Time, death and the universe

[thir]

Out of body experiences? More bunk. People may be able to relate things that happen in the room they are in, or that someone in that room discussed, because the mind is still working, even if you are unconscious. No one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to show real knowledge of events completely outside of the room. Science has shown that every tested out of body experience is nothing more than a dream state. Hallucinations, in other words.

The funny thing is that these experiences sometimes happen with people who are solidly brain dead, and that is a conundrum that science has yet to sort. How it can happen, and from where people come 'back', if we may put it that way.

[thir]

After seeing this thread revived after two years, I had to go back and reread all of the comments. I'm amazed at how intelligent (and how stupid, sometimes) I sounded back then.

I've missed these kinds of discussions. They seem to have dried up since the Big Crash.

Yes, me too.

[thir]

[I]There are some seven billion people in this world. Are you claiming that there are some seven billion different realities? I find that a little hard to believe. Yes, there may be seven billion different PERCEPTIONS of reality, but there is only one reality.[/quote]

Now that is a really interesting thought! :-)

[thir]

Which god?
They are speculations, based on ancient books and fairy tales.

And maybe on a need for something bigger or better than humans?

As our old discussions show, there is no proof of God/Gods but absence of proof is not proof of absence and, no one could proof that there isn't or aren't gods either.

Which, I think, makes it all rather interesting :-)

[Thorne]

I happened to watch a program in which some physics argued that in theory it is possible to have a soul. To do with quantum, of course, that the same thing can be in more than one place at the same time, and that what happens to 'one' happens to the 'other', regardless of distance.

Perhaps, at least theoretically. But you're talking sub-atomic particles, here, almost infinitesimally small. Not likely to be able to carry all of the hopes and dreams and memories of even a single human mind. And you would still need to demonstrate the existence of souls, which hasn't happened.

There are a lot of hucksters and con men out there who try to distort quantum theory to sell their snake oil. Quantum is not a quick fix for anything you can't honestly explain. Remember, as the physicists say, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics.

But it is true that we are all part of a dance of material, the same material, in ever changing forms, and always will be. Grass, sky, human, stone, pig, rain, whatever. Same pool of stuff.

True enough, but that doesn't mean that you can recreate a mind from that pool. As far as we know, once the brain is dead, the mind is gone.

And then another big bang?

Who knows? There's a lot of speculation out there, and some of it seems to have at least some evidence in support. And it's all way over my head!

[Thorne]

The funny thing is that these experiences sometimes happen with people who are solidly brain dead, and that is a conundrum that science has yet to sort. How it can happen, and from where people come 'back', if we may put it that way.

I don't know of any cases where a person was declared brain dead and then came back to report on such events. Not saying it can't happen, but I haven't heard of any documented cases. Only stories. Still, even if it did happen, all that tells us is that we still have a ways to go to understand what brain death really is. There may be (and probably are) processes going on in there that we haven't yet learned to measure. Perfectly normal, electrochemical processes.

And maybe on a need for something bigger or better than humans?

There are a lot of motivations. A big one is the need for people to believe that they are special, and being created by a magical being who wants to give them some eternal reward or something fills that need. But I think the biggest motivation for belief is fear of death. Some people just need the comfort of believing they will carry on after death.

As our old discussions show, there is no proof of God/Gods but absence of proof is not proof of absence and, no one could proof that there isn't or aren't gods either.

As I've said before, you can provide all the evidence against the existence of something and still not prove that it doesn't exist. And while the "absence of proof is not proof of absence", you could show that the absence of evidence for the existence of gods IS evidence of absence. Most people don't believe that unicorns exist, but you cannot prove they don't exist. It's the absence of any evidence to show that they DO exist that lets us claim that they are not real. And that can only be a tentative claim, though very strong, because we cannot prove that one will not pop up on the White House lawn tomorrow morning. Just don't hold your breath.

The same holds true for gods. No matter how many people believe that gods exist, the lack of any evidence to show that they exist is a big mark against them. The fact that there are so many different interpretations of gods is a very strong indicator that, at least, just one God does not exist. And the fact that even those who DO believe in this one God all have different opinions about his expectations of them is another large piece of evidence against Him.

So yeah, I cannot prove that anyone's god does not exist, or that any gods do not exist. But I'm not making the claim here! If I was to claim that gods cannot exist, then I could be expected to prove it. It is those who DO make the claim that gods, or a God, exist that need to provide the evidence. But all we get are suppositions and gobbledygook. And the charlatans continue raking in the money.

[thir]

Perhaps, at least theoretically. But you're talking sub-atomic particles, here, almost infinitesimally small. Not likely to be able to carry all of the hopes and dreams and memories of even a single human mind. And you would still need to demonstrate the existence of souls, which hasn't happened.

True, I was quite surprised myself at this theory, but found it interesting.

There are a lot of hucksters and con men out there who try to distort quantum theory to sell their snake oil. Quantum is not a quick fix for anything you can't honestly explain. Remember, as the physicists say, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics.

These people were well known and respected physics playing around with theories. And they were not 'selling' anything - not even the theory.

True enough, but that doesn't mean that you can recreate a mind from that pool. As far as we know, once the brain is dead, the mind is gone.

Expressing myself clumsily. I wasn't thinking the mind here, rather all the 'soup' or 'source' of atoms that keep dancing around, changing expression, rock, grass, animal, human, cloud.

Who knows? There's a lot of speculation out there, and some of it seems to have at least some evidence in support. And it's all way over my head!

Over everybody's head I should think ;-)

[thir]

I don't know of any cases where a person was declared brain dead and then came back to report on such events. Not saying it can't happen, but I haven't heard of any documented cases. Only stories. Still, even if it did happen, all that tells us is that we still have a ways to go to understand what brain death really is. There may be (and probably are) processes going on in there that we haven't yet learned to measure. Perfectly normal, electrochemical processes.

I wish I had names, but my memory...But these were in fact documented cases, by at least one brain surgeon doing research, and others, doctors and some physicists. Totally scientific, no hocus pocus, which was what made it so interesting. The one brain surgeon got interested because he always claimed that people in a coma did not experience anything, then he landed in a coma himself and did experience things. Since that was contrary to everything he knew about the brain, he got interested.

I am not saying there is anything super natural about this, and I do not quite understand why that is always assumed. But, as I have mentioned earlier, death has become complicated! And people who have been D-E-A-D including no heart beat and no brain activity have actually come back. And finally the - IMO - rather dogmatic science have woken up to the fact that there really is something here they do not understand, and which aught to be researched.

There are a lot of motivations. A big one is the need for people to believe that they are special,

Well, we are. Scientifically proven unique ;-)

and being created by a magical being who wants to give them some eternal reward or something fills that need.

I think the longing for justice is also probably part of it.

But I think the biggest motivation for belief is fear of death. Some people just need the comfort of believing they will carry on after death.

No offense, but it is my impression that US people are unusually afraid of death, even to the worship-youth culture. Maybe not all take it quite so seriously. I have toyed with the idea that maybe Americans, being to individualistic, have less feeling of a continuity, or a feeling that things 'move on' after them??

I also have the feeling that the bad religions (as opposed to good ones harming no one) makes people afraid that there is in fact an afterlife, that is hell, and that they must be on the right side to avoid that.
No offense meant to religious people here, but that is to me the most abusive idea you can plant in anyone's mind!

As I've said before, you can provide all the evidence against the existence of something and still not prove that it doesn't exist. And while the "absence of proof is not proof of absence", you could show that the absence of evidence for the existence of gods IS evidence of absence.

I cannot see that logic. Do you think science knows = everything?

Most people don't believe that unicorns exist, but you cannot prove they don't exist. It's the absence of any evidence to show that they DO exist that lets us claim that they are not real. And that can only be a tentative claim, though very strong, because we cannot prove that one will not pop up on the White House lawn tomorrow morning. Just don't hold your breath.

They might have existed in much older times, hence the myths now ;-))

The same holds true for gods. No matter how many people believe that gods exist, the lack of any evidence to show that they exist is a big mark against them.

Scientifically speaking, but you know that faith is nothing to do with science.

The fact that there are so many different interpretations of gods is a very strong indicator that, at least, just one God does not exist. And the fact that even those who DO believe in this one God all have different opinions about his expectations of them is another large piece of evidence against Him.

I think it would be more weird if many different cultures had the exact same image and the same ideas..

So yeah, I cannot prove that anyone's god does not exist, or that any gods do not exist. But I'm not making the claim here! If I was to claim that gods cannot exist, then I could be expected to prove it. It is those who DO make the claim that gods, or a God, exist that need to provide the evidence. But all we get are suppositions and gobbledygook. And the charlatans continue raking in the money.

I am with you on the money thing, and I do think that bad religion is harmful - very much so.

Now, my God, or rather Goddess, does exist, and my Gods deliver. Because she is just another word for nature, and the sun does in fact deliver and gives us life :-) She is beautiful beyond belief and ingenious beyond belief and gives us access anything we need, but she does not cuddle her creations and does not pull her punches.

When I die, I do not know what will happen, except I will be a bundle of building blocks for her to play around with again. My individual being is gone, maybe, but my bits and pieces are eternal, and that is good enough for me.

[Thorne]

These people were well known and respected physics playing around with theories. And they were not 'selling' anything - not even the theory.

I wasn't talking about physicists. I was talking about people who sprinkle their inane sales pitches with words like "quantum" and "uncertainty principle", as if they really knew what it meant, in an attempt to convince people that their snake-oil is actually effective.

Expressing myself clumsily. I wasn't thinking the mind here, rather all the 'soup' or 'source' of atoms that keep dancing around, changing expression, rock, grass, animal, human, cloud.

I understand. Basically, every atom of our bodies, every atom we ingest or inhale, has been here on earth since the beginning, with a few additions from incoming meteors. Just think! One or two molecules of the water you drink each day could have been pissed away by some first century preacher named Jesus.

[Thorne]

I wish I had names, but my memory...But these were in fact documented cases, by at least one brain surgeon doing research, and others, doctors and some physicists. Totally scientific, no hocus pocus, which was what made it so interesting. The one brain surgeon got interested because he always claimed that people in a coma did not experience anything, then he landed in a coma himself and did experience things. Since that was contrary to everything he knew about the brain, he got interested.

Not at all scientific. It's all anecdotal. We are expected to believe, first of all, that these people actually saw something. Then we are expected to believe that they are telling the truth about what they saw. All with no real evidence! The fact that these viewings tend to follow cultural lines is also suspect. You don't hear about Christians getting an Islamic view of heaven, or Muslims seeing the Shinto version. And none of these people actually come back with any information that is not available through more mundane methods here on Earth.

I am not saying there is anything super natural about this, and I do not quite understand why that is always assumed. But, as I have mentioned earlier, death has become complicated! And people who have been D-E-A-D including no heart beat and no brain activity have actually come back. And finally the - IMO - rather dogmatic science have woken up to the fact that there really is something here they do not understand, and which aught to be researched.

I agree, our understanding of the brain, of the mind, is still in its infancy. There is so much more to learn. A hundred years ago, if your heart stopped, you were clinically dead. There was no method of resuscitation. Now, we have ways to restart hearts. Yes, there have been a few people, with no detectable brain activity, who have been revived under very unique circumstances. It's more common with those who have fallen into icy water, kept cold to preserve the physical structure of the brain. There have also been people who, after suffering clinical brain death, have lost portions of their brains to decay, and when revived are much different than who they were before. Everything points to the mind being dependent upon the physical structure of the brain. No magic involved.

I think the longing for justice is also probably part of it.

Yes, I suppose. I'd rather see justice in this world, though. Having to rely on some of the evil beings that religions have cooked up doesn't seem like justice to me.

No offense, but it is my impression that US people are unusually afraid of death, even to the worship-youth culture.

The fact that some 80% of Americans identify as some brand of Christian has something to do with this. It's been my observation, based upon my own feelings and of those I've talked with, that everyone fears the process of dying, being in pain, but that those who profess a deep religious belief seem to fear BEING dead more than those who hold no such beliefs.

I also have the feeling that the bad religions (as opposed to good ones harming no one)

There are no "good" religions. There are only some that are less bad than others. They all seem to require a belief in something that cannot be shown to be real. They all seem to promote poor thought processes.

makes people afraid that there is in fact an afterlife, that is hell, and that they must be on the right side to avoid that.No offense meant to religious people here, but that is to me the most abusive idea you can plant in anyone's mind!

I don't know. I think it runs a close second to telling people that they are born bad and can only be redeemed by believing in an invisible man in the sky who has a fetish for human sacrifice.

I cannot see that logic. Do you think science knows = everything?

Not at all, but I do think that "religion knows" = nothing. And I do think that science CAN come to know everything, eventually. Throughout mankind's history, things we didn't understand were consistently attributed to the actions of the gods. And religious leaders have tried to keep people believing those things. But over time, century after century, thinking people have learned what makes lightning, what causes earthquakes and volcanoes, where comets and meteors come from. Every bit of knowledge we've gained has pushed the gods further and further back. The religions have fought back, torturing and executing those who "blaspheme" against their teachings, but the progress of knowledge is inexorable, and always leads to natural answers, not supernatural. Now we have reached the point where it's time to realize that there are no gods, or if there are they have no interest in this little plot of mud around a nondescript star in a yawningly average galaxy.

Scientifically speaking, but you know that faith is nothing to do with science.

It has nothing to do with reality, either, when you apply it to beings such as gods.

I think it would be more weird if many different cultures had the exact same image and the same ideas..

Even if that were so, where are the cultural differences between Lutherans and Catholics? Between Baptists and Episcopalians?
Between Sunni and Sufi? These aren't cultural differences, they are religious differences. Different interpretations of the magical words of ancient books.

Now, my God, or rather Goddess, does exist, and my Gods deliver. Because she is just another word for nature, and the sun does in fact deliver and gives us life :-) She is beautiful beyond belief and ingenious beyond belief and gives us access anything we need, but she does not cuddle her creations and does not pull her punches.

And does she answer your prayers? Does she protect you from harm? Nature is a capricious bitch with no concern for our welfare. If we had to rely only on her mankind would still be huddling in caves, wondering where our next meal was coming from. It's from the advances of science and technology that we are able to build structure to protect us from nature's ravages; that we can transport food and medicines across deserts and oceans; that we can live well into our 80's and 90's rather than dying in our 30's. Anthropomorphizing nature doesn't make her a goddess. It's just more fuzzy thinking.

[thir]

I decided to cut this in two, as one part has to do with science, and the other with religion.



t:Not at all scientific. It's all anecdotal. We are expected to believe, first of all, that these people actually saw something. Then we are expected to believe that they are telling the truth about what they saw. All with no real evidence! The fact that these viewings tend to follow cultural lines is also suspect. You don't hear about Christians getting an Islamic view of heaven, or Muslims seeing the Shinto version. And none of these people actually come back with any information that is not available through more mundane methods here on Earth.

You are really stubbornly misinterpreting what I say in that this has nothing to do with religion! Ok?

You do not believe that anyone saw anything. You do not believe that they say the truth. You want it proved. So how are people going to prove that? It is not like you can record it on tape. The only thing you can do is gather such experiences, and there are researchers who do. Your belief has nothing to do with it, people either have or haven't had them. Now, why is it so impossible that people see things during these situations? We do not know enough about the brain to say that it is not possible.


T:I agree, our understanding of the brain, of the mind, is still in its infancy. There is so much more to learn. A hundred years ago, if your heart stopped, you were clinically dead. There was no method of resuscitation. Now, we have ways to restart hearts. Yes, there have been a few people, with no detectable brain activity, who have been revived under very unique circumstances. It's more common with those who have fallen into icy water, kept cold to preserve the physical structure of the brain. There have also been people who, after suffering clinical brain death, have lost portions of their brains to decay, and when revived are much different than who they were before. Everything points to the mind being dependent upon the physical structure of the brain. No magic involved.

No magic is implied. I find it unscientific to keep persisting in trying to make it religious or magical. Some people have had experiences that cannot at this point be explained. You (generic) cannot keep saying that people are lying or fantasizing without any proof of that either.

[Thorne]

You are really stubbornly misinterpreting what I say in that this has nothing to do with religion! Ok?

I'm not deliberately misinterpreting you, honest. But certainly you must be aware that the vast majority of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are religious ones.

You do not believe that anyone saw anything. You do not believe that they say the truth.

What I believe, or disbelieve, has no bearing on the matter. All that matters is whether or not evidence can be provided.

You want it proved. So how are people going to prove that? It is not like you can record it on tape. The only thing you can do is gather such experiences,

Yes, you can gather the stories, and investigate them. Did the person relating the NDE know anything that they could not have known through any other means? If they claim to have met relatives or friends, did those they met give them any information which they could not have otherwise known? There are many ways such experiences could be tested and verified, or falsified. To date, none has been shown to be demonstrably true.

Now, why is it so impossible that people see things during these situations? We do not know enough about the brain to say that it is not possible.

I don't mean to claim that it is possible or not possible. Only that there is no evidence to indicate that such things are so, therefore no evidence to believe such stories are anything but artifacts of the brain. The lack of ultimate knowledge, whether about the brain or anything else, does not leave the door open to whatever fanciful nonsense we like.

No magic is implied. I find it unscientific to keep persisting in trying to make it religious or magical.

When someone postulates a supernatural cause, without first demonstrating the existence of the supernatural, then magic is certainly implied.

Some people have had experiences that cannot at this point be explained. You (generic) cannot keep saying that people are lying or fantasizing without any proof of that either.

Again, the fact that they cannot yet be explained does not give anyone the right to dream up some fanciful explanation, either magical or not. And I don't claim that people are lying, at least not deliberately. They have, certainly, had some kind of experience. But at this point in time there is no evidence to suggest that these experiences are anything other than hallucinations, or lucid dreams, or tricks of a damaged brain. And the more we learn about the brain, and about memory, the less "miraculous" these NDEs seem to be. People can, and have, experience dream fragments, mingled with garbled memories, and the mind tends to weld these fragments into some kind of coherent whole. Our brains are very good at filling in the gaps, and what is filled in does not have to have anything to do with reality. And when people relate such experiences, they tend to fill in even more gaps, whether deliberately or subconsciously. The mind wants a smooth narrative, even if what was experienced was anything but smooth.

Again, I'm not saying such things cannot be real. Any more than I would say that ghosts, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster cannot be real. All I claim is that there is no evidence to suggest that such things ARE real, and so there is no justification in treating them as if they are. Investigate? Certainly! I have no quarrel with that. Just don't claim such things as fact until you have been able to prove them.

[thir]

T:There are no "good" religions. There are only some that are less bad than others. They all seem to require a belief in something that cannot be shown to be real. They all seem to promote poor thought processes.

I disagree. The religions that are non-dogmatic and which are considered private do not hurt anyone, and thoughts are free, you know. Religion has fuddled people's head's in the past and can do so now, agreed. But not necessarily. I think the reason I can be more tolerant here is that my home country is not very religious and my present one not much more. It is not a problem.

Thir: makes people afraid that there is in fact an afterlife, that is hell, and that they must be on the right side to avoid that.No offense meant to religious people here, but that is to me the most abusive idea you can plant in anyone's mind!
T:I don't know. I think it runs a close second to telling people that they are born bad and can only be redeemed by believing in an invisible man in the sky who has a fetish for human sacrifice.


Same thing. For many it is fear of hell that gets you in line.

Thir: I cannot see that logic. Do you think science knows = everything?

T: [I]Not at all,

But yes. Your main arguments are 1) that science does not know of any such thing (people having visions while in coma or some sort of dead), therefore it does not exist, and when people say they have in fact had such experiences they are lying, or it is magic or religious humbug. Because the dogmatic book of science does not know of this, even if you also acknowledge that we know little about how the brains works.

Thir: I think it would be more weird if many different cultures had the exact same image and the same ideas..
Thorne: Even if that were so, where are the cultural differences between Lutherans and Catholics? Between Baptists and Episcopalians?
Between Sunni and Sufi? These aren't cultural differences, they are religious differences. Different interpretations of the magical words of ancient books.

Oh yes, they are, there are major different cultures within a nations borders.

Thir Now, my God, or rather Goddess, does exist, and my Gods deliver. Because she is just another word for nature, and the sun does in fact deliver and gives us life :-) She is beautiful beyond belief and ingenious beyond belief and gives us access anything we need, but she does not cuddle her creations and does not pull her punches.

Thorne: And does she answer your prayers? Does she protect you from harm? Nature is a capricious bitch with no concern for our welfare.

Correct. Therefor no prayers, she is simply nature, and everything else.

Thorne: If we had to rely only on her mankind would still be huddling in caves, wondering where our next meal was coming from.

You do not get it, Thorne. Nature fed us, roots, berries, fruit, grain, occasionally meat. Where did that come from, if not nature?

Thorne: It's from the advances of science and technology that we are able to build structure to protect us from nature's ravages; that we can transport food and medicines across deserts and oceans; that we can live well into our 80's and 90's rather than dying in our 30's.

Where do you think your meals come from? Build in a lab? Where do the cattle graze, where does the wheat grow? Of course we live off nature.

There have been many technical advances - what has that got to do with anything?
Apart from the fact that we are now weak and cannot survive without our many technological incubators. If something major happens, we are lost.

Thorne: Anthropomorphizing nature doesn't make her a goddess. It's just more fuzzy thinking.

Well, I like to think of it that way. And I am not fuzzy headed, not for that reason anyway ;-)

[Thorne]

I disagree. The religions that are non-dogmatic and which are considered private do not hurt anyone, and thoughts are free, you know. Religion has fuddled people's head's in the past and can do so now, agreed. But not necessarily.

While these private religions may not hurt others, they can, and do, harm the person believing in them. They can create emotional/mental problems, even physical problems, by allowing the believer to bypass reality. If you believe that prayer alone will solve your problems, you can reach the point where you do nothing for yourself except pray. That's a problem.

But yes. Your main arguments are 1) that science does not know of any such thing (people having visions while in coma or some sort of dead), therefore it does not exist,

No, science DOES know of these things. They have been reported upon and studied. The phenomena exist, scientifically. The CAUSES are also generally known to science, and there a sound physiological explanations for them. They are, as far as can be determined, inner processes of the brain and not OBE's.

and when people say they have in fact had such experiences they are lying, or it is magic or religious humbug.

Not quite. When they report their visions they are, mostly, telling the truth. Their minds have, in all likelihood, experienced this thing. It's when they start writing books, going on speaking tours, claiming to KNOW what happened and it was all God, or something, that they devolve into misrepresentation and lying.

Oh yes, they are, there are major different cultures within a nations borders.

Yes, there are. And you can have these different cultures, side by side, all practicing the same religion. Sure, there might be minor differences in ritual between them, but the belief structure will be the same. You can also have representatives of a single culture with major differences in religions belief. Protestants and Catholics in Ireland are a prime example. Pretty much identical cultures, outside of their religions, but major differences in belief.

Correct. Therefor no prayers, she is simply nature, and everything else.

So what's the point in worship?

You do not get it, Thorne. Nature fed us, roots, berries, fruit, grain, occasionally meat. Where did that come from, if not nature?

But she gave us barely enough to feed the small groups wandering the plains. And often not enough even for that, resulting in conflicts between groups for the scant resources left.

Where do you think your meals come from? Build in a lab? Where do the cattle graze, where does the wheat grow? Of course we live off nature.
There have been many technical advances - what has that got to do with anything?

It's only when we began using our brains to cultivate the land, learned to protect our crops from weather and pests, became able to grow more than we need, allowing us to barter with others, that we began to progress. In spite of nature, not because of it.

Apart from the fact that we are now weak and cannot survive without our many technological incubators. If something major happens, we are lost.

It's true, our technology allows far more people to thrive than would be possible if we were dependent solely upon nature. I don't see that as a bad thing.

[thir]

While these private religions may not hurt others, they can, and do, harm the person believing in them. They can create emotional/mental problems, even physical problems, by allowing the believer to bypass reality. If you believe that prayer alone will solve your problems, you can reach the point where you do nothing for yourself except pray. That's a problem.

I do not see it that way. You seem to believe that all religions entail prayers of some sort, and that, if you pray, you are in danger of doing nothing. I think you are wrong. If you believe in gods, you might just as well believe that gods help those who help themselves.

So what's the point in worship?

The worship I talk about is more a love of nature and a realization that we live of her and need to not destroy her.

But she gave us barely enough to feed the small groups wandering the plains. And often not enough even for that, resulting in conflicts between groups for the scant resources left.

Why do you think there was 'barely enough'? There was plenty!
And not that many conflicts either..that came later, with much more people.

It's only when we began using our brains to cultivate the land, learned to protect our crops from weather and pests, became able to grow more than we need, allowing us to barter with others, that we began to progress. In spite of nature, not because of it.

The really bad thing was to go to farming. Far too many people, many of whom had a rotten and short life, and far too many people, resulting in far too many conflicts. We can now destroy ourselves in war, and we are busy destroying earth. That is not intelligence, that is greed and stupidity.

'Progress' is a manipulative word, meant to imply that everything that went before is worse than the new, and so that all new is good.

It's true, our technology allows far more people to thrive than would be possible if we were dependent solely upon nature. I don't see that as a bad thing.

I do. Because we are taking more than earth can regrow and using up resources that cannot be replaced.
We are on a wrong track.

[thir]

No, science DOES know of these things. They have been reported upon and studied. The phenomena exist, scientifically. The CAUSES are also generally known to science, and there a sound physiological explanations for them. They are, as far as can be determined, inner processes of the brain and not OBE's.

Yes, they have been studied some. I have managed to dig out the program I was talking about, in which several scientists talked about near or death experiences.
More of that later. My own conclusion is that the jury is still out on that one.

[thir]

After having seen various programs (asking questins, having no answers) I got interested, but I think we are discussing in east and west here, at least partially.

1) I have said nothing about afterlife or religion.

At least one researcher thinks that what people experience in these situations have to do with what they expect to experience, hence religious people see something religious, non-religious see something else.

Almost always something extremely good, though some have nightmares.

2) What I do say is that reason for these experiences is not known. Yes, there are many hypothesises (how do you spell that?) but no actual proof of anything. "We do not have have the neural correlate of consciousness."

3) I am very interested in the idea that consciousness is not actually restricted to the brain.
It is Pim Van Lommen who has come up with that idea, and obviously met with lots of criticism and skepticism.As far as I can follow this, the criticism is that it goes against what you know about the brain,. The reason it interests me even so is that he is a cardiologist who has researched these things for 20 years, by being a person who receives persons with a stroke and who resuscitates them if possible.
He has studied his patient's death symptoms (can you say that) people with no heart beat, and flat brain. And some of these people tell him things. I think that such a long period must count for more than people who argue out of their books.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/arc...DE.htm#results


My own conclusion: something is going on, and the jury is out in what.

[Thorne]

You seem to believe that all religions entail prayers of some sort, and that, if you pray, you are in danger of doing nothing.

Not at all! I was using prayer as an example. In fact, I do understand that prayer can have beneficial effects, similar to meditation. And, while there are those who do believe that praying is more important than actual actions, most people will generally try to do something first, then pray. Those deeply ingrained in religious thought then tend to credit the prayers, rather than the hard work, for any accomplishments.

I think you are wrong.

Is that even possible?

If you believe in gods, you might just as well believe that gods help those who help themselves.

Which would negate the reason for prayer, would it not? Or for worship.

The worship I talk about is more a love of nature and a realization that we live of her and need to not destroy her.

We can find many beautiful things in nature, for sure. Mostly because we are evolutionarily inclined to find such things beautiful. Just as the dung beetle finds the droppings of other creatures to be beautiful. But such things are cultural more often than not. A desert-dwelling nomad may find the golden sand dunes to be extraordinarily beautiful, but might be dismayed by the ugly barrenness of the frozen north. The Eskimo, on the other hand, would have the opposite experience. In either case, it's the people who have adapted to nature, and not the other way around. Nature is not a 'she' or a 'he' or even an 'it'. It's merely a concept we have devised for explaining the natural world.

Why do you think there was 'barely enough'? There was plenty!

There was plenty for the limited number of small bands of people. As tribes grew larger, resources became more scarce. Which forced the tribes to move more often, creating conflicts with other tribes.

And not that many conflicts either..that came later, with much more people.

There have been conflicts for as long as there have been creatures. Conflict is also a part of nature. We humans have simply elevated it to an art form.

The really bad thing was to go to farming. Far too many people, many of whom had a rotten and short life, and far too many people, resulting in far too many conflicts.

Farming actually improved the lives of people, stabilizing the food supply, allowing for larger families, and groups of families, which meant greater protection against predators, the animal kind at least. And even against the human kind. Conflict has always been, and likely will always be, with us. It's a part of our 'nature'.

That is not intelligence, that is greed and stupidity.

Also a part of our nature, sadly.

Because we are taking more than earth can regrow and using up resources that cannot be replaced.
We are on a wrong track.

Then perhaps we should reduce the population of the world? Limit ourselves to only a few million people rather than several billion? Who is going to decide who will go? Are you willing to volunteer?

Or should we perhaps use our minds to make things better for everyone, while educating everyone about resource use? Just remember, going back to nature means going back to lives that were short, insecure and brutal.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=thir;989412]

1) I have said nothing about afterlife or religion.

At least one researcher thinks that what people experience in these situations have to do with what they expect to experience, hence religious people see something religious, non-religious see something else.

This is what I've been saying. Which is why most scientists think these experiences are subjective and internal and not actual OBE's.
And while you may not necessarily be talking about afterlife or religion, the majority of those who experience such things ARE talking about them.

2) What I do say is that reason for these experiences is not known.

Again, we agree. But that does not mean we can just decide to believe they are real events, in which an untethered 'soul' (consciousness) escapes the body. Almost all of the studies done seem to indicate that such things are internal, within the brain.

3) I am very interested in the idea that consciousness is not actually restricted to the brain.
It is Pim Van Lommen who has come up with that idea, and obviously met with lots of criticism and skepticism.

Skepticism is always justified. Perhaps the criticism comes from the fact that he makes the claim without actually showing any evidence for it.

As far as I can follow this, the criticism is that it goes against what you know about the brain,. The reason it interests me even so is that he is a cardiologist who has researched these things for 20 years, by being a person who receives persons with a stroke and who resuscitates them if possible.
He has studied his patient's death symptoms (can you say that) people with no heart beat, and flat brain. And some of these people tell him things.

His being a cardiologist does not necessarily qualify him to study psychological phenomena. And based on a scan of the study you posted, his conclusions appear to be somewhat premature, at least to an amateur like me. His own study shows that only 18% of those studied had an experience, or could remember having one, and even that number is inflated. He states in the study that it could be as low as 5% who actually have them. I'm not a statistics whiz, but that seems to be a rather low percentage. And even of those who had them, the depth, or intensity, of the experiences vary. I honestly don't see how he could conclude that these are anything other than subjective, natural, organic experiences.

I think that such a long period must count for more than people who argue out of their books.

It certainly counts for his skill and understanding of cardiology. I can't comment on his expertise in NDE's.

My own conclusion: something is going on, and the jury is out in what.

I agree, something is going on, and it should be studied. It HAS been studied, extensively. And from what I can see, the skeptical view is still justified. There's no reason to believe that these are anything other than natural processes within the brain.

A couple of comments on the study you posted:
He seems to include those who underwent CPR outside of the hospital. How were they able to determine that these patients were brain dead? I don't think EMT's perform brain scans while transporting patients.

He notes that the majority of NDE-type experiences can be induced artificially, whether through direct stimulation of the brain or through high stress activities (high G-forces, for example) but states that these "induced experiences are not identical to NDE". He doesn't seem to discuss the idea that the psychological stresses of the induced experiences are far different than those of someone actually dying!

So I'm going to stick with my skepticism. I haven't seen anything to show that these experiences are anything but natural processes occurring in an organic body, with no real evidence of a non-biological/psychological cause.

[IAN 2411]

Most people don't believe that unicorns exist, but you cannot prove they don't exist. It's the absence of any evidence to show that they DO exist that lets us claim that they are not real. And that can only be a tentative claim, though very strong, because we cannot prove that one will not pop up on the White House lawn tomorrow morning. Just don't hold your breath.

So very true, I mean, who would have dared predict one hundred years ago that a black man with Irish roots would pop up on the white house lawn as President of the USA. I believe in unicorns, I do, I do, I do.

[Thorne]

So very true, I mean, who would have dared predict one hundred years ago that a black man with Irish roots would pop up on the white house lawn as President of the USA. I believe in unicorns, I do, I do, I do.

LOL! Hell, there are people even today who still won't believe it!