your history of preferences, I'd give the whole thing up right now if I were you.


Although it is true that I would prefer an eternal blissful afterlife for myself, this preference is not clouding my judgment. I set all preferences, emotions, etc. aside and ask questions out of curiosity and the desire to learn the truth.

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:But I don't think.

There. I fixed it for you.


I do think very hard about these things since I am a very intellectual individual and do engage myself in deep intellectual discussion whether it be about what is going on in my personal life, my personal values, including the discussion we are having now. It could just simply be the case that, even though I do think very hard, that I do not think correctly which gives the impression that I don't think at all.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:05 pm

Omni: thanks for the link: http://iands.org/research/publications/ ... udies.html

Seems they want you to buy any of their publications so I couldn't check the very few articles that were not "case studies." There is "nothing" to review in a case study..... peer or otherwise.

Interesting how much "in form" the publication takes.

Maybe I'm a snob, but the editorial/review board listing their hobbies didn't give me a good first impression.
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
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8237
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 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:37 pm

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

:lol: You forget that we know your alter egos on the net.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:40 pm

Omniverse wrote:Although it is true that I would prefer an eternal blissful afterlife for myself, this preference is not clouding my judgment.
Yes, it is. Your entire argument is from emotion, based on your bias. And what makes you think you deserve an "eternal blissful afterlife?" Isn't that self-righteous?

Omniverse wrote:I do think very hard about these things since I am a very intellectual individual and do engage myself in deep intellectual discussion whether it be about what is going on in my personal life, my personal values, including the discussion we are having now. It could just simply be the case that, even though I do think very hard, that I do not think correctly which gives the impression that I don't think at all.
"Intellectual" means "one who has a highly-developed faculty of reasoning and objective understanding, especially with regard to abstract matters." With all due respect, you have not evinced either a faculty of reasoning or objective understanding. What you have done is insisted that non-evidence—like anecdotal narrative and arguments without factual foundations—be given the weight of peer-reviewed scientific experiments. That's highly subjective and irrational, not intellectual.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:55 pm

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Although it is true that I would prefer an eternal blissful afterlife for myself, this preference is not clouding my judgment.
Yes, it is. Your entire argument is from emotion, based on your bias. And what makes you think you deserve an "eternal blissful afterlife?" Isn't that self-righteous?

Omniverse wrote:I do think very hard about these things since I am a very intellectual individual and do engage myself in deep intellectual discussion whether it be about what is going on in my personal life, my personal values, including the discussion we are having now. It could just simply be the case that, even though I do think very hard, that I do not think correctly which gives the impression that I don't think at all.
"Intellectual" means "one who has a highly-developed faculty of reasoning and objective understanding, especially with regard to abstract matters." With all due respect, you have not evinced either a faculty of reasoning or objective understanding. What you have done is insisted that non-evidence—like anecdotal narrative and arguments without factual foundations—be given the weight of peer-reviewed scientific experiments. That's highly subjective and irrational, not intellectual.


But there might not be just simply anecdotes and arguments without factual foundations. For example, the experiments the nde researchers have done with the patients that attempt to support a non-materialistic view of consciousness might be actual evidence that the skeptics are simply dismissing and denying. In regards to anecdotes, maybe these are not anecdotes and all it takes is an extensive look into the debates regarding this research to find out that they are instead results. There is the difference between anecdotes which are nothing more than something akin to the stories that little children make up as opposed to the types of anecdotes which are actual evidence. In which case, they would no longer just be anecdotes. They would now be results.

In regards to the types of arguments these researchers come up with against the skeptics, they might be valid arguments and not the types of arguments that you are making them out to be. Lastly, in regards to the eternal blissful afterlife, to just throw away a human being and have them rot and decay would, in my opinion, show a lack of respect and human dignity. It would just be cruel. That is why I think that a kind and respectful person such as myself and others in my life are deserving of an eternal blissful afterlife. As for people who are cruel, I think that just throwing them away would still show a lack of human dignity. I think they should be given another chance.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 1:31 am

Omniverse wrote:There is the difference between anecdotes which are nothing more than something akin to the stories that little children make up as opposed to the types of anecdotes which are actual evidence.
No, in this context, "anecdote" refers to testimony that is hearsay or otherwise unreliable. There aren't different types of anecdotes.

Omniverse wrote:Lastly, in regards to the eternal blissful afterlife, to just throw away a human being and have them rot and decay would, in my opinion, show a lack of respect and human dignity. It would just be cruel. That is why I think that a kind and respectful person such as myself and others in my life are deserving of an eternal blissful afterlife. As for people who are cruel, I think that just throwing them away would still show a lack of human dignity. I think they should be given another chance.
Throw away? They're dead. What would you have us do with them, dress them up and sit them in the parlor? It's clear you have a bias based on your own fear of ego-death. I'm unsure why you're here. You must know that you'll get no emotional support on this issue from skeptics, and you're clearly uninterested in factual information. Why are you wasting your time and ours? Go find a gullible people's forum where they believe in things that aren't real.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:45 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:There is the difference between anecdotes which are nothing more than something akin to the stories that little children make up as opposed to the types of anecdotes which are actual evidence.
No, in this context, "anecdote" refers to testimony that is hearsay or otherwise unreliable. There aren't different types of anecdotes.

Omniverse wrote:Lastly, in regards to the eternal blissful afterlife, to just throw away a human being and have them rot and decay would, in my opinion, show a lack of respect and human dignity. It would just be cruel. That is why I think that a kind and respectful person such as myself and others in my life are deserving of an eternal blissful afterlife. As for people who are cruel, I think that just throwing them away would still show a lack of human dignity. I think they should be given another chance.
Throw away? They're dead. What would you have us do with them, dress them up and sit them in the parlor? It's clear you have a bias based on your own fear of ego-death. I'm unsure why you're here. You must know that you'll get no emotional support on this issue from skeptics, and you're clearly uninterested in factual information. Why are you wasting your time and ours? Go find a gullible people's forum where they believe in things that aren't real.


Again, I already told you earlier that I am not having any emotional biases here. If my personal view is false (which is an undecided view that is open towards the possibility of the soul, paranormal, and afterlife being real), then this view would have been out of ignorance, logical fallacies, etc. and not out of any emotional biases. Also, when I said "thrown away," I meant that it would show a lack of respect and human dignity to not give human beings an eternal blissful afterlife and to have them just be thrown away where they just rot and decay for good. As for people such as criminals, I think they should be given a chance and shouldn't just be thrown away either.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 2:49 am

Omniverse wrote:Again, I already told you earlier that I am not having any emotional biases here.
Ok. Here's a test for you, then. If you have no emotional bias, the following scientific facts should convince you that NDEs are not, in fact, experiences of an afterlife.

1. Proponents of NDEs claim they occur when there's no measurable brain activity, when an EEG is "flatlined," right? Science has proven that an EEG does not measure all brain activity, only surface cortical activity. Comparison of surgically-implanted electrodes versus scalp electrodes proved this. It was confirmed when a functional MRI was performed simultaneously with an EEG, and the fMRI clearly showed deep brain activity while the EEG was "flatlined."

2. Discharges in the hippocampus or amygdala can produce complex meaningful hallucinations without the involvement of the cerebral cortex. (Translation: A patient can be having vivid hallucinations with a "flatlined" EEG.) cf. Gloor P. (1986) Role of the human limbic system in perception, memory and affect: lessons from temporal lobe epilepsy.

3. Ketamine is frequently used in trauma medicine because of its unique properties. It induces a trance-like state, providing both pain relief and sedation, but preserves airway reflexes and stimulates the circulatory system. In the central nervous system, ketamine causes dissociation, hallucinations, antidepressant-like effects, and schizophrenia-like perceptual changes.

4. Other situations that involve hypoxia or anoxia induce the same type of experience as a NDE. Nearly a thousand cases of g-force-induced loss of consciousness were studied, and the experiences of the pilots included "tunnel vision and bright lights, floating sensations, automatic movement, autoscopy, OBEs, not wanting to be disturbed, paralysis, vivid dreamlets of beautiful places, pleasurable sensations, psychological alterations of euphoria and dissociation, inclusion of friends and family, inclusion of prior memories and thoughts, the experience being very memorable (when it can be remembered), confabulation, and a strong urge to understand the experience."

In summary, while I don't discount that those experiencing NDEs are reporting what they actually experienced, I absolutely do scoff at a supernatural explanation. Frankly, it seems most likely that more than one organic situation can cause a NDE-like experience, including hypoxia or anoxia, medications, seizures, trauma to the brain, and more.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:01 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:Again, I already told you earlier that I am not having any emotional biases here.
Ok. Here's a test for you, then. If you have no emotional bias, the following scientific facts should convince you that NDEs are not, in fact, experiences of an afterlife.

1. Proponents of NDEs claim they occur when there's no measurable brain activity, when an EEG is "flatlined," right? Science has proven that an EEG does not measure all brain activity, only surface cortical activity. Comparison of surgically-implanted electrodes versus scalp electrodes proved this. It was confirmed when a functional MRI was performed simultaneously with an EEG, and the fMRI clearly showed deep brain activity while the EEG was "flatlined."

2. Discharges in the hippocampus or amygdala can produce complex meaningful hallucinations without the involvement of the cerebral cortex. (Translation: A patient can be having vivid hallucinations with a "flatlined" EEG.) cf. Gloor P. (1986) Role of the human limbic system in perception, memory and affect: lessons from temporal lobe epilepsy.

3. Ketamine is frequently used in trauma medicine because of its unique properties. It induces a trance-like state, providing both pain relief and sedation, but preserves airway reflexes and stimulates the circulatory system. In the central nervous system, ketamine causes dissociation, hallucinations, antidepressant-like effects, and schizophrenia-like perceptual changes.

4. Other situations that involve hypoxia or anoxia induce the same type of experience as a NDE. Nearly a thousand cases of g-force-induced loss of consciousness were studied, and the experiences of the pilots included "tunnel vision and bright lights, floating sensations, automatic movement, autoscopy, OBEs, not wanting to be disturbed, paralysis, vivid dreamlets of beautiful places, pleasurable sensations, psychological alterations of euphoria and dissociation, inclusion of friends and family, inclusion of prior memories and thoughts, the experience being very memorable (when it can be remembered), confabulation, and a strong urge to understand the experience."

In summary, while I don't discount that those experiencing NDEs are reporting what they actually experienced, I absolutely do scoff at a supernatural explanation. Frankly, it seems most likely that more than one organic situation can cause a NDE-like experience, including hypoxia or anoxia, medications, seizures, trauma to the brain, and more.



At this point, I just don't know and would still keep an open mind because I still realize that if the nde researchers were here to read your post, that they would still come up with arguments against this. That leaves me in a position where I see nothing more than an ongoing debate between skeptics and believers and I just cannot decide one way or the other. This does not seem to me like a debate between a highly intelligent person and an utterly dumb person. If that were the case, then I would be able to clearly see that the intelligent side wins the debate. But in regards to this nde/paranormal research, it is not like that. Both sides are intelligent and both put up viable arguments.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 3:10 am

Omniverse wrote:At this point, I just don't know and would still keep an open mind because I still realize that if the nde researchers were here to read your post, that they would still come up with arguments against this.
Dude, there are no arguments against peer-reviewed scientific experiments. None. Zero. Nada.

Omniverse wrote:That leaves me in a position where I see nothing more than an ongoing debate between skeptics and believers and I just cannot decide one way or the other.
Yes, because you're biased.

Omniverse wrote:This does not seem to me like a debate between a highly intelligent person and an utterly dumb person.
In fact, it is. I have science to back up my argument. They (and you) do not. I win.

Omniverse wrote:If that were the case, then I would be able to clearly see that the intelligent side wins the debate.
I don't think you would, in all honestly. Because you haven't. QED.

Omniverse wrote:But in regards to this nde/paranormal research, it is not like that. Both sides are intelligent and both put up viable arguments.
Wrong again. Your bias is affecting your ability to think critically.

So, you failed the test, Omniverse aka Matt. Go make a song about it.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:28 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:At this point, I just don't know and would still keep an open mind because I still realize that if the nde researchers were here to read your post, that they would still come up with arguments against this.
Dude, there are no arguments against peer-reviewed scientific experiments. None. Zero. Nada.

Omniverse wrote:That leaves me in a position where I see nothing more than an ongoing debate between skeptics and believers and I just cannot decide one way or the other.
Yes, because you're biased.

Omniverse wrote:This does not seem to me like a debate between a highly intelligent person and an utterly dumb person.
In fact, it is. I have science to back up my argument. They (and you) do not. I win.

Omniverse wrote:If that were the case, then I would be able to clearly see that the intelligent side wins the debate.
I don't think you would, in all honestly. Because you haven't. QED.

Omniverse wrote:But in regards to this nde/paranormal research, it is not like that. Both sides are intelligent and both put up viable arguments.
Wrong again. Your bias is affecting your ability to think critically.

So, you failed the test, Omniverse aka Matt. Go make a song about it.


In other words, you are claiming that this peer reviewed research done by materialistic scientists is undeniable proof that brain=mind. Sure, it is peer reviewed research. However, what if that research does not point towards brain=mind as being an undeniable fact? You could be leaving out other possible explanations that would rebut your claim that this peer reviewed research points towards being=mind as fact. For example, in regards to the nde research, sure, there might be some brain activity that these patients were having during their ndes. However, I have heard the nde researchers argue that it is very subtle brain activity that is insufficient to create the hyper lucid experiences that these patients have. As you can see here, there are many possible explanations that you are leaving out here which could actually prove this nde/paranormal research as having actual evidence. But since skeptics often refuse to really dig deep and look into this research, then they don't even consider these types of arguments the researchers make and immediately conclude that these researchers are crackpots, fools, or equivalent to flat earth believers.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Gord » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:32 am

Omniverse wrote:There is the difference between anecdotes which are nothing more than something akin to the stories that little children make up as opposed to the types of anecdotes which are actual evidence. In which case, they would no longer just be anecdotes. They would now be results.

Anecdotes are never results. Pretty much the only use for an anecdote is to cause someone to investigate something. If I were to say "the sky is pink", that would be an anecdote. It doesn't prove the sky is pink, but it might cause someone to go look.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 3:36 am

Omniverse wrote:In other words

I thought this—"you failed the test"—was quite clear. But, in other words, you didn't pass the exam. I'm done.
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: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:47 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:In other words

I thought this—"you failed the test"—was quite clear. But, in other words, you didn't pass the exam. I'm done.


I gave you a good example in my post which contradicts your claim that this peer reviewed research done by materialistic scientists as being indicative of brain=mind as fact. If you don't wish to read it and you are officially done with this conversation, then that is fine. But I will just add one last thing here. The nde researchers have done the gag reflex and have shined a light in the patients' eyes. There was no response which clearly indicates that the level of brain activity that these patients were having during their ndes was a very subtle amount which is, again, insufficient to create the hyper lucid experiences that these patients have.

I call these types of findings/arguments "special arguments" since they are not only arguments that deviate from and oppose our materialistic paradigm, but are also not the types of arguments that utterly dumb people would make or the types of dumb arguments flat earth believers would make. These are the types of arguments that could very well prove the nde/paranormal research as having real evidence unlike the types of arguments put forth by utterly dumb people and flat earth believers, but are arguments/findings that often go unnoticed and denied/rejected by skeptics.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
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 3:55 am

LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:At this point, I just don't know and would still keep an open mind because I still realize that if the nde researchers were here to read your post, that they would still come up with arguments against this.
Dude, there are no arguments against peer-reviewed scientific experiments. None. Zero. Nada.

What about "other" peer-reviewed scientific experiments?
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: 2064
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 4:00 am

Omniverse wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:In other words

I thought this—"you failed the test"—was quite clear. But, in other words, you didn't pass the exam. I'm done.


I gave you a good example in my post which contradicts your claim that this peer reviewed research done by materialistic scientists as being indicative of brain=mind as fact. If you don't wish to read it and you are officially done with this conversation, then that is fine. But I will just add one last thing here. The nde researchers have done the gag reflex and have shined a light in the patients' eyes. There was no response which clearly indicates that the level of brain activity that these patients were having during their ndes was a very subtle amount which is, again, insufficient to create the hyper lucid experiences that these patients have.

I call these types of findings/arguments "special arguments" since they are not only arguments that deviate from and oppose our materialistic paradigm, but are also not the types of arguments that utterly dumb people would make or the types of dumb arguments flat earth believers would make. These are the types of arguments that could very well prove the nde/paranormal research as having real evidence unlike the types of arguments put forth by utterly dumb people and flat earth believers, but are arguments/findings that often go unnoticed and denied/rejected by skeptics.

Dude, no.
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

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
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 4:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:At this point, I just don't know and would still keep an open mind because I still realize that if the nde researchers were here to read your post, that they would still come up with arguments against this.
Dude, there are no arguments against peer-reviewed scientific experiments. None. Zero. Nada.

What about "other" peer-reviewed scientific experiments?

Omniverse was saying that verbal debate from proponents of NDE might validly counter peer-reviewed scientific experiments. That's what I was answering.
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

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
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 4:03 am

Well, he didn't say "valid" ...........but you are right. Carry on.
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?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:06 am

LunaNik wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Omniverse wrote:At this point, I just don't know and would still keep an open mind because I still realize that if the nde researchers were here to read your post, that they would still come up with arguments against this.
Dude, there are no arguments against peer-reviewed scientific experiments. None. Zero. Nada.

What about "other" peer-reviewed scientific experiments?

Omniverse was saying that verbal debate from proponents of NDE might validly counter peer-reviewed scientific experiments. That's what I was answering.


It's not just verbal debate. It is actual findings as I've pointed out earlier in regards to how there is subtle brain activity that these patients were having which is insufficient to create the hyper lucid ndes they've had.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
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 4:10 am

Must be the other thread where I posted that hallucinations during flatline events must "actually" be from cortical brain activity before and after the flatline experience.

How do your nde investigators make this distinction?

Edit: ..........and even "if" from deeper brain functions........its still from the brain, so what non-material claim is being made?
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?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Must be the other thread where I posted that hallucinations during flatline events must "actually" be from cortical brain activity before and after the flatline experience.

How do your nde investigators make this distinction?

Edit: ..........and even "if" from deeper brain functions........its still from the brain, so what non-material claim is being made?


Before I discuss this, let me post an important note for you as well as the other skeptics I have engaged with here. That is, did you see what I did here? I have come up with a certain argument made by the nde researchers where they claim that there was insufficient brain activity to create the hyper lucid ndes these patients had. Arguments such as this are an attempt to lure skeptics away from their biased view in regards to the peer reviewed research conducted by materialistic science which they claim is undeniable fact that brain=mind. So, what I have done here is a tactic to get skeptics engaged in a debate that lures them away from their already established conclusion in regards to the research conducted by materialistic scientists. Even though skeptics still hold to their view, they are, at least, being engaged in a debate. That is the reason why I say it all comes down to debates.

To say that it all comes down to the research conducted by materialistic scientists and end it at that would be close minded. So, that is the reason why I am still not convinced of materialism even after the research LunaNik presented to me. From what I can gather, it really seems to me that it all has to come down to a debate and looking extensively into these debates to draw an official/valid conclusion. Any other way of drawing a conclusion would have to be close minded. Again, I can dismiss and reject the arguments that really dumb people make at face value since I can clearly see how they are wrong. But the nde/paranormal researchers are a whole different story here and to just dismiss them like they are an utterly dumb people or flat earth believers, then that would be close minded. I just don't see how these researchers are making arguments that are as dumb as flat earth believers or the types of arguments that any really dumb person would make.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
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 4:29 am

Are you closed minded in failing to answer the question? Or is that open minded in your world??
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: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:30 am

Omniverse wrote: . It is actual findings as I've pointed out earlier ..........
You never gave one example. You are lying again.

Set out one example with evidence. You can't as you don't know any.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:37 am

Omniverse AKA Matt MSV7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGaB5 wrote: To say that it all comes down to the research conducted by materialistic scientists and end it at that would be close minded. So, that is the reason why I am still not convinced of materialism even after the research LunaNik presented to me. From what I can gather, it really seems to me that it all has to come down to a debate and looking extensively into these debates to draw an official/valid conclusion. Any other way of drawing a conclusion would have to be close minded. Again, I can dismiss and reject the arguments that really dumb people make at face value since I can clearly see how they are wrong. But the nde/paranormal researchers are a whole different story here and to just dismiss them like they are an utterly dumb people or flat earth believers, then that would be close minded. I just don't see how these researchers are making arguments that are as dumb as flat earth believers or the types of arguments that any really dumb person would make

You don't know any examples.

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 ...

Complete bull-shit. This is the fifth time you have gone in this same circle to troll the forum.
Omniverse AKA Matt MSV7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGaB5 wrote:I do not wish to dedicate my life into this nde/paranormal research since I plan on dedicating my life to a different hobby. In other words, the afterlife is very important to me, but the research itself is not.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:40 am

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.

Complete bull-shit. This is the fifth time you have gone in this same circle to troll the forum.


I said that I wasn't willing to do a life dedication's worth of research since that is not important to me. But it does not follow from there that I did no research at all or that I do not think deeply about these sorts of things.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:47 am

Omniverse AKA Matt MSV7 AKA Cobalt6 AKA MarkGaB5 wrote:I actually cannot continue any further with that discussion because I don't know anything more in regards to the nde/paranormal research.


Good. Piss off then.

You spend a month telling us how you wanted to become a great video game composer to meet more children, and yet after two years you still can't play a note. You are just full of bull-shit.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
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 4:54 am

You still fail to answer a simple basic question(s).

From the Firesign Theater: "Everything you know is wrong." Calling it "study" doesn't change that.
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?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You still fail to answer a simple basic question(s).

From the Firesign Theater: "Everything you know is wrong." Calling it "study" doesn't change that.


I don't understand your point in how it is relevant to my previous post I made in reply to you. All I can say is that, skeptics would claim that IANDS is not a trustworthy, peer review source. Since this is debatable, then it all comes down to a debate to determine whether IANDS really is a trustworthy, peer review source. Like I said, I am undecided on this, too. I have an open mind towards the possibility that IANDS really is a reliable, peer review source. If it is, then all this nde research would have actual evidence.

But if IANDS is not reliable, then you must still understand that even areas of research that didn't have good peer reviewers ended up having actual evidence for their claims. Therefore, even if IANDS is not reliable, you must still remain open minded towards the possibility that the nde research does have actual evidence. This is not a situation like dismissing the wild claims and stories of young children because we know children are wrong with these magical claims. However, when it comes to research, that is a different story because, like I just said, even areas of research that didn't have reliable peer review had real truth to their claims.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:06 am

Omniverse wrote: All I can say is that, skeptics would claim ............
Who cares what you think. You're a child pervert who trolls skeptic and science forums between stalking children. Last year you threatened to blow us all up if we didn't listen to you. :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
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 5:08 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.
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?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Omniverse » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: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.


I'm not concerned about time management. I am instead concerned what is the actual right (rational) mindset to have. Considering what I've just explained in my previous post, I do not think that the rejecting mindset these skeptics have towards this nde/paranormal research is a rational mindset.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26774
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human experience shouldn't be what it is

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:26 am

Omniverse wrote:, I do not think that the rejecting mindset these skeptics have towards this nde/paranormal research is a rational mindset.
You are a troll. Who cares what you think? :lol:

If you don't like Skeptic forums, why don't you simply piss off.

....or would that hinder you trolling here?
:lol:


Here is Omniverse AKA Matt MSV7 new video. It is Matt's actual voice. He threatens to kill himself unless we give him more mushrooms. (I'm serious)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hry7tDBtpw4


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests