Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on November 26, 2022, 12:18:46 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a new case of NDE from CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/26/health/sebastian-junger-blood-donation-wellness/index.html
**************
the experience also caused the affirmed atheist to question what happens after death.
Junger’s experience was terrifying — but it’s also one that’s shared by people across the world and across different cultures.
“I didn’t know specifically I was dying. But I knew I was getting pulled into a black pit that was underneath — which seems like bad news — and I didn’t want to go there,” he said. “And that’s when my dead father appeared over me until I was like, ‘Get out of here, Dad. I want nothing to do with you right now.’ I’m a non-religious skeptic, right? And there was my dead father welcoming me, and I don’t know why.”
The next day, an intensive care unit nurse told Junger he had almost died. The realization was startling, and when she returned his room, “I said, ‘I’m OK, but what you told me has really kind of freaked me out.’”
That nurse suggested that instead of thinking about his brush with death as something frightening, he should “try thinking about it as something sacred.”
It was a suggestion he’s taken to heart. The experience “left me with the thought that I’m going to continue thinking about for the rest of my life,” he said. “I’m not religious, but I understand the idea of something being sacred.”
**************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a new case of NDE from CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/26/health/sebastian-junger-blood-donation-wellness/index.html
**************
the experience also caused the affirmed atheist to question what happens after death.
Junger’s experience was terrifying — but it’s also one that’s shared by people across the world and across different cultures.
“I didn’t know specifically I was dying. But I knew I was getting pulled into a black pit that was underneath — which seems like bad news — and I didn’t want to go there,” he said. “And that’s when my dead father appeared over me until I was like, ‘Get out of here, Dad. I want nothing to do with you right now.’ I’m a non-religious skeptic, right? And there was my dead father welcoming me, and I don’t know why.”
The next day, an intensive care unit nurse told Junger he had almost died. The realization was startling, and when she returned his room, “I said, ‘I’m OK, but what you told me has really kind of freaked me out.’”
That nurse suggested that instead of thinking about his brush with death as something frightening, he should “try thinking about it as something sacred.”
It was a suggestion he’s taken to heart. The experience “left me with the thought that I’m going to continue thinking about for the rest of my life,” he said. “I’m not religious, but I understand the idea of something being sacred.”
**************
Cheers.
Sriram
The way the brain works is fascinating.
-
Thousands of people die every year.
Some people have a close brush with death, but then recover; and I don't find it surprising that this can be a life changing experience.
No need to read anything supernatural into this.
-
The way the brain works is fascinating.
The brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing. You are attributing too much to the brain.
There is something that gives life to the brain and uses it as a platform. Just as a computer by itself does nothing unless it is powered by electricity and used by a human.
-
The brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing. You are attributing too much to the brain.
There is something that gives life to the brain and uses it as a platform. Just as a computer by itself does nothing unless it is powered by electricity and used by a human.
But the human body / brain does indeed use electricity to some degree and computers do lots of things without human intervention. The analogy is, nevertheless, poor. Digital computers have been around for less than a century. Brains hav been around for alot longer.
-
The brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing. You are attributing too much to the brain.
There is something that gives life to the brain and uses it as a platform. Just as a computer by itself does nothing unless it is powered by electricity and used by a human.
Be sure to give us a nudge if we ever find any evidence for this 'something', then we could take it seriously. Also you'd need to supply evidence for the 'something' that gives life to the 'something' that gives life to brains.
And so on.
-
The way the brain works is fascinating.
oh if only YOU had appeared to him and told him that...
Obviously your fascination would have introduced spirituality into the situation....fascinating schmacinating.
That this is the brain at work doesn't begin to touch this person's experience.
-
Thousands of people die every year.
Yes, bored to death reading religionethics.
-
Yes, bored to death reading religionethics.
Rear ends and teeth marks come to mind here. ;)
-
oh if only YOU had appeared to him and told him that...
Obviously your fascination would have introduced spirituality into the situation....fascinating schmacinating.
That this is the brain at work doesn't begin to touch this person's experience.
No idea what you are on about there I'm afraid.
-
The brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing. You are attributing too much to the brain.
There is something that gives life to the brain and uses it as a platform. Just as a computer by itself does nothing unless it is powered by electricity and used by a human.
We don't know what NDEs are but even you have said in your reply that the brain is involved. I didn't say anything different.
-
Sriram
Hi everyone,
Here is a new case of NDE from CNN. etc
You still seem to be lost in the notion that a NEAR death experience tells us something about actually being dead. You may as well assert sex to be a “near childbirth experience” and draw conclusions about childbirth on that basis.
NEAR death experiences involve various physiological processes (oxygen deprivation for example) that have experiential effects. ACTUAL death on the other hand is what you have when all that physiological stuff has stopped.
If ever you manage to come up with information to indicate that death itself is an experience rather than the absence of experience though, then by all means share it.
-
We don't know what NDEs are but even you have said in your reply that the brain is involved. I didn't say anything different.
You are right that we don't know what NDE's are. So I am taking peoples experiences on face value.
-
You are right that we don't know what NDE's are. So I am taking peoples experiences on face value.
Terribly bad idea, especially when the reporter is in a highly disordered mental state.
-
Terribly bad idea, especially when the reporter is in a highly disordered mental state.
Not when the experiences are life changing and consistent across cultures, sex, age etc. Also, real events happening in the hospitals have been seen and reported by NDE patients and corroborated by doctors. Good enough reasons to take them at face value.
-
Sriram,
You are right that we don't know what NDE's are. So I am taking peoples experiences on face value.
Actually we sort of do – or least we know that certain activities (the brain incrementally closing down when deprived of oxygen for example) produce predictable results (“the dying of the light” say as process-heavy functions like sight are shut down before life-critical functions). That people who sometimes then map the religious stories with which they happen to be most familiar to these episodes and call them “sacred” is pretty much what you’d expect textbook confirmation bias to look like.
You still have all your work ahead of you though to explain cogently why such pre-death experiences have anything to say about a supposed post death state.
-
Sriram,
Not when the experiences are life changing…
Irrelevant.
…and consistent across cultures, sex, age etc.
They’re not. They’re consistent physiologically as you’d expect, but the explanatory narratives some people reach for vary by culture.
Also,…
You don’t have an “also” (see above).
…real events happening in the hospitals have been seen and reported by NDE patients and corroborated by doctors. Good enough reasons to take them at face value.
Flat wrong. The “real events” part is fine – the explanatory narratives on the other hand are entirely subjective. How for example would a doctor or nurse know that it was indeed Jesus welcoming the patient with open arms rather than something else?
-
You are right that we don't know what NDE's are. So I am taking peoples experiences on face value.
I accept the person had an experience. Do you accept what people say in other areas of your life or is this a special situation?
-
Sriram,
You still have all your work ahead of you though to explain cogently why such pre-death experiences have anything to say about a supposed post death state.
Actually, there are many instances where doctors have declared the patient as clinically dead while the person was having the NDE. This has been questioned and answered many times by critical care doctors. Never mind the label of 'near' death....
Problem is that you assume that death is final and that no one can possibly come back from the dead (probably an anti religious view). Based on this assumption you conclude that NDE's have to necessarily be pre death and cannot be post death. A circular argument where you assume your conclusion.
-
Sriram,
Flat wrong. The “real events” part is fine – the explanatory narratives on the other hand are entirely subjective. How for example would a doctor or nurse know that it was indeed Jesus welcoming the patient with open arms rather than something else?
By real events I mean events happening at the hospital such as surgery, instruments used, conversations etc. these have been corroborated.
Whether the patient thought of the 'Light' as Jesus or someone else is irrelevant. How can anyone else confirm or deny that? It was a 'being of light'...that is it.
-
I accept the person had an experience. Do you accept what people say in other areas of your life or is this a special situation?
If people across the world, of varying ages, cultures, education levels and so on relate some experience....I have every reason to believe it and take it at face value.
-
Actually, there are many instances where doctors have declared the patient as clinically dead while the person was having the NDE.
What definition of clinical death are you (and they) using? Traditionally it was the cessation of certain vital functions like the heartbeat. Thanks to modern medicine that definition is somewhat obsolete.
This has been questioned and answered many times by critical care doctors. Never mind the label of 'near' death....
Problem is that you assume that death is final and that no one can possibly come back from the dead (probably an anti religious view). Based on this assumption you conclude that NDE's have to necessarily be pre death and cannot be post death. A circular argument where you assume your conclusion.
Death is final. Nobody has ever come back from being dead.
-
Sriram,
Actually, there are many instances where doctors have declared the patient as clinically dead while the person was having the NDE. This has been questioned and answered many times by critical care doctors. Never mind the label of 'near' death....
Wrong again. Declaring people “clinically dead” is a popular trope, but all it means is that no signs (or the key signs) of life were be detected during that period. That’s not to say that they weren’t there though. In any case, why then bother with the “N” of “NDEs”? If you really want to claim the people actually were full on dead then why don’t you call them Death Experiences?
Problem is that you assume that death is final and that no one can possibly come back from the dead (probably an anti religious view). Based on this assumption you conclude that NDE's have to necessarily be pre death and cannot be post death. A circular argument where you assume your conclusion.
No, that’s not the problem at all. The problem is that you’re trying to shift the burden of proof – if you want to claim that actually dead people return to life, then you need to provide evidence for the claim. When you can’t do that (and you can’t) just blaming others for not sharing your credulity is bad reasoning.
-
Actually, there are many instances where doctors have declared the patient as clinically dead while the person was having the NDE.
How could they know that?
-
Sriram,
By real events I mean events happening at the hospital such as surgery, instruments used, conversations etc. these have been corroborated.
Yes – “the patient was temporarily blind”, “no heart beat was detected” etc are all real events. “These phenomena tell us about actual post death experience” on the other hand (ie, your claim) hasn’t been corroborated at all. Far from it.
Whether the patient thought of the 'Light' as Jesus or someone else is irrelevant. How can anyone else confirm or deny that? It was a 'being of light'...that is it.
No it isn’t – the narratives some reach for to explain the NEAR death experiences they have are cultural, and there’s no good reason to think a “being of light” as you put it isn’t just a physiological response to sight closing down.
As so often, your credulity and poor reasoning are letting you down here.
-
If people across the world, of varying ages, cultures, education levels and so on relate some experience....I have every reason to believe it and take it at face value.
They are having a similar experience maybe, but it doesn't mean the interpretation of those experiences is reality. You didn't answer whether you take things at face value in other parts of your life or is this a special situation for you.
-
They are having a similar experience maybe, but it doesn't mean the interpretation of those experiences is reality. You didn't answer whether you take things at face value in other parts of your life or is this a special situation for you.
Even in other parts of life I would accept peoples experiences as real with similar numbers and profiles.
-
Even in other parts of life I would accept peoples experiences as real with similar numbers and profiles.
I would accept that they had experiences but not necessarily their interpretation of what they were without evidence to support those interpretations.
-
Even in other parts of life I would accept peoples experiences as real with similar numbers and profiles.
At some level, human brains are the same the world over, and so will produce similar experiences in similar situations. A psychoactive mind-altering drug will elicit similar results whether you are a shaman from the Amazon rainforest, or a bank clerk from Huddersfield. It's not surprising that the brain hypoxia associated with dying will produce similar effects in people the world over.
-
NDE's.... given their numbers, doctor corroboration and the patient profiles, can be taken at face value. No reason not to.
Makes perfect sense and also matches with research in areas such as reincarnation that I have mentioned in another thread. Increasingly people are taking them seriously as proof of an afterlife. Looks good!
-
NDE's.... given their numbers, doctor corroboration and the patient profiles, can be taken at face value. No reason not to.
Makes perfect sense and also matches with research in areas such as reincarnation that I have mentioned in another thread. Increasingly people are taking them seriously as proof of an afterlife. Looks good!
So on that basis, there is no reason to not take seriously the claims of an addict tripping on LSD that he can fly.
Duh!
Mr Ockham would be most disappointed in your reasoning skills.
-
So on that basis, there is no reason to not take seriously the claims of an addict tripping on LSD that he can fly.
Duh!
Mr Ockham would be most disappointed in your reasoning skills.
Occum was a friar who was trying to promote the idea of God as the simplest explanation.....
-
I would accept that they had experiences but not necessarily their interpretation of what they were without evidence to support those interpretations.
Almost everyone who has the experience interprets it as an after-life and as a 'being of light' and as 'out of body' and so on. The interpretations are the same among them all.
What would you interpret it as and why would that be more correct?
-
Occum was a friar who was trying to promote the idea of God as the simplest explanation.....
So what.
His concept argues against god as it adds an unnecessary step when other simpler explanations exist. That Occam originally coined it in order to argue for god is both irrelevant, but also interesting in revelling a bias in favour of an explanation that presumably he already believed in, but had no evidence for.
-
Almost everyone who has the experience interprets it as an after-life and as a 'being of light' and as 'out of body' and so on. The interpretations are the same among them all.
Just because people interpret these phenomena in a particular manner doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. And I think there is an element of circular argument here - I suspect people who have these phenomena when profoundly ill may interpret it as 'after-life', but of course the same phenomena occur in other circumstances where there may be temporary oxygen depletion/CO2 build up in the brain that isn't associated with death or illness. And the same phenomena can be induced experimentally. How do these people describe it - I suspect less likely for an airforce pilot to describe it as 'after-life' even though the phenomena, induced by extreme g-force, is the same.
And, of course, many of us will encounter out of body experiences when we dream - do we ascribe this to some kind of supernatural cause. Nope, we understand this to be due to brain activity that occurs as we sleep.
What would you interpret it as and why would that be more correct?
Err - physiological phenomena that occur under circumstances where there is mild to sever oxygen depletion and CO2 building up in the brain blood supply. And of course in every case where we are able to talk to the person about it, this isn't a feature of death because the person does not die. Indeed when induced by high g or experimentally the person isn't even 'near death'.
-
My wife and I were at her mother's bedside in her dying moments. The last things she said were "put that light out" and "mother!".
In retrospect we can see how this fits in with other people's near death experiences. Seeing a bright light and being greeted by a close relative or friend.
-
Almost everyone who has the experience interprets it as an after-life and as a 'being of light' and as 'out of body' and so on. The interpretations are the same among them all.
What would you interpret it as and why would that be more correct?
Just because people interpret it in a particular way that doesn't mean that interpretation is correct. How I would or wouldn't interpret it is irrelevant to the reality.
-
My wife and I were at her mother's bedside in her dying moments. The last things she said were "put that light out" and "mother!".
In retrospect we can see how this fits in with other people's near death experiences. Seeing a bright light and being greeted by a close relative or friend.
As she was dying she was having an experience, yes. No one is disputing that.
-
No idea what you are on about there I'm afraid.
I mean ''Electronsdidit'' or ''the braindidit'' doesn't get us very far in discussion of this experience so I am puzzled that such offerings seem to give satisfaction. What is it these flip answers are satisfying?
-
Just because people interpret these phenomena in a particular manner doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. And I think there is an element of circular argument here - I suspect people who have these phenomena when profoundly ill may interpret it as 'after-life', but of course the same phenomena occur in other circumstances where there may be temporary oxygen depletion/CO2 build up in the brain that isn't associated with death or illness. And the same phenomena can be induced experimentally. How do these people describe it - I suspect less likely for an airforce pilot to describe it as 'after-life' even though the phenomena, induced by extreme g-force, is the same.
And, of course, many of us will encounter out of body experiences when we dream - do we ascribe this to some kind of supernatural cause. Nope, we understand this to be due to brain activity that occurs as we sleep.
Err - physiological phenomena that occur under circumstances where there is mild to sever oxygen depletion and CO2 building up in the brain blood supply. And of course in every case where we are able to talk to the person about it, this isn't a feature of death because the person does not die. Indeed when induced by high g or experimentally the person isn't even 'near death'.
I think an experience like this may be a case for ''follow up''.How for instance is the person changed, is any change for the betterment or the deteriment.
I would imagine though the ''electronsdidit'' brigade wouldn't be interested...
-
Vlad,
I mean ''Electronsdidit'' or ''the braindidit'' doesn't get us very far in discussion of this experience so I am puzzled that such offerings seem to give satisfaction. What is it these flip answers are satisfying?
It “satisfies” the conclusion that there’s no good reason to reach beyond the physiological to explain these events.
-
Just because people interpret these phenomena in a particular manner doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. And I think there is an element of circular argument here - I suspect people who have these phenomena when profoundly ill may interpret it as 'after-life', but of course the same phenomena occur in other circumstances where there may be temporary oxygen depletion/CO2 build up in the brain that isn't associated with death or illness. And the same phenomena can be induced experimentally. How do these people describe it - I suspect less likely for an airforce pilot to describe it as 'after-life' even though the phenomena, induced by extreme g-force, is the same.
And, of course, many of us will encounter out of body experiences when we dream - do we ascribe this to some kind of supernatural cause. Nope, we understand this to be due to brain activity that occurs as we sleep.
Err - physiological phenomena that occur under circumstances where there is mild to sever oxygen depletion and CO2 building up in the brain blood supply. And of course in every case where we are able to talk to the person about it, this isn't a feature of death because the person does not die. Indeed when induced by high g or experimentally the person isn't even 'near death'.
Out of body experiences can be had by anyone...not necessarily during NDE's. Everyone has a soul and everyone can temporarily leave the body. It can happen anytime to anyone.
-
My wife and I were at her mother's bedside in her dying moments. The last things she said were "put that light out" and "mother!".
In retrospect we can see how this fits in with other people's near death experiences. Seeing a bright light and being greeted by a close relative or friend.
Seeing a bright light is also a common phenomenon for people with oxygen depletion or CO2 elevation in circumstances that have nothing to do with death - e.g. high g-force.
I've dreamt about my dead parents on many occasions - then I woke up - I wasn't near death.
People experience similar things when they may have high fever too.
So these phenomena are really very common and in most cases aren't related to dying at all.
-
I mean ''Electronsdidit'' or ''the braindidit'' doesn't get us very far in discussion of this experience so I am puzzled that such offerings seem to give satisfaction. What is it these flip answers are satisfying?
Flip answers?
If we are looking for an explanation of the cause of such experiences then brain activity can be totally satisfying (though not sure that is the correct word). If you are looking for some greater meaning then I'll leave such speculation to you.
-
Sriram,
Out of body experiences can be had by anyone...not necessarily during NDE's. Everyone has a soul and everyone can temporarily leave the body. It can happen anytime to anyone.
“Everyone has a soul” eh? Good luck with demonstrating that unqualified assertion.
While we wait for that though, perhaps you could sort out the difference between a NEAR death experience and actual death. You’re very confused about this: if you want to stick with NEAR death experience then you have all your work ahead of you to explain why the process of approaching death has something to tell us about being actually dead; on the other hand, if you want to rest your assertions on actual deaths then you need to find some examples of people who were actually dead and then returned to tell us about it.
Which one do you plump for: near death or actual death?
-
NDE's.... given their numbers, doctor corroboration and the patient profiles, can be taken at face value. No reason not to.
No. They are widespread and consistent enough that we have to presume that there is something consistent happening, but we not only don't have to accept that the subjective interpretation of that should be accepted, but we have good reason to think that an already unreliable subjective experience should not be taken at face value when operating in extreme circumstances.
O.
-
Out of body experiences can be had by anyone...not necessarily during NDE's.
Indeed - as the neurophysiology that is considered to generate these phenomena can be induced through a range of activities, some of which represent normal physiology others associated with neurological stress including the process of dying. The most common is, of course, dreaming. And we can measure this via brain scans and induce it artificially.
Everyone has a soul and everyone can temporarily leave the body. It can happen anytime to anyone.
Oh no - and I thought we were getting somewhere and then you revert back to woo. We don't actually 'leave our body' when we have an out of body experience. Our neurophysiology creates a phenomenon which is perceived as leaving our bodies. And you'll need to provide evidence for the existence of a soul, beyond a way we describe aspects of our complex neurophysiology.
-
The soul is not 'woo'. it is not something strange and supernatural.
It is you and me. It is the Subject, the Self at the core of the personality.
-
The soul is not 'woo'. it is not something strange and supernatural.
It is you and me. It is the Subject, the Self at the core of the personality.
The soul is indeed woo, or at least in the sense of something immaterial and eternal inhabiting our bodies. It is an idea that owes everything to our ubiquitous distaste for death, and nothing at all to empirical evidence or research.
-
The soul is not 'woo'. it is not something strange and supernatural.
So if what you describe as 'the soul' is not supernatural then presumably it is material. I'd agree. And if it is material we need to understand from what material processes it emanates. And also if it is material then it cannot exist outside of or beyond those material processes. So what material processes are good contenders, for which evidence exists. Well, how about highly complex neurophysiology within the brain. And certainly there is no evidence that human consciousness or 'the soul' exists outside of the context of neurophysiology.
It is you and me. It is the Subject, the Self at the core of the personality.
Yup - what we describe as a person is fundamentally defined by that individual's neurophysiology - hence why we consider that a person has died when that neurophysiology is permanently lost, even if other physiological processes remain functional.
That does nothing to diminish 'the Subject' or 'the Self' - indeed I think trying to claim it is non-material, magic or supernatural diminishes us as a person.
-
That is like claiming that a robot is all plastic, metal, chips and circuitry. That is true in a limited sense..... but the soul of a robot is the human using it.
-
That is like claiming that a robot is all plastic, metal, chips and circuitry. That is true in a limited sense..... but the soul of a robot is the human using it.
But none of that suggests anything that goes beyond material explanations. What the robot does and what the robot is is entirely determined by material explanations. And the robot simply doesn't exist outside of, or beyond those material elements.
Now humans aren't robots in the sense that we aren't top-down designed, but bottom-up evolved, but the point about not existing outside of or beyond material phenomena is just as valid.
-
'Material' is just what we can sense through our senses. Lot of things exist that we cannot sense. Don't limit the universe to our senses. The world is a spectrum.
Can strings be sensed? Are they material? Can Dark Matter or Dark Energy or Parallel Universes be sensed? Are they material or non material?
Is the mind a material substance?
-
'Material' is just what we can sense through our senses.
No - it isn't - there are plenty of things that are clearly material, in the sense of being based on fundamental physics (perhaps physical/physicalism are better terms), that cannot be sensed through our senses. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, nor that they aren't material in the context we are discussing.
-
Can strings be sensed? Are they material? Can Dark Matter or Dark Energy or Parallel Universes be sensed? Are they material or non material?
Yes - of course those things can be sensed and measured if they exist.
Is the mind a material substance?
But you are drifting back into anthropocentricity again, as you do so often. Mind is a term that humans give to certain complex physiological processes, which are themselves clearly physical/material. Just because humans describe it in a particular manner, and consider it to have particular importance and relevance in human terms, doesn't stop it being physical and material.
-
Flip answers?
If we are looking for an explanation of the cause of such experiences then brain activity can be totally satisfying (though not sure that is the correct word). If you are looking for some greater meaning then I'll leave such speculation to you.
But they can only be satisfying to either a neuroscientist or forsomeone for whom neuroscience provides armory for his scientism. But that is only a part of psychiatry or psychology and may be quite alien to the person who has had the experience.
In other words,is your satisfaction derived from telling that person ''It's just brain activity now fuck off and run along, there's a good chap''
-
'Material' is just what we can sense through our senses.
No. Unless you're going to qualify that by saying we can use instruments to augment our senses. For example, almost all galaxies in the Universe cannot be sensed by humans directly, but can be sensed with the aid of a telescope.
Lot of things exist that we cannot sense.
How do you know, if you can't sense them?
Can strings be sensed?
I assume you mean the strings in string theory rather than actual strings. The answer is we can't detect them which is why they remain just a hypothesis.
Can Dark Matter or Dark Energy or Parallel Universes be sensed?
Yes, yes and no, respectively. Dark matter and dark energy can be detected by watching the way stars and galaxies move. Parallel universes can't be detected which is why they remain just a hypothesis.
Is the mind a material substance?
Clearly.
-
Sriram,
Have you made up your mind yet about whether your claims of evidence of an afterlife rely on NEAR death experiences or on actual deaths?
Thanks.
-
Dr Adam Rutherford in his comment about England and Wales being officially majority non christian seemed to positively assert the absence of an afterlife In the Guardian today(GYOFE). Any body want to back him or correct him......walk in his fragrant philosophically naturalistic footsteps, perhaps.
-
If they came back to talk about it, they didn't die, so such experiences tell us absolutely nothing about what happens after death. They are called "near death experiences" for a reason.
-
But they can only be satisfying to either a neuroscientist or forsomeone for whom neuroscience provides armory for his scientism. But that is only a part of psychiatry or psychology and may be quite alien to the person who has had the experience.
In other words,is your satisfaction derived from telling that person ''It's just brain activity now fuck off and run along, there's a good chap''
No, because I don't use the f word.
I think brain activity - which we know exists - provides a possible answer. Beyond that is speculation which I'll leave to those who enjoy/need that.
-
Just as strings, parallel universes, dark energy etc. remain hypotheses....the idea of an after-life and reincarnation are also hypotheses. I don't see why not!
Merely because many of you have mental blocks because you associate such ideas with religion.....does not mean these ideas cannot be valid hypotheses! There is enough evidence for that.
I'll leave it at that.
Thanks guys.
-
Just as strings, parallel universes, dark energy etc. remain hypotheses....
Actually I think they are theories, rather than hypotheses. I trust you understand the difference.
the idea of an after-life and reincarnation are also hypotheses. I don't see why not!
Hypotheses to be valid must be both based on prior evidence and testable. These seem not to meet either of those criteria.
-
Actually I think they are theories, rather than hypotheses. I trust you understand the difference.
Hypotheses to be valid must be both based on prior evidence and testable. These seem not to meet either of those criteria.
When has string 'theory' or any of the others mentioned by Sriram been repeatedly tested and corroborated?
Indeed not sure all are open to testing.
-
Sriram,
Just as strings, parallel universes, dark energy etc. remain hypotheses....the idea of an after-life and reincarnation are also hypotheses. I don't see why not!
Merely because many of you have mental blocks because you associate such ideas with religion.....does not mean these ideas cannot be valid hypotheses! There is enough evidence for that.
I'll leave it at that.
No-one's saying that an afterlife, reincarnation etc can't be discussed. What is being said though is that your efforts at validating these ideas with NDEs fail for the reasons you're given but won't address. That has nothing to do with a "mental block' - just with not accepting claims as true on the basis of bad reasoning.
Anyway, should we take your rapid exit to mean that you don't intend to share with us whether you think it's NEAR death or ACTUAL death that's relevant here?
-
No, because I don't use the f word.
I think brain activity - which we know exists - provides a possible answer. Beyond that is speculation which I'll leave to those who enjoy/need that.
No, beyond the mechanics lies psychology, psychiatry, therapy counselling and the life of human beings all of which would be badly malnourished on a diet of mere brain activity and neuroscience.
-
Vlad,
No, beyond the mechanics lies psychology, psychiatry, therapy counselling and the life of human beings all of which would be badly malnourished on a diet of mere brain activity and neuroscience.
But also done a grave disservice by entertainng notions of the supernatural.
-
Vlad,
But also done a grave disservice by entertainng notions of the supernatural.
Interesting thesis which, as it's from you, can expect no expansion.
-
Vlad,
Interesting thesis which, as it's from you, can expect no expansion.
There goes another irony meter...
Anyway - introducing supernaturalism to psychology etc does them a disservice because, as you well know, there are no methods to validate supernatural claims, nor even to distinguish any one such from any other.
-
No, beyond the mechanics lies psychology, psychiatry, therapy counselling and the life of human beings all of which would be badly malnourished on a diet of mere brain activity and neuroscience.
Sure, to help people deal with their emotions. But not to help explain the reality of what happened to them, which is what I have been talking about. Not sure what you are talking about to be honest. You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
-
Vlad,
There goes another irony meter...
Anyway - introducing supernaturalism to psychology etc does them a disservice because, as you well know, there are no methods to validate supernatural claims, nor even to distinguish any one such from any other.
Can you give an example of where the supernatural has been introduced into psychology and in what way it has been detrimental.
I think my criticism with Neuroscience is reinforced by those two triumphs of reductionist thinking in neuroscience.
Namely Lobotomy and Electroconvulsive Therapy.
-
Can you give an example of where the supernatural has been introduced into psychology and in what way it has been detrimental.
I think my criticism with Neuroscience is reinforced by those two triumphs of reductionist thinking in neuroscience.
Namely Lobotomy and Electroconvulsive Therapy.
Err - throughout history societies have ascribed supernatural causes to mental illnesses and treated (or rather maltreated) patients on the basis of that supernatural assumption. Hence driving out demons, evil spirits etc.
And this isn't simply something from the distant past - it is happening today and people in need of medical help are suffering. As an example:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.628925/full
-
Err - throughout history societies have ascribed supernatural causes to mental illnesses and treated (or rather maltreated) patients on the basis of that supernatural assumption. Hence driving out demons, evil spirits etc.
And this isn't simply something from the distant past - it is happening today and people in need of medical help are suffering. As an example:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.628925/full
Yes I would agree there are horror stories when Doctors aren't allowed to practice. I am merely pointing out the horrors of scientific reductionism and bad ideas namely lobotomy and ECT both of which were expressions of a science deluded in how far it had come and how alienated it was from people depending on it.
-
What definition of clinical death are you (and they) using? Traditionally it was the cessation of certain vital functions like the heartbeat. Thanks to modern medicine that definition is somewhat obsolete.
Death is final. Nobody has ever come back from being dead.
Although if you subscribe to Professor Davey's circular heirarchies you get to come back again and again and again and again and again and again and...........
-
Yes I would agree there are horror stories when Doctors aren't allowed to practice.
Err ... because of adherence to supernatural claims. Hence you have demonstrated that your assertion that there are no examples where introduction of the supernatural into psychology has been detrimental. Clearly there are many examples - and while some none supernatural interventions have have been misguided they would have been based on some semblance of evidence, even if that evidence proved to be wrong. Appealing to the supernatural is evidence-less.
-
Err ... because of adherence to supernatural claims. Hence you have demonstrated that your assertion that there are no examples where introduction of the supernatural into psychology has been detrimental. Clearly there are many examples - and while some none supernatural interventions have have been misguided they would have been based on some semblance of evidence, even if that evidence proved to be wrong. Appealing to the supernatural is evidence-less.
I would disagree that the psychological contributions of the religious have been all, mostly or even half bad and many practitioners would acknowledge the therapeutic value of chaplains.
Religion provides psychological support when the secular authorities can't or won't provide it and it is undeniable that the practitioners of medical science provide, in many places, on a commercial basis.
-
Actually I think they are theories, rather than hypotheses. I trust you understand the difference.
Hypotheses to be valid must be both based on prior evidence and testable. These seem not to meet either of those criteria.
The "theory" in string theory is meant in the mathematical sense not the scientific sense isn't it? Nobody has observationally shown that strings are real. Similarly for parallel universes.
-
Vlad,
Can you give an example of where the supernatural has been introduced into psychology and in what way it has been detrimental.
From today’s Guardian:
“‘Exposed to horrendous things’: young people in UK speak out against evangelical church
Ex-followers of Universal Church of the Kingdom of God say they felt pressure to give money and were told demons caused mental health issues”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/young-uk-people-speak-out-against-evangelical-church-universal-kingdom-god
-
Vlad,
From today’s Guardian:
“‘Exposed to horrendous things’: young people in UK speak out against evangelical church
Ex-followers of Universal Church of the Kingdom of God say they felt pressure to give money and were told demons caused mental health issues”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/young-uk-people-speak-out-against-evangelical-church-universal-kingdom-god
Awful experience. This seems to be anti psychology so difficult to see how it is part of psychology.
It awakens in me an anxiety that people might be turning to cowboys because actual mental health provision is not available.