Some people will believe anything.
Ha Ha! You guys really need to keep consoling yourselves with some such scorn every single time. So insecure!!! Wishing it will all just go away by just repeatedly saying so!Sounds exactly like you with natural selection and the woo you want to inject into it to fit your batty beliefs.
Sri,The forum's woo peddler-in-chief clearly is delighted.
So in your arrogant opinion, science should "evolve" from a sceptical system of evidence and peer-reviewed papers, to a gullible system of anecdotes and movies..?
Woo peddlars everywhere will be delighted.
Its a real life claim or allegation of a case
Its a real life case....and a professor has written about other similar cases.....or you people don't want to notice?!
Its just a movie! No stress! ::)
Hi everyone,
Here is an article about the movie Miracles from Heaven written by a Harvard professor saying that such miracle cures could be real.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/03/29/harvard-medical-school-professor-says-miracles-from-heaven-and-other-remarkable-cures-could-be-real/
*************
When I went to see “Miracles from Heaven,” I saw more laughter, crying and applause than I’ve ever seen in a movie theater. Clearly, this new movie — the real-life story of a young girl, suffering from an incurable illness, who was inexplicably healed after a nearly fatal accident — touches a chord, at least in the theater in Boston where I saw it.
To doctors, events like the story that this girl’s mother (played in the film by Jennifer Garner) recounted in her memoir are impossible to explain. Scientists call them “spontaneous remission” or “placebo responses.”
I do not believe that we can think ourselves into health. But I do believe that principles of mind and spirit exist that we have not even begun to scientifically map in the West, and that we should be doing so.
I have listened to more than 100 of these remarkably cured individuals, despite the fact that in medical school, I was taught that reports of spontaneous remission are rare, “anecdotes” and “flukes” from which nothing can be learned.
That assumption appears to be wrong. In my studies of more than 100 people with medical evidence for recovery from incurable illness, the similarity in their paths suggests to me identifiable mental and spiritual principles associated with their recoveries.
I disagree with one common viewpoint that the movie espouses. At the very beginning, it defines a “miracle” as a contradiction of natural law.
I believe that miracles only contradict what we know of nature at this point in time. Modern physics is, for example, way ahead of traditional science, and its implications have not been fully incorporated into its perspectives and methods yet. So I believe that miracles actually are consistent with mental and spiritual laws that we are only beginning to study.
**************
Not bad. Some people are beginning to get there already.
It will happen more and more as we go along....and 'miracles' will be seen as part of natural life (nothing supernatural). Only point is that what would be considered 'natural' at that time will be much broader than how it is defined by 'microscopic' minded people today.
Evolution of Science!
Cheers.
Sriram
Hi everyone,Whaaattt???? Haven't these people seen the Imax 3D version of Dawkins' ''Root of all Evil?''
Here is an article about the movie Miracles from Heaven written by a Harvard professor saying that such miracle cures could be real.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/03/29/harvard-medical-school-professor-says-miracles-from-heaven-and-other-remarkable-cures-could-be-real/
*************
When I went to see “Miracles from Heaven,” I saw more laughter, crying and applause than I’ve ever seen in a movie theater
Whaaattt???? Haven't these people seen the Imax 3D version of Dawkins' ''Root of all Evil?''
You really should see someone about your Dawkins obsession. It can't be healthy.I have an obsession about all antitheist comedians.
Sometimes people think it's ok to move away from being objective, but imagine if science did just accept things, and it didn't support their worldview.
People still wouldn't like it.
Much better to have a method that doesn't involve cultural assumptions.
Spontaneous healing occurs. No miracle. Live with it.
Spontaneous healing occurs. No miracle. Live with it.I was listening to the Radio 4 programme 'Beyond belief' the other day and it was focusing on places where visions of the virgin Mary have been claimed and potential miraculous healing, particularly at Lourdes.
How is that evolution of science? Scientists investigate phenomena all the time using the scientific method. If you want them to move away from using the scientific method to just accepting stuff without measurable evidence then it isn't science but is something else.
I was listening to the Radio 4 programme 'Beyond belief' the other day and it was focusing on places where visions of the virgin Mary have been claimed and potential miraculous healing, particularly at Lourdes.
One of the contributors came out with the most astonishing statement. Effectively when they were discussion the need to ensure that a claimed miracle did not have a scientific or clinical explanation, she said that there shouldn't be all this focus on assessing the science, because as science moves on and more is understood it becomes less likely that something cannot be explained by science and that leaves less space for miracles.
Effectively she was saying that we must have miracles and we need to put our fingers in our ears and shout 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening' to any rational scientific explanation to a phenomenon.
Astonishing, and deeply depressing and dangerous.
The other aspect of the discussion was on the psychological effect on believers of being at Lourdes - now I don't doubt this for believers, but of course all sorts of us feel better if our phycological outlook is improved, and that can be due to anything from listening to music, to seeing friends and family or talking to a trained counsellor. The claim was that this psychological boost was also somehow a miracle and somehow specifically religious, while the reality is that it is well understood clinically, is common place and does not rely one iota on religion.
The whole programme really came across as clutching at straws.
There was some interesting discussion of the highly politicised elements of miracle recognition by the RCC.
You are again talking of miracles....when the author has specifically stated that 'miracles' could be due to natural laws (ones we don't know of yet). Which is what I have been saying too. Do you get it?!
Yep - so if these 'miracles' are due to natural laws then they aren't 'miracles': they are just unexplained natural events, assuming of course that these events did actually occur and the risks of mistakes or lies in any anecdotal accounts have been excluded - if so, then we are still assuming naturalism: aren't we.a
You are again talking of miracles....when the author has specifically stated that 'miracles' could be due to natural laws (ones we don't know of yet). Which is what I have been saying too. Do you get it?!
Science isn't highjacked by anyone - it is an objective approach which extends our knowledge. The rest of your post makes no sense.
It is inevitable. How long do you think Science can be hijacked by materialists and atheists?
Also, as I have said many times before ...Science is not equal to Physics. Physics is an exact science but it is only a subset of Science.
Many sciences can exist that are NOT exact sciences. People should get used to it.
I have an obsession about all antitheist comedians.
No what you are doing is misunderstanding the concept of natural - you are equating 'we don't understand at present' to something that is beyond natural.
Yes....
except that what is 'natural' needs to be expanded to include many more phenomena than what we today consider as natural. That's the point.
This is where the evolution of science comes in.
Yes....
except that what is 'natural' needs to be expanded to include many more phenomena than what we today consider as natural. That's the point.
This is where the evolution of science comes in.No it doesn't: you don't get to redefine science so as to include what you'd like to be true, and in any event science isn't static.
You are fixated on what you understand as the Scientific Method. No need to be dogmatic about it. Science can review the SM itself and expand its scope. That is the evolution of Science. You keep saying it is something else. No....it will not be something else. It will be a New Science.
Like everything else in life ......Science will also evolve and change...regardless of dogmatic and fixated people trying to hold it back.
Science isn't highjacked by anyoneBeg to disagree self styled and self reverential Sciencemeisters like the Edge organisation have toyed with the idea of changing science notably in ways that would benefit their ontological beliefs.
Beg to disagree self styled and self reverential Sciencemeisters like the Edge organisation have toyed with the idea of changing science notably in ways that would benefit their ontological beliefs.Load of rubbish.
Sean Carroll proposed the retirement of falsifiability from science and Dawkins, the retirement of essentialism.
Edge describes itself as made up of the ''most complex and sophisticated minds'' and the prescriptive title of it's latest pronouncement ''What to think of machines that think'' for lesser minds says it all.......
...........I'm thinking inspiration for future Bond villains here.
Some people will believe anything.
Great....an organisation made up of the worlds most influential thinkers and nobody seems to have heard of it........definitely one for Bond.
I am a professional scientist and until now I have never heard of the Edge organisation
If, so, then why do you not believe the account in the film. Proof of what you wanted isn't it. People really healed?
The thread emancipates the reality of mens hearts/love growing cold in seeking truth.I spend large parts of my life seeking truth - that's why I am a scientist.
It shows clearly how this thread reveals that atheist have had their hearts set free from seeking truth.
I spend large parts of my life seeking truth - that's why I am a scientist.Are you sure that isn't just sanctimonious claptrap since science finds facts about matter/energy.
Are you sure that isn't just sanctimonious claptrap since science finds facts about matter/energy.Nothing sanctimonious about it.
Nothing sanctimonious about it.Not so, I happened to work on novel fertilisers for the EC in the early eighties.
I am proud that I have over the past 25 years or so been able to add in a very small manner to the huge scientific knowledge base so we know a tiny bit more than we would have done without my research. We are a tiny bit closer to understanding the truth about the world.
What have you done Vlad to enhance our knowledge, to take us closer to the truth - absolutely nothing whatsoever. Indeed you seem to so blinkered that your refuse even to be open to knowledge and understanding. Your aim seems to be to try to frustrate those who are striving to get us a touch closer to the truth, preferring to live in ignorance. Shame.
Not so, I happened to work on novel fertilisers for the EC in the early eighties.Then you should know better than to carp away on the sidelines, trying to pretend that science isn't in the business of advancing our knowledge and of helping us to uncover the truth about the world.
Then you should know better than to carp away on the sidelines, trying to pretend that science isn't in the business of advancing our knowledge and of helping us to uncover the truth about the world.Yes it was in a scientific research role although there was some manual work involved in maintaining experimental plots but that's agricultural science for you. I suppose most of your science has been ''dry''?
Out of interest, in what capacity were you working on novel fertilisers - was it in a scientific research role or in some other capacity.
Beg to disagree self styled and self reverential Sciencemeisters like the Edge organisation have toyed with the idea of changing science notably in ways that would benefit their ontological beliefs.
Sean Carroll proposed the retirement of falsifiability from science and Dawkins, the retirement of essentialism.
Yes it was in a scientific research role although there was some manual work involved in maintaining experimental plots but that's agricultural science for you. I suppose most of your science has been ''dry''?Depends what you class as 'dry'.
Sass, it doesn't hurt to be sceptical. I'm sure you would be if you met someone who claimed a miraculous healing.
Depends what you class as 'dry'.I have therefore absolutely no doubt of your valuable contribution to scientific knowledge and may I take this opportunity to thank you personally for the work you do on behalf of all us.
My research has largely been laboratory based - studying living cells and tissues, which required significant amounts of equipment/rig development for the experiments involved. For many years I used to regularly visit a local abattoir to pick up tissue that was used in the research. Nothing 'dry' about that.
I have therefore absolutely no doubt of your valuable contribution to scientific knowledge and may I take this opportunity to thank you personally for the work you do on behalf of all us.Why are my irony antenna going crazy :-\
So, Vlad's found a new website to play on! I'm interested in exactly what role you consider essentialism plays in science and exactly where you part company with your favourite atheist? Or was it just a case of "Dawkins said it, so it must be wrong"?Sorry, Are you suggesting that essentialism might have no part in science because it seems to you I think it should be in science while at the same time Dawkins writes about retiring it from science. That would just be plain humbug on your part. Science needs things categorised and classified for it to be reductionist and atomistic about. For the reductionist in chief to be suggesting the retiral of essentialism is just a fucking pisstake.
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25366
Carroll on falsifiability is somewhat more nuanced than you give credit for too and, of course, the whole site is about ideas and discussion - how do you imagine it could hijack science....?
Why are my irony antenna going crazy :-\That's right....belittle something offered sincerely.
Sorry, Are you suggesting that essentialism might have no part in science because it seems to you I think it should be in science while at the same time Dawkins writes about retiring it from science.
That's right....belittle something offered sincerely.Which is why I then made it clear that I was taking it at face value.
Sorry, Are you suggesting that essentialism might have no part in science because it seems to you I think it should be in science while at the same time Dawkins writes about retiring it from science. That would just be plain humbug on your part. Science needs things categorised and classified for it to be reductionist and atomistic about. For the reductionist in chief to be suggesting the retiral of essentialism is just a fucking pisstake.Carroll and The Edge (isn't he ink U2) are a sideshow, and a very, very minor one at that. The main event is the scientific method and that rises above individual subjective opinions and 'pop-science'.
......As is Carroll's proposal to retire falsification from science. The Edge's request from the complex and sophisticated here was an invitation to be shockingly controversial! Nuanced my arse.
No what you are doing is misunderstanding the concept of natural - you are equating 'we don't understand at present' to something that is beyond natural.
The reality is that the phenomenon is likely in due course to be understood by science and considered natural, but we currently lack sufficient knowledge.
The scientific method has worked very well for a long time and has brought us so many new things and so much more understanding of our Universe that I don't think it a problem at all to be considered to be fixated about it. Of course there are areas where methods should be reviewed but the core Scientific method is what makes it science and I am quite happy to continue to say that your New Science could well not be science at all if it moves away from the core SM. To stick to the SM is not holding back science.
I have asked a couple of times for examples of what you actually mean by science evolving but you haven't given anything specific to discuss, only talked in general terms. Can you give a specific exampleof what you think scinece should do differently please.
Sririam, I don't think the film would appeal to me, a bit too sentimental, albeit based on a true story. However, you said:
"I do not believe that we can think ourselves into health. But I do believe that principles of mind and spirit exist that we have not even begun to scientifically map in the West, and that we should be doing so."
I agree with that.
The Scientific Method has been there a long time....so has the steam locomotive. This is what I meant by fixated.
Nothing is sacrosanct or permanent...... everything can be reviewed and expanded......even scientific methodologies.
Eh?!Something we don't understand but it natural isn't categorised as 'supernatural' - it is simply natural but currently not understood. Supernatural implies that it isn't natural, it stands outside of that which is natural.
I am saying the opposite. I am saying that everything is natural......even things that we don't understand today and therefore categorize as 'supernatural'. So...as time goes by...our concept of 'natural' would have to expand to include many more things then it does now.
They can and are constantly refined - but the fundamental principles - objectivity, reproducibility, rigorous and constant testing of hypotheses and theories against the evidence remains constant.
The Scientific Method has been there a long time....so has the steam locomotive. This is what I meant by fixated.
Nothing is sacrosanct or permanent...... everything can be reviewed and expanded......even scientific methodologies.
'Miracles from Heaven' is a film Sririam, based on a child's illness. However the article is not entirely about the film and is quite interesting.
Something we don't understand but it natural isn't categorised as 'supernatural' - it is simply natural but currently not understood. Supernatural implies that it isn't natural, it stands outside of that which is natural.
Once we didn't understand that natural phenomenon of thunder - it was still a natural phenomenon, but one that we didn't understand. Now we do understand it. It isn't and never was supernatural.
So we don't expand our concept of natural as we understand more, we simply understand more about natural phenomena.
So give me an actual example of how it could be expanded, and still remian science, as I have asked for twice now, and we can discuss it.
Yes...I know the title is from the film....but the article is about the real case of healing and several other cases.....and about miracles being consistent with mental and spiritual laws. That is what this thread is about......!
So give me an actual example of how it could be expanded, and still remian science, as I have asked for twice now, and we can discuss it.
I have already told you that it requires a certain type of integrative mind (Zoom -Out)....!
However I agree with you that spontaneous, unexplained healing does happen.Yup - an aspect of the normal healing process. Cut yourself and guess what happens - spontaneous healing. Break a bone and provided you restrict movement what happens - in most cases spontaneous healing.
Yes...I know the title is from the film....but the article is about the real case of healing and several other cases.....and about miracles being consistent with mental and spiritual laws. That is what this thread is about......!
I have already told you that it requires a certain type of integrative mind (Zoom -Out)....!
When I went to see “Miracles from Heaven,” I saw more laughter, crying and applause than I’ve ever seen in a movie theater. Clearly, this new movie — the real-life story of a young girl, suffering from an incurable illness, who was inexplicably healed after a nearly fatal accident — touches a chord, at least in the theater in Boston where I saw it.
To doctors, events like the story that this girl’s mother (played in the film by Jennifer Garner) recounted in her memoir are impossible to explain. Scientists call them “spontaneous remission” or “placebo responses.”
I do not believe that we can think ourselves into health.
But I do believe that principles of mind and spirit exist that we have not even begun to scientifically map in the West, and that we should be doing so.
I have listened to more than 100 of these remarkably cured individuals, despite the fact that in medical school, I was taught that reports of spontaneous remission are rare, “anecdotes” and “flukes”...
...from which nothing can be learned.
That assumption appears to be wrong.
In my studies of more than 100 people with medical evidence for recovery from incurable illness, the similarity in their paths suggests to me identifiable mental and spiritual principles associated with their recoveries.
I disagree with one common viewpoint that the movie espouses. At the very beginning, it defines a “miracle” as a contradiction of natural law.
I believe that miracles only contradict what we know of nature at this point in time. Modern physics is, for example, way ahead of traditional science, and its implications have not been fully incorporated into its perspectives and methods yet. So I believe that miracles actually are consistent with mental and spiritual laws that we are only beginning to study.
They can and are constantly refined - but the fundamental principles - objectivity, reproducibility, rigorous and constant testing of hypotheses and theories against the evidence remains constant.....or as we should say nothing is better at describing the model of the universe that science creates than science.......and read like that it all becomes less spectacular ontologically and philosophically duller....but truer.
The steam engine was superseded because we invented something better at doing the same job. We haven't seen anything that comes close to being better at providing an understanding of the universe than the scientific method
However I agree with you that spontaneous, unexplained healing does happen.I think it might be helpful to define what people mean by 'spontaneous'. Healing which takes place as a result of thousands of years of evolution can hardly be called spontaneous. Do we class a spontaneous miscarriage as a miracle? Is it a miracle that a crab can regenerate a lost claw but a human cannot regenerate a lost limb? I believe that there is a condition called conversion disorder where the individual presents with a condition e.g. paralysis, but there is no associated organic cause but there are likely associated psychological influences. If the mental state is improved sufficiently perhaps the paralysis has a 'miraculous' recovery. Perhaps there would be more miracles if there was research into the effect of the state of mind on medical conditions e.g. if the mind is at ease there is less interference with the bodies natural instinct to heal itself.
....or as we should say nothing is better at describing the model of the universe that science creates than science.......and read like that it all becomes less spectacular ontologically and philosophically duller....but truer.
That is not an actual example. How, in practice, would this New Science approach the investigation of an observed phenomena in a different way to the current one?
I have given examples of areas many times before...... NDE's, Biofield, medical miracles, ghost sightings, ESP's.....etc.
How they will approach these phenomena is what needs to be decided by the scientific community. I cannot provide you with a methodology on a platter.
But suppose there are phenomena that are also natural but do not follow known laws of physics, they cannot be sensed or detected by our instruments.....but they have a marked influence on our health and on our mental states....then how do we presently identify or detect or measure such phenomena?
Like Brownie, I have never heard of the woman. She appears to be making a very good living out of her tale.
Hi Sriramhttp://www.anitamoorjani.com/about-anita/near-death-experience-description/
Do you remember Anita Moorjani's story? She had only hours to live, suffering from lymphatic cancer, and completely recovered after a NDE. This is one of the most amazing 'miracles' I think that I have encountered.
The problem is that the methodology itself could be responsible for the 'no result'. Lot depends on the base assumptions and premises. You start off with the assumption that only ‘natural’ phenomena can exist and that natural phenomena will necessarily follow known laws of nature and that all natural phenomena should therefore be sensed in some way and detected by our instruments. This is fine for known phenomena.
That's what I feel uneasy with, floo. Not that I object to anyone making money, maybe we all would in her circumstances. So I am fence sitting :). She's not the only one, there was an Irish chap some years ago, very much celebrated on the forums we frequented, who 'died' from a jellyfish sting and came back to tell the world about his NDE. This lady is different though, she was obviously very seriously ill, at the stage of no hope. So - who knows? What she says about emotional well being is relevant to us all (by that standard, I should have been dead and buried donkeys' years ago :-\, makes me feel I should give myself a good shake and embrace life while I still can).
http://www.anitamoorjani.com/about-anita/near-death-experience-description/
SweetPea,
This is indeed a very interesting account. I am sure she is doing her best to help people feel better and have hope. What I fail to see, though, is how such cases can be investigated and information obtained to treat cancer in other patients.
Are we to take it that everyone has this choice when near death? Maybe everyone that dies has finally decided that it really is their time to go - so we should stop worrying about it? Should we just stop bothering to investigate causes and possible cures for illness and concentrate on establishing contact with our dead relatives? What if people need treatment to be available so that they do have the choice to come back open to them?
I think our efforts are best spent on trying to understand those things that are at least within our grasp, that we can use to improve our lives day to day. Finding ways to improve our well-being, but leaving "miracles" as miraculous until Sriram discovers a way to understand them ( or someone anyway :) )
My husband's experience whilst in a coma, convinced him beyond all doubt no god or afterlife exists.
Hi Sriram
Do you remember Anita Moorjani's story? She had only hours to live, suffering from lymphatic cancer, and completely recovered after a NDE. This is one of the most amazing 'miracles' I think that I have encountered.
Science operates on an implicit assumption of naturalism; there would be no point in trying to investigate something that was by definition unamenable to investigation, or incomprehensible.
You have yet to suggest any practical ways for scientific method to evolve in line with your zoom-out notion. You seem to be instead contenting yourself with slightly snide remarks about the people doing science, for being narrow minded, in effect; but science is a process, a bunch of methods, methods that have proven form in cutting through the fields of human biases to get closer to an objective understanding of how things work; if you can suggest new methods or improved methods then the floor is yours.
Yes...SweetPea. I know of Anita. Like the millions of other people who have had NDE's, her account is also remarkable.
I would expect all the others to run it down...one way or the other. In this case its her fame and fortune post NDE. Otherwise they would have found some other reason.
Everyone demands evidence. But when its staring them in the face....they will put out their tongues. LOL!!
Never fails! :D
Yes...and its this implicit assumption of naturalism that I am talking about. What is 'natural'?Usually taken to mean something along the lines of "Consisting of matter-energy as construed by contemporary physics."
It is extraordinary...... it really is. As Pim van Lommel says, sometimes it is just wilful ignorance.I suggest you read - very carefully and attentively - the section labelled 'Reception' on van Lommel's Wikipedia page and the links therein and have another think about wilful ignorance.
Yes...SweetPea. I know of Anita. Like the millions of other people who have had NDE's, her account is also remarkable.
I would expect all the others to run it down...one way or the other. In this case its her fame and fortune post NDE. Otherwise they would have found some other reason.
Everyone demands evidence. But when its staring them in the face....they will put out their tongues. LOL!!
Never fails! :D
PS: When Floo doesn't trust her own unusual healing experience...why would she trust others?!! This is why I say that its a mindset...a programming. Nothing will change it. ;)
I suggest you read - very carefully and attentively - the section labelled 'Reception' on van Lommel's Wikipedia page and the links therein and have another think about wilful ignorance.
Of course Wiki will say what it says. It is so biased it is hardly worth bothering with.Would that be the same reception you would give if it swallowed van Lommel's every claim uncritically? I very much doubt it.
Like Trent, I have had a number of friends (of different faiths, and none), die of cancer and other illnesses. Currently, some of my friends are seriously ill with various conditions, including dementia, motor neurone, and cancer.
I am in the dying generation. So am I supposed to run around getting excited about possible miracles? I don't feel like doing that. I will be with my friends, until they die, that is the best way for me to deal with it. I don't want false comfort.
Yes...and its this implicit assumption of naturalism that I am talking about. What is 'natural'?
Sri,
So in your arrogant opinion, science should "evolve" from a sceptical system of evidence and peer-reviewed papers, to a gullible system of anecdotes and movies..?
Woo peddlars everywhere will be delighted.
I understood this post of yours NS it's a good post, I like it. ;D ;D ;D the smiles are partly for Sriram.
ippy
It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud.The results of 30 years of being open minded ("but not so open minded that her brain fell out").
...
I couldn’t dismiss all those extraordinary claims out of hand. After all, they might just be true, and if they were then swathes of science would have to be rewritten.
Another "psychic" turns up. I must devise more experiments, take these claims seriously. They fail - again. A man explains to me how alien abductors implanted something in his mouth. Tests show it's just a filling, but it might have been…
No, I don’t have to think that way. And when the psychics and clairvoyants and New Agers shout at me, as they do: "The trouble with all you scientists is you don't have an open mind", I won't be upset. I won't argue. I won't rush off and perform yet more experiments just in case. I'll simply smile sweetly and say: "I don't do that any more."
Of course Wiki will say what it says. It is so biased it is hardly worth bothering with.
For example: where are the comments, on the section labelled 'Reception', from Sam Parnia or Penny Satori etc?
Yes...and its this implicit assumption of naturalism that I am talking about. What is 'natural'?
Okay, then let's take Penny Satori. She conducted a prospective study involving perceptual targets to test for Out of Body Experiences.
Her study lasted 5 years, from 2004. at the Morriston Hospital, Swansea. This involved "Symbols ...mounted on brightly coloured glow paper...placed on the top of [the cardiac] monitor...mounted on the wall...at each patient's bedside...above head height and concealed behind ridges to prevent them being viewed from a standing position"
Her report suggested that, "Not all of the patients rose high enough out of their bodies and some reported...a position opposite to where the symbols were situated"
Her results were all negative.
And exactly the same negative results came from another 4 OBE veridical studies conducted within the period 1990 to 2006. One of those, by the way, was conducted by Sam Parnia. It seems "anecdote rules ok" but as soon as any sort of rigorous scientific testing is pursued, it is a case of "Houston, we have a problem".
Oh, and by the way, none of the above information was gathered by me either from Wiki, or even the internet at all.
Like you, I would say that there is no supernatural, there is only natural. It is a dichotomy that is past its sell by date. 'Supernatural' as a concept was in its heyday in thirteenth century Europe when everyone believed the world was run by unseen unaccountable forces of good and evil; people with Tourettes were possessed by demons; people having religious visions were revered as prophets, when in all likelihood they were manifesting the symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy. Science has since done a good job of demolishing superstitions, ignorance and anthropomorphisms by showing that things work according to simple underlying insentient laws - a ball thrown in the air will always come back down at a speed that can be calculated with mathematical precision. That is at the heart of what is 'natural', it is that things are born of simple underlying deterministic insentient mathematical laws, and it is only because of this that we can understand anything at all. A supernatural world, should one exist, would be incomprehensible, life in it would not be able to arise in the absence of dependable cause and effect.
It really isn't about what is 'natural', it's about whether you can build a testable hypothesis. It's all very well collecting stories of unexpected recovery or NDEs or whatever, but going from that data to a scientific conclusion requires formulating a hypothesis that you can test with experiment or further data collection. That is, it needs to be distinguishable from any other possible explanations.
Anybody can make up a story to 'explain' these experiences but unless you can test them, they are not science. So, we don't know exactly why some people recover unexpectedly and we don't know exactly why people experience what they do when they are near to death - what's wrong with that?
Postulating untestable stuff like souls, life after death or gods, is not unscientific because these things are somehow classified as not 'natural' but because they are nothing more than storytelling to 'explain' stuff we don't understand yet.
How do you actually know that its all just storytelling? Its your own fairy story to suit your mindset....that is all! ::)
I don't know 100% that they are not true, but if you can't build a testable hypothesis, then they are indistinguishable from any other stories I could make up. For example, I could claim NDEs are because purple aliens are reading the mind state of people who are dying and beaming the information to the Andromeda galaxy. Or this universe is just a simulation and the light people see is about to resolve into a big "GAME OVER" message.
No testable hypotheses and my stories are just as (un)believable as yours.... :)
Goodness....! ::)
The New Science is precisely what is required to build a testable hypothesis for such phenomena.
The New Science is precisely what is required to build a testable hypothesis for such phenomena.
There is a reason why those experiments don't work.
What is to be remembered is that when we talk of spiritual life.....'up' and 'down' don't mean anything....much like in outer space. Its gravity on earth that creates this up and down.
Jolly good...That's the real question. The writer of the article said this:
How?
Not NS it's SV.
LOL! You agree there is no supernatural...but by that you are only going back to your materialistic position, dismissing religions and spirituality and defining 'natural' as usual in your own restrictive way.
You haven't got the idea of a wide spectrum of reality all of which is natural of course....but not necessarily in the way materialists think of it. Your understanding of 'natural' is only one small subset of that big wide 'natural'. That's my point.
I know it is difficult and requires lots of reprogramming to understand....but that's reality for you. :)
That's the real question. The writer of the article said this:
"I believe that miracles only contradict what we know of nature at this point in time. ...... So I believe that miracles actually are consistent with mental and spiritual laws that we are only beginning to study." I don't know what he means by mental and spiritual laws but perhaps somebody could suggest a way of testing for chakras which are often said to be part of a subtle body rather than the physical body. Presumably an MMR scan would be useless.
Oops your right that's why I understood what it was saying, beg pud, I got that one completely wrong.ippy,
Good post S V.
ippy
I think you didn't read my post. Either that or you didn't grasp the point. I wasn't defining natural/supernatural in terms of material/immaterial, that's your baggage not mine. My take on it was more to do with comprehensible/incomprehensible. That we have been able to build abstracted models of reality and test them is because we find that things invariably obey natural insentient laws; if there were some other category of phenomena that appear to not derive from underlying law they would be incomprehensible to us, just meaningless random noise in our rule-structured world. So I agree with you, an assumption of naturalism makes sense, everything is natural, and whatever we don't currently understand we can investigate, and we do so by taking a stab at an explanation, often no more than a hunch in the first place, building a theoretical framework round the hunch, see what predictions the theory would make and devise tests to gather evidence to either verify or falsify the theoretical model. If you can improve on that model for investigating things then by all means shout out.
Take the case of NDE's. How does the issue of comprehension change anything? Currently, people assume that all the NDE experience is merely brain related and that the person is not actually dead....and so there is no need to go for the after-life idea.
Why is this conclusion arrived at? Simply because the assumption is what leads to the conclusion. No one has investigated the possibility of after-life at all. They have only investigated the brain related theory.....and concluded that it is only a brain related experience. As circular as that.
Now suppose scientists assume that an NDE is actually an after-life experience, would they be checking out the brain MRI's? No. They would be racking their brains about how to possibly investigate the after-life. They would eventually have to realize that instead of treating the phenomenon as a 'supernatural' experience....they could think of it as a very natural experience except that it is at a different end of the natural spectrum.
This is how new ideas will be born, news ways of looking at the world....and new methodologies and new methods will evolve. Its not about me or someone handing out methodologies on a platter.
This is what I mean by science evolving and developing new methodologies and systems to investigate subtler and more intricate areas.
Its no use saying...we have checked all the NDE stuff with our tried and trusted methods and they don't show any results ...therefore sorry...these phenomena are just peoples imagination, they cannot be real!! That is rubbish way of trying to gain knowledge of the world.
Same goes for medical 'miracles', ESP's and many other phenomena.
The assumptions and premises that we start of with make all the difference in the direction the research takes.
Take the case of NDE's. How does the issue of comprehension change anything? Currently, people assume that all the NDE experience is merely brain related and that the person is not actually dead....and so there is no need to go for the after-life idea.
Why is this conclusion arrived at? Simply because the assumption is what leads to the conclusion. No one has investigated the possibility of after-life at all.
They have only investigated the brain related theory.....and concluded that it is only a brain related experience. As circular as that.
Now suppose scientists assume that an NDE is actually an after-life experience, would they be checking out the brain MRI's? No. They would be racking their brains about how to possibly investigate the after-life. They would eventually have to realize that instead of treating the phenomenon as a 'supernatural' experience....they could think of it as a very natural experience except that it is at a different end of the natural spectrum.
This is how new ideas will be born, news ways of looking at the world....and new methodologies and new methods will evolve. Its not about me or someone handing out methodologies on a platter.
This is what I mean by science evolving and developing new methodologies and systems to investigate subtler and more intricate areas.
Its no use saying...we have checked all the NDE stuff with our tried and trusted methods and they don't show any results ...therefore sorry...these phenomena are just peoples imagination, they cannot be real!! That is rubbish way of trying to gain knowledge of the world.
Same goes for medical 'miracles', ESP's and many other phenomena.
The assumptions and premises that we start of with make all the difference in the direction the research takes.
ippy,
If you can manage to phrase an apology to me that doesn't include a sly dig at NS, I'll accept it.
See what I mean?!!! :D Never fails!
Translation : you're right, I can't think how to test such ideas either, but I think I will hide that behind my facade of taking cheap shots at scientists for their failure instead.
;)
No...I never claimed that I know how to test these phenomena. I told you I cannot provide it on a platter.
People should begin by making positive assumptions of the new and exotic experiences instead of continuing to wallow in what they already know (fear to venture into new territory).
So, you haven't the first clue how to do it but you really, really want science to take your superstitions seriously. Even though you've provided no reason to take your unevidenced stories any more seriously than any other baseless story.
Considering how much science has advanced and all the radically new and counter-intuitive ideas that have been adopted, this statement is comical in its ignorance.
Real science is much more fun to learn about, far more innovative, far more open to new ideas, and much more awe-inspiring than your empty, blind superstitions.
But hey, understanding much of science is difficult and requires a lot of thought, whereas superstition is far easier and doesn't require any thinking at all...
Superstitions?! Really?!! ::)
NDE's are real experiences that millions of people have around the world everyday....documented by eminent doctors. They are post death experiences....often after brain death. Read Sam Parnia.
'Miracle' cures are also real cures documented by doctors. I am not making up NDE's or 'miracle' cures.
No doubt....I do want science to take these experiences seriouslyFIFYin a relevant manner that is befitting the nature of the experiencesin accordance with what I'd like to be true. Now what is your problem with that, precisely?!
Superstitions?! Really?!! ::)
NDE's are real experiences that millions of people have around the world everyday....documented by eminent doctors. They are post death experiences....often after brain death. Read Sam Parnia.
'Miracle' cures are also real cures documented by doctors. I am not making up NDE's or 'miracle' cures.
Use your brains!
No doubt....I do want science to take these experiences seriously in a relevant manner that is befitting the nature of the experiences. Now what is your problem with that, precisely?!
...
The answers why these common NDE effects happen are very unlikely to be discovered by someone having a blue elephant of a revelation day and more than likely to be learned about by scientists doing research in an orderly well researched fashion.
...
There is no point calling for a "new science" unless you can show how it is going to work.
The New Science will show how it works! That should be obvious.
It's already happening.
There is a reason why those experiments don't work.
What is to be remembered is that when we talk of spiritual life.....'up' and 'down' don't mean anything....much like in outer space. Its gravity on earth that creates this up and down.
Its like Parallel Universes existing inches away from us. Are they up or down or where?! They are just there around us everywhere.... in some sort of another dimension or something.
Similarly, when people leave their bodies and go 'up'... its not really meaningful in a physical sense to talk of a 'up'. Its not that they go to the floors above and see all other patients on those floors....and not the ones on the floors below.
They just go into another dimension that we can only refer to as 'above'.....but they need not see all things situated physically above the patient or the room.
Its also a moment when the patients are in a strong mental and emotional state....such that what they desire or feel is seen more intensely than things they don't care for. They are drawn towards things they feel strongly about.
Its not a casual fly by....looking around at all sign boards on the way.
Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice
The New Science will show how it works! That should be obvious.
It's already happening.
I believe I have posted this link before. It is a short talk by neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor and her views of her inner experience when she had a severe stroke and how she related it to her scientific background. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
NDE's are real experiences that millions of people have around the world everyday....documented by eminent doctors. They are post death experiences....often after brain death. Read Sam Parnia.
This often puzzles me how do you know when the experience took place? You often hear that so and so was dead for 3 minutes and that is when they had the experience. How could you know?
I dream most nights but in most cases I couldn't really say at what the time the dream took place.
Isn't that what Sriram is looking for? He certainly hasn't claimed they are anything to do with Ganesha.
I, on the other hand - having experienced something similar years ago, just don't believe that anything useful can be found from scientific research into it. There is no point calling for a "new science" unless you can show how it is going to work.
The name of his blue elephant is of no importance to me, it represents old ignorant primitive beliefs made up by, probably assumed to be wise village elders, or something similar to explain, so many of the natural happenings around them that they were less able to understand.
A lot of their lack of understandings of how the natural world worked was not necessarily their own fault it' a lot easier for us in this day and age where we have the advantage of now thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, I'm sure as time goes by and we continue with our advances in neurological research there will surly be a lot of answers found out about things that are commonly coincidental perceptions made by our brains; I'll put scientific research to the front to find out the reasons for NDEs before the primitive great Ju JU in the sky revelation methods any time.
Science is science, call it new science if you feel some sort of need to do so, it's just science to me?
ippy
juJu Skymethod?
Isn't he in Star Wars?
The story of Ganesha certainly does not explain any natural "happenings" and probably was not intended to. I fail to see the relevance of dragging it in here, or the great "Ju Ju", either as no-one has suggested either have anything to do with NDEs or "miracle cures".
I know they are real experiences and I know that sometimes people get better unexpectably, it's the superstitious 'explanations' that you admit you can't think of any way to test, that is in dispute.
LOL! I don't know what 'superstitious ' explanations I have given for these experiences, in your understanding! I haven't.
I have just taken the patients and their own personal account of their experiences very seriously, that is all (as have Sam Parnia, Raymond Moody and many others). I have not added any 'superstitious' beliefs. ::)
There are millions of patients giving virtually the same account. Very impressive IMO! Why should I add anything?!
I have also stated that science needs to investigate these experiences seriously. Nothing wrong with that either.
Now....the issue where you get all churned up is when I say that the scientific investigations should be relevant and suitable for the exotic phenomena and should not be standard stuff (like measuring blood pressure with a foot rule). That is what probably makes you and others pretty furious.
So....get furious....no problem!
Cheers. Have fun! :D
PS: You people are probably scared stiff that any genuine, relevant and focused research might prove the existence of an after-life. Now...that is something you have to learn to live with. What can be done? Reality is reality! ;)
No...I never claimed that I know how to test these phenomena. I told you I cannot provide it on a platter.
But I certainly do know that holding on to old methodologies and using some standard methods to test exotic phenomena is rubbish. That is for sure.
I also know that beginning the process by assuming that the experiences of millions of people are imaginary/hallucinatory and their explanations as 'wooly thinking'..... is NOT the way to develop suitable methodology to test such phenomena.
People should begin by making positive assumptions of the new and exotic experiences instead of continuing to wallow in what they already know (fear to venture into new territory). This is the way forward and the only way by which new ideas will surface and new methods will develop.
LOL! I don't know what 'superstitious ' explanations I have given for these experiences, in your understanding! I haven't.
...
PS: You people are probably scared stiff that any genuine, relevant and focused research might prove the existence of an after-life. Now...that is something you have to learn to live with. What can be done? Reality is reality! ;)
QED
I have no idea why you would think similar experiences in near death would point to anything extraordinary and it is a pathetically inadequate basis to need to invent something like an afterlife - which isn't even a testable hypothesis - it's just giving up and saying "I dunno, it must be magic".
Oh but wait - you didn't invent the afterlife idea - it's part of many, many religions and other superstitions. That will be why you don't like other baseless guesses...
???
Again......the after-life is what the NDE people actually experience...remember?! Its's not something 'invented' by me or anyone.
YOU are making it 'magic' by saying its not a testable hypothesis and it is supernatural and all that. YOU and people like you are constantly keeping it out of the realm of science.
I am saying that.... find a way of testing it. The current methods are inadequate......and brushing it off as hallucinatory is rubbish That is all I am saying.
Do you get it......?!!
Again......the after-life is what the NDE people actually experience...remember?! Its's not something 'invented' by me or anyone.
YOU are making it 'magic' by saying its not a testable hypothesis and it is supernatural and all that. YOU and people like you are constantly keeping it out of the realm of science.
I am saying that.... find a way of testing it. The current methods are inadequate......and brushing it off as hallucinatory is rubbish That is all I am saying.
Do you get it......?!!
Again......the after-life is what the NDE people actually experience...remember?! Its's not something 'invented' by me or anyone.
YOU are making it 'magic' by saying its not a testable hypothesis and it is supernatural and all that. YOU and people like you are constantly keeping it out of the realm of science.
I am saying that.... find a way of testing it. The current methods are inadequate......and brushing it off as hallucinatory is rubbish That is all I am saying.
I didn't think my previous post to which I assume this is a response to, was that obtuse?
ippy
???
Again......the after-life is what the NDE people actually experience...remember?! Its's not something 'invented' by me or anyone.
At the time of the study medical practitioners recounting patients' oral reports of deathbed visions in India recalled that their dying patients mainly reported apparitions of unidentified deceased persons and relatives who greeted them and guided them into the transcendental world of the dead. By contrast, the recounted reports of dying patients in the United States mainly featured apparitions of deceased spouses or mothers who performed the same functions (p < 0.001). (See Figure 2.) Does this mean that when a person from India dies, random souls are conscripted to guide that person into the afterlife, while a dying American is privileged to be guided by deceased mothers or spouses?
This often puzzles me how do you know when the experience took place? You often hear that so and so was dead for 3 minutes and that is when they had the experience. How could you know?There are a number of issues which need to be resolved. Near death doesn't seem the same as death. What is the definition of brain death? Is it just a cessation of brain activity or is it non recoverable total cellular death of the brain? What is the difference between a NDE and a dream? Both experiences rely upon subjective memory and recall during a waking state. How can this subjective anecdotal evidence and accuracy of memory be validated?
I dream most nights but in most cases I couldn't really say at what the time the dream took place.
There are a number of issues which need to be resolved. Near death doesn't seem the same as death. What is the definition of brain death? Is it just a cessation of brain activity or is it non recoverable total cellular death of the brain? What is the difference between a NDE and a dream? Both experiences rely upon subjective memory and recall during a waking state. How can this subjective anecdotal evidence and accuracy of memory be validated?
I don't know what differences there are in brain activity between an NDE/OBE and dreams, but subjectively they seem very different.
I don't know what differences there are in brain activity between an NDE/OBE and dreams, but subjectively they seem very different.
Usually when you wake up from a dream, or come to from a coma, you know you have been unconscious. When you have one of these experiences it is much more "intense" than ordinary consciousness, you can feel that it is the real "real world", and that when you "come back" you are getting only a restricted view of the universe.
Usually when you wake up from a dream, or come to from a coma, you know you have been unconscious. When you have one of these experiences it is much more "intense" than ordinary consciousness, you can feel that it is the real "real world", and that when you "come back" you are getting only a restricted view of the universe.
However, so is the idea that there is no such thing as the 'spirit' at all which moves away from the body in an OBE.
People often describe these experiences as euphoric, out-of-body, intense. These terms are also just how Jill Bolte Taylor described her experience of left hemisphere stroke in this fascinating TED talk posted up by ekim yesterday :This is what might lie behind meditation where the critical, analysing, conceptualising part of the mind losses its dominance and an intensity arises which is later described as consciously expansive, blissful, powerful, enlivening etc. until the left mind kicks in. Nobody in their right mind wants this. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
It seems this is how we would all experience our interaction with the world without the rationalising left hemisphere.
My father was a dowser and I have witnessed the most amazing things he managed to do by means of his diving rod, including being helpful to the UK police. However, I still believe there is a natural explanation for everything.
Thanks, Udayana, for your input on this thread as, from what I can gather, you are the only person on the forum that has had such an experience.
Am I right in thinking your emphasis would be on 'feel' in your above comment?
This is what might lie behind meditation where the critical, analysing, conceptualising part of the mind losses its dominance and an intensity arises which is later described as consciously expansive, blissful, powerful, enlivening etc. until the left mind kicks in. Nobody in their right mind wants this. ;)
This is what might lie behind meditation where the critical, analysing, conceptualising part of the mind losses its dominance and an intensity arises which is later described as consciously expansive, blissful, powerful, enlivening etc. until the left mind kicks in. Nobody in their right mind wants this. ;)
From enki, reply #140:
Just a one-off comment (and possible reply) aside, if I may.
Enki, I recall you telling us on a couple of occasions that your father was a spiritist, and that he once taught you how to divide a cloud with your thoughts. I'm just curious as to why you seem to have, what seems to be, rejected everything he may have shown you. And any talk of 'spirit'.
I understand if you do not want to comment on my observation.
It wasn't. It was clearly a snide remark intended to offend.
Whooa slow down there.
You talk as if we had found a way to test the idea that NDEs are actual other life experiences, when all along you have been saying that you admit there is no way to test the idea.
So, truthfully, your interpretation is only a conjecture, at best, hardly a done deal.
Observing that a dying brain might routinely produce such phenomenology is hardly 'rubbish'. Even a healthy brain produces bizarre phenomenology at times, have you never had a nightmare, for instance ? It would be strange if a brain severely compromised and hypoxic with numerous constituent organs going into shutdown did not produce some strange experiences, memories of which might be recoverable should the patient recover.
What are you talking about?
2. Doctors have confirmed in most cases that the patient was medically dead (even brain dead in many cases) at the time he said he had the experience.
???
Again......the after-life is what the NDE people actually experience...remember?! Its's not something 'invented' by me or anyone.
YOU are making it 'magic' by saying its not a testable hypothesis and it is supernatural and all that. YOU and people like you are constantly keeping it out of the realm of science.
I am saying that.... find a way of testing it. The current methods are inadequate......and brushing it off as hallucinatory is rubbish That is all I am saying.
Do you get it......?!!
* For the sake of argument I'm assuming that you lot are actually listening and I'm not typing into a vacuum:)Yes, definitely reading!!
1. Millions of patients say that they left their bodies, saw it from the outside, met dead relatives, saw a life review, met a Being of Light, observed details of happenings around the body...and much more.Last time I was not conscious I had a dinner date with Steffi Graf. It turned out not to be real.
2. Doctors have confirmed in most cases that the patient was medically dead (even brain dead in many cases) at the time he said he had the experience.Now I know you are lying. If somebody is brain dead they are not coming back to tell you about their NDE's. Or do you mean "brain dead" as in the insult for something that is really very stupid?
4. The doctors and other people corroborated the observations of the patients with regards to the happenings in the OT or accident site. Things that the patient could not have known because he was lying dead or unconscious at the time.
I am even saying that the experiences should be further investigated with proper tools and methods....while you are pronouncing a judgement on the experiences straight away.They have been and the results are entirely negative.
What are you talking about?
1. Millions of patients say that they left their bodies, saw it from the outside, met dead relatives, saw a life review, met a Being of Light, observed details of happenings around the body...and much more.
2. Doctors have confirmed in most cases that the patient was medically dead (even brain dead in many cases) at the time he said he had the experience.
Why would I accept your far fetched explanation instead of taking the word of the patients themselves and the doctors attending on them?
Why would the dying brain (or dead brain) produce such happy, coherent and meaningful experiences? How do you KNOW it can or that it does? It is just a conjecture on your part.
Indeed, that was how things appeared to me. Even as I experienced it I knew that it couldn't be relied on as any kind of actual evidence - that also seemed very funny. Not sure why, as I was also well aware that I had just smashed into the road headfirst in a motorbike crash :)
Hi SweetPea,
Indeed my father was a spiritualist(not spiritist). He even claimed to have a Red Indian guide. It is worth saying that many spiritualists at that time claimed to have guides, many of whom were Red indian, by the way. As a young man I attended many a spiritualist meeting by choice, and I was not impressed at all. Sometimes I had messages from whatever spiritualist medium was present, and it became obvious to me that they were attempting to 'cold read'. Occasionally I played up to their questioning, and found that they simply built on the ideas that came from me, however false they were. Unfortunately it seemed to be the case that their spirit guides couldn't see through my falsehoods at all. So, it was a case of garbage in, garbage out.
One thing my father never did was to try to influence me in accordance with his beliefs, and for that I am grateful.
Yes, indeed, he suggested that he had the ability to break up clouds by the power of his thoughts, especially white fluffy ones. I too found I had the ability to break up clouds as long as I concentrated on them for long enough. It didn't take me long however to work out that such clouds are quite naturally continually changing their shape, dissipating, joining etc. and this had nothing at all to do with my mental abilities. Indeed, I remember doing the same trick with my own children and grandchildren, and, wonder of wonders, they could do it too. Of course, when the trick had run its course, I always told them that it had nothing to do with the mind, but everything to do with the nature of clouds.
You also might be interested in knowing that myself, my wife, my brother-in-law and a friend(when we were all much younger) actually investigated a series of 'ghostly' happenings that were supposed to have occurred in our local area. I remember, on one occasion, staying all night(Xmas Eve, actually) at a local working men's club in the centre of Hull(it had originally been a set of Victorian police cells, where, reportedly several inmates had died.) I won't bother you with the details of the so called 'ghostly' happenings that had been reported, but suffice it to say that we found not the slightest evidence of anything untoward, and, indeed, we were able to explain, by quite natural means, one of the pieces of phenomena that others had experienced.
So, to answer your question regarding my father. It's no problem at all, by the way. I'm sure he did influence me in all sorts of ways, as did my mother(e.g. moral thinking, curiosity, interest in science etc.) He actually built a 'cat's whisker' radio which fitted into a ring, then built a superb valve radio, and I had the greatest respect for his talents.
However, probably because I have never come across any demonstrable evidence of 'spiritual' powers, or gods etc., until that time arrives, I have no belief in such things. If others wish to believe in such things, fine, as long as it causes no harm, and they do not start claiming such things as 'facts' for others when they clearly are not. The fact that my father was a spiritualist makes not one jot of difference to my lack of belief in such matters, except I would claim perhaps that it gave me greater insight into the workings of spiritualism. He was well aware of my views and it caused no problems whatever.
I am much more in sympathy with, for instance, such books as 'Snake Oil' by the late John Diamond or 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre, and I have a distinct dislike of the idea of attempting to ride on the back of what science produces in order to retrofit it to cherished beliefs(often with no understanding of what the science actually says/does not say) when no such action is warranted.
Tut..Tut!! There is so much denial of actual occurrences here .....it is almost religious! Oh...the pitfalls of strong beliefs!! What can I say.
To conclude....I agree with the author in the OP that new scientific methods and methodologies need to evolve so that further research can be carried out meaningfully in such exotic areas as NDE's 'miracle cures' etc.
Thanks for the reply, Udayana. But that is where it is such a shame, because your experience should be classed as evidence. Until science starts to pick-up on personal subjective experiences, how can it move forward.Science has been moving forwards as long as humans have been thinking, sometimes into dead ends from which it has to retreat from and find a new path. It does take personal subjective experiences into account, but such experiences are not sufficient to build reliable models on.
Thanks for the reply, Udayana. But that is where it is such a shame, because your experience should be classed as evidence. Until science starts to pick-up on personal subjective experiences, how can it move forward.
What are you talking about?
2. Doctors have confirmed in most cases that the patient was medically dead (even brain dead in many cases) at the time he said he had the experience.
Tut..Tut!! There is so much denial of actual occurrences here .....it is almost religious! Oh...the pitfalls of strong beliefs!! What can I say.
To conclude....I agree with the author in the OP that new scientific methods and methodologies need to evolve so that further research can be carried out meaningfully in such exotic areas as NDE's 'miracle cures' etc.
What are you talking about?
1. Millions of patients say that they left their bodies, saw it from the outside, met dead relatives, saw a life review, met a Being of Light, observed details of happenings around the body...and much more.
2. Doctors have confirmed in most cases that the patient was medically dead (even brain dead in many cases) at the time he said he had the experience.
3. It is independent of gender, age etc.
4. The doctors and other people corroborated the observations of the patients with regards to the happenings in the OT or accident site. Things that the patient could not have known because he was lying dead or unconscious at the time.
After all these accounts....you say that I should not take their word for it... rather I should take your word that the brain was in some 'severely compromised and hyponix state' because of which it happened to produce such experiences.
Why would I accept your far fetched explanation instead of taking the word of the patients themselves and the doctors attending on them?
Why would the dying brain (or dead brain) produce such happy, coherent and meaningful experiences? How do you KNOW it can or that it does? It is just a conjecture on your part.
I am merely accepting the word of the patients and doctors...while you are the one coming up with far fetched alternative explanations.
I am even saying that the experiences should be further investigated with proper tools and methods....while you are pronouncing a judgement on the experiences straight away.
...we might as well go back to our caves and start grunting in the dark again.
Where do I sign up?Here you go..... http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/04/china-s-death-simulator-set-to-pull-in-crowds/
Here you go..... http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/04/china-s-death-simulator-set-to-pull-in-crowds/
The only reason the Torygraph is reporting on life after death is because they're determined to get Margaret Thatcher back into number 10.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/first-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/first-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study/
Something recent from March 2016.....