Conciousness

[11 to 1 0]

I take it back. I didn't mean to imply that all scientists agree with all processes. What I meant was that there are many processes that scientists agree on what happens, but differ on interpretations or meanings of what happened. All physicists will tell you the probabilities of obtaining certain values when making a particular measurement, but some will differ on what it really means to make a measurement or what the collapse of the wave function really is.

Then we agree completely. As for everyone else: All I've been trying to get across, in what crow would call my "delusional" postings, is that it could make sense to look at some things that are rejected by mainstream science because they smack of "religionism" and just take them out of that arena. Most of the researchers, these days, who look into things like psy phenomena, NDE/OBE or perception at distance, are qualified scientists - MDs or PhDs. Every scientist I ever read or spoke to who has looked seriously and objectively into these things agrees on their existence - they all have different ideas about what it means and how it happens. This is the only religion forum I was ever in, and in like 20 years on the net I've been in a few, where one could not discuss religion without the thread being hijacked by "free-thinkers." I don't want to change anyone's mind or sell them my religion, I just would appraciate it if the bulk of posting self-identified atheists, would just stop treating theists as if we are stoopid, ignerint, idjits. Hey, some are. Some are in any group, certainly we see plenty of bigotry and close-mindedness in the skeptic community as we see it anywhere. If your self-esteem is so low you have to treat people with contempt just to make yourself feel better about you, what you need is therapy, not Skeptic Magazine. Dissing someone because of their religious beliefs, or their religion generally is actually a violation of forum rules, here as everywhere else. But you see no one complains, because as much as Christians are demonized, the truth is it's open season on Christianity. The shallowest, most uninformed, most redundant vituperative attacks are given free rein. I have tried to reply in kind to see just how much you all have enjoyed being told by someone who actually is more educated and very likely more intelligent than you are that your arguments are sophmoric, your understanding of what you call "science" is laughable, and if you weren't such losers, you wouldn't spend your days posting on message boards. But the truth is, that you can't be an idiot and play hold 'em even passably well, your problems are really that no one has demanded of you any standards (educational, logical or social) and you have great passion, which is more than you can say for most. I didn't meant to get involved here, I have a life I have to get back to. I need to go read poker strategy so I can improve my game (at which I am quite sure all here can best me) but I want to leave you with this about my other favorite researcher Melvin Morse.Morse was, or probably still is, a pediatric neurologist. And as big a skeptic as anyone here. About 1980 or so, a seven year old girl drowned, she was resuscitated but did not regain consciousness. When Morse saw her she had a Glasgow Coma Score of 3, her pupils were fixed and dilated, she had no muscle reflexes, no corneal response. She was in a coma so deep she had almost no chance of recovering. She had been under the water (warm) and so long without oxygen, the chance for recovery without profound brain damage was thought to be zero.Recover she did, with no discernable brain damage. But what started Morse on his investigations into NDEs was that she recognized him the first time she "saw" him after coming out of her coma. She also recognized the EMT who worked on her at the scene, even though he left her before she was even transported to the hospital, much less regained consciousness. She described her NDE, in pretty standard terms, what she saw the workers do to her body , going through the tunnel, meeting people in a heavenly setting. She said she was told she had to come back to help with her baby brother who was yet to be born and would have some medical problems. Then, she drew a picture. It was a picture of herself on the Other Side, and it included a drawing of her yet-to-be born baby brother below a line that meant he was coming to this side. (If you find Morse' site you can see this picture). The baby had a big red heart and the baby was later born with heart problems. But that isn't what strikes me about this picture. It is this: when I studied anthropolgy and human development, I remember the stages of cognition in children and that they could be seen clearly in how kids depict people in their drawings. How they first have stick figures and then progress to round figures (usually with no necks) and then to more anatomically correct people. The stages are distinct.If you look at this picture, the girl on the Other Side is a stick figure, but with big eyes. But the baby brother, in the same picture, has full round fleshy body and limbs. I'm not claiming it as "proof," I'm just relating how it struck me. Now, Morse started interviewing children and spoke to scores of resucitated children over the course of a decade. Over and over they described similar experiences, could describe complex medical procedures correctly, recognize people they had never seen while conscious, (estimates from other sources are that 40% of adult cardiac arrest survivors and 60% of children surviving cardiac arrest report some degree of out-of-body experience.) Morse continued being skeptical and searched for logical, scientific explanations reading everything he could on the topic. What he knew was that the "drug" explanation didn't fit, most of the patients he personally interviewed and whose medical records he examined had been given no drugs that could cause the experience. The suggestions of tunnel vision made no sense, the NDE experiencer doesn't report "tunnel vision" but traveling though a tube, tunnel or dark valley. Neither trauma nor oxygen deprivation explain it, medical science has at least established the result of these kinds of insults to the brain is loss of memory, not vivid recall of events as NDErs report. After many years, he said, "... one day I read a long article in a medical journal that tried to explain NDEs as being various tricks of the brain. By then I had studied NDEs extensively and none of the explanations this researcher listed made sense. It was finally clear to me that he had missed the most obvious explanation of all - NDEs are real. He had missed the possibility that the soul really does travel." If you find his site, he has a section of research and it is an outline of proposed research projects, the cost of each and an appeal for funds. Morse has a pretty large body of evidence by now, he was at least well-respected enough in his field to get this first case published in a journal before "mainstream" science turned it's back on him. Interesting that a journal will report bad science debunking something the writer hasn't reserched, but refuse publication to a qualified researcher who has a great deal of carefully collected and organized data. Not exactly objective. I think Crow said something a while back about the invalidity of "after the fact" observations. I'm trying to figure out how we'd get "before the fact" reports unless we use precognition - but while I do not wish to convince, what I do wish is that people would start to just be as curious and as tenacious about these things as Morse. Be a skeptic, just don't be afraid of Occam's razor.And stop thinking you are so much smarter than everyone else. Being right really is highly over-rated. Before I go get back to my life (I hear the cheering from here!) I will go and get a copy of one of my own miracles and post it. Make of it what you will. It is not to convince, it is not to promote Christianity, it is just that more people than you know have had these things happen, but they don't talk about them because of the reactions they get.As you all have certainly discerned by now, I don't give a sht what anyone thinks of me.

[crowTrobot 2]

your posts get attacked because you keep saying things that are obviously irrational/delusional, such as this:

Every scientist I ever read or spoke to who has looked seriously and objectively into these things agrees on their existence

This is the only religion forum I was ever in, and in like 20 years on the net I've been in a few, where one could not discuss religion without the thread being hijacked by "free-thinkers." I don't want to change anyone's mind or sell them my religion, I just would appraciate it if the bulk of posting self-identified atheists, would just stop treating theists as if we are stoopid, ignerint, idjits.

i don't recall anyone here calling you stupid or attacking you personally. calling your belief delusional isn't a personal attack. most of the world is necessarily delusional.however when your posts imply things that are demonstratably false and/or self-refuting - such as "all scientists who have ever objectively studied the paranormal agree on its existence" or "catholicism is the correct religion.. but jesus was philosophically more of a hindu and all metaphysical paths lead to heaven" obviously such nonsense is going to get attacked. it would in ANY public forum where this type of debate goes on. rather than take it personally maybe you should be a little more introspective about why your posts in particular get attacked when others don't.

I didn't meant to get involved here, I have a life I have to get back to.

see ya

I think Crow said something a while back about the invalidity of "after the fact" observations.

when it comes to claims that contradict well-established patterns in science it should go without saying that what someone says happened is not evidence.

[crowTrobot 2]

- but while I do not wish to convince, what I do wish is that people would start to just be as curious and as tenacious about these things as Morse. Be a skeptic, just don't be afraid of Occam's razor.

occams razor cuts out the paranormal, pretty much by definition.

Being right really is highly over-rated.

in other words "external mutually verifiable reality is highly overrated" = solipsism.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Then we agree completely. As for everyone else: All I've been trying to get across, in what crow would call my "delusional" postings, is that it could make sense to look at some things that are rejected by mainstream science because they smack of "religionism" and just take them out of that arena. Most of the researchers, these days, who look into things like psy phenomena, NDE/OBE or perception at distance, are qualified scientists - MDs or PhDs. Every scientist I ever read or spoke to who has looked seriously and objectively into these things agrees on their existence - they all have different ideas about what it means and how it happens. This is the only religion forum I was ever in, and in like 20 years on the net I've been in a few, where one could not discuss religion without the thread being hijacked by "free-thinkers." I don't want to change anyone's mind or sell them my religion, I just would appraciate it if the bulk of posting self-identified atheists, would just stop treating theists as if we are stoopid, ignerint, idjits. Hey, some are. Some are in any group, certainly we see plenty of bigotry and close-mindedness in the skeptic community as we see it anywhere. If your self-esteem is so low you have to treat people with contempt just to make yourself feel better about you, what you need is therapy, not Skeptic Magazine. Dissing someone because of their religious beliefs, or their religion generally is actually a violation of forum rules, here as everywhere else. But you see no one complains, because as much as Christians are demonized, the truth is it's open season on Christianity. The shallowest, most uninformed, most redundant vituperative attacks are given free rein. I have tried to reply in kind to see just how much you all have enjoyed being told by someone who actually is more educated and very likely more intelligent than you are that your arguments are sophmoric, your understanding of what you call "science" is laughable, and if you weren't such losers, you wouldn't spend your days posting on message boards. But the truth is, that you can't be an idiot and play hold 'em even passably well, your problems are really that no one has demanded of you any standards (educational, logical or social) and you have great passion, which is more than you can say for most. I didn't meant to get involved here, I have a life I have to get back to. I need to go read poker strategy so I can improve my game (at which I am quite sure all here can best me) but I want to leave you with this about my other favorite researcher Melvin Morse.Morse was, or probably still is, a pediatric neurologist. And as big a skeptic as anyone here. About 1980 or so, a seven year old girl drowned, she was resuscitated but did not regain consciousness. When Morse saw her she had a Glasgow Coma Score of 3, her pupils were fixed and dilated, she had no muscle reflexes, no corneal response. She was in a coma so deep she had almost no chance of recovering. She had been under the water (warm) and so long without oxygen, the chance for recovery without profound brain damage was thought to be zero.Recover she did, with no discernable brain damage. But what started Morse on his investigations into NDEs was that she recognized him the first time she "saw" him after coming out of her coma. She also recognized the EMT who worked on her at the scene, even though he left her before she was even transported to the hospital, much less regained consciousness. She described her NDE, in pretty standard terms, what she saw the workers do to her body , going through the tunnel, meeting people in a heavenly setting. She said she was told she had to come back to help with her baby brother who was yet to be born and would have some medical problems. Then, she drew a picture. It was a picture of herself on the Other Side, and it included a drawing of her yet-to-be born baby brother below a line that meant he was coming to this side. (If you find Morse' site you can see this picture). The baby had a big red heart and the baby was later born with heart problems. But that isn't what strikes me about this picture. It is this: when I studied anthropolgy and human development, I remember the stages of cognition in children and that they could be seen clearly in how kids depict people in their drawings. How they first have stick figures and then progress to round figures (usually with no necks) and then to more anatomically correct people. The stages are distinct.If you look at this picture, the girl on the Other Side is a stick figure, but with big eyes. But the baby brother, in the same picture, has full round fleshy body and limbs. I'm not claiming it as "proof," I'm just relating how it struck me. Now, Morse started interviewing children and spoke to scores of resucitated children over the course of a decade. Over and over they described similar experiences, could describe complex medical procedures correctly, recognize people they had never seen while conscious, (estimates from other sources are that 40% of adult cardiac arrest survivors and 60% of children surviving cardiac arrest report some degree of out-of-body experience.) Morse continued being skeptical and searched for logical, scientific explanations reading everything he could on the topic. What he knew was that the "drug" explanation didn't fit, most of the patients he personally interviewed and whose medical records he examined had been given no drugs that could cause the experience. The suggestions of tunnel vision made no sense, the NDE experiencer doesn't report "tunnel vision" but traveling though a tube, tunnel or dark valley. Neither trauma nor oxygen deprivation explain it, medical science has at least established the result of these kinds of insults to the brain is loss of memory, not vivid recall of events as NDErs report. After many years, he said, "... one day I read a long article in a medical journal that tried to explain NDEs as being various tricks of the brain. By then I had studied NDEs extensively and none of the explanations this researcher listed made sense. It was finally clear to me that he had missed the most obvious explanation of all - NDEs are real. He had missed the possibility that the soul really does travel." If you find his site, he has a section of research and it is an outline of proposed research projects, the cost of each and an appeal for funds. Morse has a pretty large body of evidence by now, he was at least well-respected enough in his field to get this first case published in a journal before "mainstream" science turned it's back on him. Interesting that a journal will report bad science debunking something the writer hasn't reserched, but refuse publication to a qualified researcher who has a great deal of carefully collected and organized data. Not exactly objective. I think Crow said something a while back about the invalidity of "after the fact" observations. I'm trying to figure out how we'd get "before the fact" reports unless we use precognition - but while I do not wish to convince, what I do wish is that people would start to just be as curious and as tenacious about these things as Morse. Be a skeptic, just don't be afraid of Occam's razor.And stop thinking you are so much smarter than everyone else. Being right really is highly over-rated. Before I go get back to my life (I hear the cheering from here!) I will go and get a copy of one of my own miracles and post it. Make of it what you will. It is not to convince, it is not to promote Christianity, it is just that more people than you know have had these things happen, but they don't talk about them because of the reactions they get.As you all have certainly discerned by now, I don't give a sht what anyone thinks of me.

I like to pop in here every now and then and see what you lot are up to. These types of forums produce some of the most weird and yet passionate arguments. It can be quite entertaining I have read probably the majority of posts here, yet I've never read anything so childish from someone who claims to be an adult in my life. Congratulations, you've taken pathetic to a new level.

[WrongWay 0]

Most of the researchers, these days, who look into things like psy phenomena, NDE/OBE or perception at distance, are qualified scientists - MDs or PhDs. Every scientist I ever read or spoke to who has looked seriously and objectively into these things agrees on their existence - they all have different ideas about what it means and how it happens.

No. Most that you look into, and accept the results of, believe.You start with a STRONGLY held belief. Then you go looking for research that fits your belief. If it says what you want, you file it away as valid. If it doesn't fit what you want, then you probably didn't see it... and if you did accidentally see it, you'd dismiss it."Every scientist I ever read or spoke to who has looked seriously and objectively into these things agrees on their existence"Sure, because you're only looking into and talking to the small handfull that believe. You ignore the avalanche of contradictory evidence, because you WANT to continue to believe.As an example. You start a thread about how it is or is not possible to study the power of prayer. You use a VERY small study that shows a statistically insignificant change in the surgery rate in prayed for group. We argue abaout statistical significance. We argue whether studies like this are done with sample sizes in the thousands. THE WHOLE time, the phase 2 with a sample size in the thousands was done, and it contradicted the findindings of the first study.You KNEW about the study that showed what you want to beleive. You seemed to be CLUELESS about the larger, more reliable study that showed the opposite of what you want to believe.Don't feel bad. This is exactly how the human mind works, unless you are aware of it and take steps to avoid it... those steps are called science. The elimination of human desire and subjectivity through the use of objective, repeatable, verifieable experiments.You're black dog post is the same. You say we should believe in life after death due to one "black dog" source. you can take this leap, becuase you already hold the belief. One "black dog" report of something you already beleive, and really want to beleive, is more than enough to convince you it is true.However, let's take talking fish as an example. Everythign we know about fish says they can't speak. They have tiny, underdeveloped brains. They have no lungs or vocal cords. Now, someone says to you that the goldfish in their fish tank stuck its head above the water and said "I'm hungry. Can you give me some food?". Someone else says "I check on the story, and sure enough, the goldfish was hungry". Is that one "black dog" story sufficient to have you believing in talking goldfish? It would if, and only if, you already beleived in talking goldfish and really, really wanted to beleive in talking goldfish.To everyone not pre-disposed(exposed) to the belief in talking fish, it is just plain silly.

[fitsnstarts 0]

11 to 1's topics are always clogging up the "View New Posts" list - We need all the room we can spare for bad beat stories and brag posts.

[chrisuk_sw 0]

HelloI had an NDE about 12 years ago. I had the full out of body experience, I floated out of my self and saw myself from below. I experienced the tunnel of light- although in my case, my tunnel was not just composed of light, it was synaesthesiatic.I have no way of verifying or falsifying the accounts that you have given, but I can say that my experience was not one separated from my conscious being, and was not connected with life after death.Consciousness is weird, though.

[Flack_attack 0]

I had sex with the Easter bunny, but I have no way of verifying or falsifying any other alleged escapades.It was weird though.

[crowTrobot 2]

I had sex with the Easter bunny

is that the april playmate of the month?

[Flack_attack 0]

is that the april playmate of the month?

June.

[Spence 0]

Does an out of body experience have to be based in religion?Why do you have to believe in a God to believe that your energy doesn't have physical limitations?A professor of mine had an NDE. She was flat-lined, was presumed dead, doctor was walking out etc. Nurse was still pinching her breasts, and she elected to go back in to her body. Of course that was the short version of it. Anyway, she explained everything what had happened to the doctor and nurses, down to exactly what they said and their actions. Even knew that her sister had her shirt inside out, in the waiting room (which was verified) (she hadn't seen her all day, and she was also wearing a jacket), but she had seen her mother and sister discussing it.She never saw a heavenly setting, she just had an awareness of everything around her.We are still relatively archaic in our understanding of QM, and the overall understanding of our brain. To say that it's simply not possible because we have no understanding of it, or it just doesn't make sense, because we need a brain to function seems like a pretty close-minded view. But I don't blame you, you are a scientist, or at the very least a pupil of science, and you will only accept what is shown to you. Nothing wrong with being grounded, but you also can't say that in 500 years they won't look back at our understanding, and see it as very elementary.

[crowTrobot 2]

Does an out of body experience have to be based in religion?

no but somebody's story is not evidence that out of body experiences are actually real.

She was flat-lined, was presumed dead, doctor was walking out etc. Nurse was still pinching her breasts, and she elected to go back in to her body. Of course that was the short version of it. Anyway, she explained everything what had happened to the doctor and nurses, down to exactly what they said and their actions. Even knew that her sister had her shirt inside out, in the waiting room (which was verified) (she hadn't seen her all day, and she was also wearing a jacket), but she had seen her mother and sister discussing it.

= story

[Spence 0]

Yes it = story.Do you agree our understanding of the brain is still extremely limited?

[crowTrobot 2]

Do you agree our understanding of the brain is still extremely limited?

absolutely not. there is a lot we don't know obviously, but our understanding is way beyond "extremely limited".

[WrongWay 0]

Do you agree our understanding of the brain is still extremely limited?

Perfect? No.Extremely limited? Not even close.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17888475/site/newsweek/Most people that look into consciouness think it has something super natural about it? Not even close.

[PlayingPossum 0]

I had an out of body experience more than a few times when I was younger. I used to experiment with drugs fairly frequently, and some crazy stuff would certainly happen. I can't really explain what that was. The most exquisite happened on drugs given to me by a doctor, specifically morphine. It was quite startling, no doubt.I can't preclude that people near death haven't had these same types of experiences, it's very likely that they have. But until we can get some very specific evidence that these types of experiences aren't just illusions caused by misfirings along the neuropathways of the brain, then I'm not sure that they mean anything to anyone, other than those that experienced them. They certainly aren't evidence for any kind of deity, or God. Maybe some studies could be set up to induce near death experiences for those that would like to try, and shoes could be hidden in different parts of the building(we don't want their souls to have to travel too far to identify a red Nike), giving us verifiable and repeatable results to work from. FYI, I don't think this is too much to ask of those that believe.