Another interesting definition. Death.

[Larniavc]

If you ever read van lommels book you would know. Or you can choose blissful ignorance.

Just tell me the page number in this book and I’ll know where to look.

Bet you a dollar you won’t.

 

[Mountainmike]

And if money needs to be paid for me to study what you want me to study, then you need to provide that money.

You can stay the most illinformed person I have ever seen on a science forum as far as I care.

You believe in scientism, not science.

Take that stunt on the shroud.

The real science version.
Jackson et all did a population survey of appropriate males , then compared with numerous measurements on the man of the shroud. It Confirmed that the shroud did fit a body. Indeed If you go to Arizona you can see a mannikin of an appropriate body which a replica shroud fits. You can see exactly how it was tied .

Kylie illinformed version.
Had no idea what sturp - the real scientists did - or the conclusions they drew. Because she doesn’t study anything. At some point Read Ill informed sceptic nonsense somewhere declaring a problem with the head. So she bought an uncalibrated doll. Made uncalibrated measurements, then says there is a problem.
That’s pseudoscience. Quoted Garlaschelli pseudoscientific “ fake” despite the fact it doesn’t match the shroud chemistry let alone anything else.

The real problem?
Kylie doesn’t study enough.
Whatever the subject.
Guess who had to explain the experiments that appear to demonstrate true quantum subjectivity, to challenge the narrative you gave.?
Me again. I’ve read many books on that too.
No surprise there - I was involved in design of novel semiconductor devices that used quantum effects.


I study it all before comment.
Most of the comments on this forum are based on scientism not science.
The posters don’t seem to know the difference.

 

[Mountainmike]

I've had similar conversations with you before about Eucharistic miracles. I read the book you were making claims about and it turned out not to say what you claimed. When I pointed this out you completely ignored my post. I suspect this would be a similar example.

You would not know . You never studied Eucharistic miracles either.
I will know when you do by what you say.
As I said to kylie, you have faith in scientism not science.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You would not know . You never studied Eucharistic miracles either.
I will know when you do by what you say.
As I said to kylie, you have faith in scientism not science.

I quoted your favoured text. You ignored it.

One of us reads and understands, the other not so much. I quoted your favourite text, you have never done so. Why not?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

EgThe ability of the mind to alter the structure of the brain by training it. Read van lommels book , he quotes neurologists who hold the view.
There are many questions making neurologists question it, Like the nature extent and location of memory. Greyson was the first to question it and write about it, 40 years ago.

The mind is what the brain does. The brain is a learning system, a type of Hebbian network (summed up by the phrase 'neurons that fire together wire together'). Neuroplasticity involves the 'rewiring' of pathways by neurons making new connections and strengthening existing connections. It's basically a process of learning, requiring repetition and reinforcement, but it doesn't have to be consciously driven.

 

[Kylie]

You can stay the most illinformed person I have ever seen on a science forum as far as I care.

You believe in scientism, not science.

Take that stunt on the shroud.

The real science version.
Jackson et all did a population survey of appropriate males , then compared with numerous measurements on the man of the shroud. It Confirmed that the shroud did fit a body. Indeed If you go to Arizona you can see a mannikin of an appropriate body which a replica shroud fits. You can see exactly how it was tied .

Kylie illinformed version.
Had no idea what sturp - the real scientists did - or the conclusions they drew. Because she doesn’t study anything. At some point Read Ill informed sceptic nonsense somewhere declaring a problem with the head. So she bought an uncalibrated doll. Made uncalibrated measurements, then says there is a problem.
That’s pseudoscience. Quoted Garlaschelli pseudoscientific “ fake” despite the fact it doesn’t match the shroud chemistry let alone anything else.

The real problem?
Kylie doesn’t study enough.
Whatever the subject.
Guess who had to explain the experiments that appear to demonstrate true quantum subjectivity, to challenge the narrative you gave.?
Me again. I’ve read many books on that too.
No surprise there - I was involved in design of novel semiconductor devices that used quantum effects.


I study it all before comment.
Most of the comments on this forum are based on scientism not science.
The posters don’t seem to know the difference.

Oh, here we go, trying to change the subject to whatever your flavour of the month is so you have something to rant about and feel good about.

You just don't understand the burden of proof. I'm NOT going to do your homework for you, and I'm certainly NOT going to spend my hard earned money on something you say is important. You want me to read a source, then you must provide it. Stop wasting my time.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh, here we go, trying to change the subject to whatever your flavour of the month is so you have something to rant about and feel good about.

You just don't understand the burden of proof. I'm NOT going to do your homework for you, and I'm certainly NOT going to spend my hard earned money on something you say is important. You want me to read a source, then you must provide it. Stop wasting my time.

I provided references. I doubt you will read them.
You will remain illinformed, your choice. I can lead a horse to water…

 

[Mountainmike]

The mind is what the brain does. The brain is a learning system, a type of Hebbian network (summed up by the phrase 'neurons that fire together wire together'). Neuroplasticity involves the 'rewiring' of pathways by neurons making new connections and strengthening existing connections. It's basically a process of learning, requiring repetition and reinforcement, but it doesn't have to be consciously driven.

Two halves.
(1) mind is what brain does.
That’s a materialist assumption, not a fact.
The veridical NDE now make that impossible which is why numerous ED doctors and cardiologists now consider the mind cannot just be a process of brain. Read the examples, but I doubt you will find more ways to contest it than woerlee did ( the anaesthetist / sceptic and his arguments simply fail to account for them.
His “ explanation “ of the famous Reynolds case is ludicrous.! Can you do better?

(2) agree on definition of neuroplasticity but it is one of a number of factors that also make neurologists reconsider. Not my argument - theirs, If you want to follow their reasoning of why they Think it a problem ( or what aspects of it they consider a problem) follow the links and explanations in van lommels book.


The biggest problem for science is numbers.
Science can’t handle one offs or long tail.

Take sabom. 2000 cardiac arrests. 140 survived 100 agreed to interview 9 nde. Only 2 with verifiable details. Only 1 case left after the other became very ill.
So a trial is simply not big enough. It yielded 1 with verifiable details. The “ test cards” were irrelevant.

But A cardiologist Ed doctor might see 2 arrests a day. So over a career of 20 years, that’s 10000 leading to maybe only 10-20 truly remarkable( and verifiable) events. A lot more NDE . That’s why many are convinced it is real. These are the cases in such as bellgs book.

They are inexplicable.
But science can’t study what it cannot repeat or the long tail easily.
It’s a limitation of science.

However … van lommel did a longitudinal study that allowed him to rule out many factors like drugs, treatment, age, religion etc. they were no different in his control group of non NDE.

 

[Kylie]

I provided references. I doubt you will read them.
You will remain illinformed, your choice.

And why should I read them when I have to go out and buy them? I'm not a uni student who can go and check them out from the library you know. And I'm not made of money.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Two halves.
(1) mind is what brain does.
That’s a materialist assumption, not a fact.

It's what the scientific evidence indicates.

 

[Mountainmike]

I quoted your favoured text. You ignored it.

One of us reads and understands, the other not so much. I quoted your favourite text, you have never done so. Why not?

You did what sceptic believers in scientism do.

Like all sceptics , You quoted one detail out of context, then pretend it is a refutation lf the whole, As if it had any bearing on the overall case. It didn’t .

I referred only to tixtla evebt as a place there were forensic reports!


The fact remains.
Sokolka , legnica, lanciano, Buenos airies and tixtla are verified as cardiac tissue . Myocardium,
The slides are out there. Nuclear pyknosis , intercalated disks, striated tissue showing trauma and recent life. Ie leucocytes. No DNA identity. Has MtDNA.
In the case of tixtla the first pathologist was sure tissue was human intermingled with bread. Leucocytes etc. not sure it was cardiac. As I pointed out after that book , another pathologist I named confirmed cardiac. And it really doesn’t matter because others are clearly cardiac. Why should tixtla differ.

You contested nothing material.
So you who is not a pathologist and wasn’t there and never saw a sample , thinks it isn’t heart, the connsensus view of pathologists is that it is? I know who I will believe!

One day you might read serafini or tesorieros books.
Then take a view.

 

[Mountainmike]

It's what the scientific evidence indicates.

Not the NDE evidence.
As I said this forum believes scientism.

Reality is evidence trumps any model. The truth exists whether science can account for it or not, Scientific models are expendable. The nde evidence trumps the model. You need a new one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not the NDE evidence.
As I said this forum believes scientism.

Reality is evidence trumps any model. The truth exists whether science can account for it or not, Scientific models are expendable. The nde evidence trumps the model. You need a new one.

The only well-controlled large-scale study of NDEs turned up nothing significant. Retrospective studies of anecdotal reports are unreliable.

 

[Kylie]

Not the NDE evidence.
As I said this forum believes scientism.

Reality is evidence trumps any model. The truth exists whether science can account for it or not, Scientific models are expendable. The nde evidence trumps the model. You need a new one.

The only well-controlled large-scale study of NDEs turned up nothing significant. Retrospective studies of anecdotal reports are unreliable.

@Mountainmike if you have evidence for NDEs where a person's soul actually leaves their body and returns in the form of scientific studies, please provide them. Anything less is not going to be viewed as proper evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

I provided references.

That's odd. I asked you to do so in post 61. But you didn't.

Quelle surprise.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You did what sceptic believers in scientism do.

Like all sceptics , You quoted one detail out of context, then pretend it is a refutation lf the whole, As if it had any bearing on the overall case. It didn’t .

I referred only to tixtla evebt as a place there were forensic reports!


The fact remains.
Sokolka , legnica, lanciano, Buenos airies and tixtla are verified as cardiac tissue . Myocardium,
The slides are out there. Nuclear pyknosis , intercalated disks, striated tissue showing trauma and recent life. Ie leucocytes. No DNA identity. Has MtDNA.
In the case of tixtla the first pathologist was sure tissue was human intermingled with bread. Leucocytes etc. not sure it was cardiac. As I pointed out after that book , another pathologist I named confirmed cardiac. And it really doesn’t matter because others are clearly cardiac. Why should tixtla differ.

You contested nothing material.
So you who is not a pathologist and wasn’t there and never saw a sample , thinks it isn’t heart, the connsensus view of pathologists is that it is? I know who I will believe!

One day you might read serafini or tesorieros books.
Then take a view.

Lol. You don't have a clue what I said, do you? I quoted Tesorio, you ignored it.

You have a lot of bluster backed up by nothing. If you want people to engage with Van Lommel, Bellg etc you need to provide something for them to engage with. Simply stating "Bellg has something to say" doesn't really give anyone anything to engage with, does it?

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile back to actual facts.

You quoted castarnons book on tixtla. Not tesorieros.
And as I pointed out the question at that time of positive confirmation of cardiac tissue was later confirmed by another pathologist, this time specialist cardiologist.
It sometimes takes multiple opinions. It is cardiac tissue, and regardless of that it is created recently live tissue.

So the pattern remains intact.
But regardless of that, a single case that confirms cardiac tissue is enough, there are four.

Tesoriero, who I know , as a principal researcher who interviewed the pathologists, dna specialists , cardiologists etc and toured the world to do it has no doubts on the nature of them.

Tesoriero has written 3 books. I doubt if you gave ever seen let alone read “ my human heart “ which was the book that non religious pathologist Lawrence called compelling evidence of creation.

The day you read these books is the day you have an opinion.
I don’t care if you don’t read any of them. But don’t pretend you have an opinion till you do. Your loss if you refuse to read them.

it fascinates me that materialists who believe in scientism not science read so little about the subjects they comment on!

I have indicated the nature of some veridical experiences. You cannot write off as misremembering, and the experiences Show verified consciousness away from the brain.

I am not going to reproduce the entire papers on quantum experiments either.

Lol. You don't have a clue what I said, do you? I quoted Tesorio, you ignored it.

You have a lot of bluster backed up by nothing. If you want people to engage with Van Lommel, Bellg etc you need to provide something for them to engage with. Simply stating "Bellg has something to say" doesn't really give anyone anything to engage with, does it?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am not going to reproduce the entire papers on quantum experiments either.

Nobody is asking you to. You're being asked to present a part of a text which supports your argument. Pretty much every other poster here is capable of doing that. You, for some unknown reason, seem to think it unreasonable to be asked to support your assertions.

Don't be surprised that nobody takes your claims seriously if you care so little about them that you can't be bothered supporting them.

 

[Mountainmike]

So until I present the key experiments of QM you won’t believe it?
Yet you believe abiogenesis of life from soup with no evidence it happened at all , let alone where , when or how!

You accept evidence that just supports your case, and you probably don’t even study that. That’s scientism not science.


Me? I just take the evidence as it comes.
Im happy that some bleeding statues are shown as fraud . Civatecchia. I don’t need them to be true.
I’m equally happy the pathologists say some are the real deal. Cochabamba.

But You will need to read hundreds of pages just to assess that one.
I’m not posting it here.


I’ll wager your view of the science and scientists comes only from whether you like their conclusions - as is clearly the case for Eucharistic miracles. The evidence is overwhelming.

You do what materialists do.
No one book presents all the evidrence of Eucharistic miracles , there is far too much and knowledge increases with time.
But If I give you the name of a good book like “ serafini” nobody reads it, and then they say there are no proper forensic reports in it.

No because it’s a survey with a list of references.
But he does explain the mitichondrial DNA results which are fascinating!

Yet if I give you the name a ( now old) book which includes a set of reports , tixtla ( the fact of forensic reports attached is why I linked it, to prove they exist, not to point at the incomplete conclusions) ,
you then indulge in the nonsense it doesn’t present the complete picture , which was later added to by a cardiologist who confirmed tixtla was cardiac - the main bone of your contention! So in totality your argument was nonsense.

you are just a nit picker, as if a challenge on a detail can outweighs the totality . You look at a hair on an elephant , to avoid admitting the elephant exists,


The bottom line

You cannot discount veridical NDE.

Even the harshest scientific critic - a Dutch anaesthesiologist Woerlee - has failed to account for them. Like frumious he hides behind inapplicable general assumptions “ eg misremembering” which are irrelevant in the specifics of these cases.

So woerlee now blanks discussion on the cases that disprove-his arguments - completely, which like yours- are from materialism not science.

But you won’t know till you study them.

That’s your problem not mine. I can lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink.
It’s not my job to put chunks of evidence in.
I gave you books to read.

it’s fascinating to me , that it was only me that could refer the QM experiment that validated our observation of the world is actually subjective, not apparently subjective! It seems I know more about the science these threads are made of than others too!

This isn’t about me.
tell me - by what sheer arrogance do you ignore the the conclusions of cardiologists , medics and neurologists on cases that they - not you- have seen?

Nobody is asking you to. You're being asked to present a part of a text which supports your argument. Pretty much every other poster here is capable of doing that. You, for some unknown reason, seem to think it unreasonable to be asked to support your assertions.

Don't be surprised that nobody takes your claims seriously if you care so little about them that you can't be bothered supporting them.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So until I present the key experiments of QM you won’t believe it?
Yet you believe abiogenesis of life from soup with no evidence it happened at all , let alone where , when or how!

You accept evidence that just supports your case, and you probably don’t even study that. That’s scientism not science.


Me? I just take the evidence as it comes.
Im happy that some bleeding statues are shown as fraud . Civatecchia. I don’t need them to be true.
I’m equally happy the pathologists say some are the real deal. Cochabamba.

But You will need to read hundreds of pages just to assess that one.
I’m not posting it here.


I’ll wager your view of the science and scientists comes only from whether you like their conclusions - as is clearly the case for Eucharistic miracles. The evidence is overwhelming.

You do what materialists do.
No one book presents all the evidrence of Eucharistic miracles , there is far too much and knowledge increases with time.
But If I give you the name of a good book like “ serafini” nobody reads it, and then they say there are no proper forensic reports in it.

No because it’s a survey with a list of references.
But he does explain the mitichondrial DNA results which are fascinating!

Yet if I give you the name a ( now old) book which includes a set of reports , tixtla ( the fact of forensic reports attached is why I linked it, to prove they exist, not to point at the incomplete conclusions) ,
you then indulge in the nonsense it doesn’t present the complete picture , which was later added to by a cardiologist who confirmed tixtla was cardiac - the main bone of your contention! So in totality your argument was nonsense.

you are just a nit picker, as if a challenge on a detail can outweighs the totality . You look at a hair on an elephant , to avoid admitting the elephant exists,


The bottom line

You cannot discount veridical NDE.

Even the harshest scientific critic - a Dutch anaesthesiologist Woerlee - has failed to account for them. Like frumious he hides behind inapplicable general assumptions “ eg misremembering” which are irrelevant in the specifics of these cases.

So woerlee now blanks discussion on the cases that disprove-his arguments - completely, which like yours- are from materialism not science.

But you won’t know till you study them.

That’s your problem not mine. I can lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink.
It’s not my job to put chunks of evidence in.
I gave you books to read.

it’s fascinating to me , that it was only me that could refer the QM experiment that validated our observation of the world is actually subjective, not apparently subjective! It seems I know more about the science these threads are made of than others too!

This isn’t about me.
tell me - by what sheer arrogance do you ignore the the conclusions of cardiologists , medics and neurologists on cases that they - not you- have seen?

Blah blah blah avoidance. Never anything to support your assertions, just moaning that others dare to ask you to present something to engage with.