General anesthesia and consciousness

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't seem to know how these studies work. A person dies and is brought back. The study would then ask them right after the event what they experienced while dead. Most people do not have an NDE, but some do, and a lot of the time they are asked about it sooner rather than later.

Yes, I get that, but asking "Did you have an NDE?" is not studying how or why they happen. That's just asking if they happen.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes, I get that, but asking "Did you have an NDE?" is not studying how or why they happen. That's just asking if they happen.

Why do you think they are not looking for a natural explanation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you think they are not looking for a natural explanation?

... I said this before. Modern science ONLY operates on natural causes, because that's all that be studied. If you can show how the supernatural can be studied, you'd be seen as the father of a new branch of science for sure.

 

[All Becomes New]

... I said this before. Modern science ONLY operates on natural causes, because that's all that be studied. If you can show how the supernatural can be studied, you'd be seen as the father of a new branch of science for sure.

Yeah, so what do you do when there is no natural explanation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah, so what do you do when there is no natural explanation?

Keep looking.

As I said: lack of natural evidence does not preclude that the supernatural is valid. That's not how science works.

Show me how you can study the supernatural.

 

[All Becomes New]

Keep looking.

In other words, you don't think the supernatural is even possible and everything has a naturalistic explanation. Look, the reason NDEs are unique is that there is no natural explanation and people have really tried to figure them out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In other words, you don't think the supernatural is even possible and everything has a naturalistic explanation. Look, the reason NDEs are unique is that there is no natural explanation and people have really tried to figure them out.

I don't know why it is you keep only focusing on parts of my posts. It's very dishonest from you to do so, so I'll copy and paste my comment in full:

Keep looking.

As I said: lack of natural evidence does not preclude that the supernatural is valid. That's not how science works.

Show me how you can study the supernatural.

 

[All Becomes New]

I don't know why it is you keep only focusing on parts of my posts. It's very dishonest from you to do so, so I'll copy and paste my comment in full:

Keep looking.

As I said: lack of natural evidence does not preclude that the supernatural is valid. That's not how science works.

Show me how you can study the supernatural.

You don't believe the supernatural is even possible and seem to believe in scientism which is a view that is logically inconsistent since you can't do science to prove science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't believe the supernatural is even possible and seem to believe in scientism which is a view that is logically inconsistent since you can't do science to prove science.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. Such a sure sign that you are a person with honesty and integrity. (Yes, I am being snarky)

I believe in what my sense tell me and from what has been seen and studied throughout history. Many things that were once considered supernatural have been shown to be natural.

If you can show me a way to study the supernatural, then by all means, go ahead. The floor is yours.

 

[Emmawowee]

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. Such a sure sign that you are a person with honesty and integrity. (Yes, I am being snarky)

I believe in what my sense tell me and from what has been seen and studied throughout history. Many things that were once considered supernatural have been shown to be natural.

If you can show me a way to study the supernatural, then by all means, go ahead. The floor is yours.

And many things that have been once considered natural such as materialism are now being countered by physicists and neurosurgeons since our own human perspective of our universe is like how a toddler grasps the concept of calculus. Your point?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And many things that have been once considered natural such as materialism are now being countered by physicists and neurosurgeons since our own human perspective of our universe is like how a toddler grasps the concept of calculus. Your point?

That's not really the same as what I said at all. "And many things that have been once considered natural such as materialism are now being countered by physicists and neurosurgeons since our own human perspective of our universe is like how a toddler grasps the concept of calculus." is not the same as "Many things that were once considered supernatural have been shown to be natural."

'Being countered' does not mean the same as 'shown to be incorrect'. Countered means opposed.

 

[dlamberth]

I have no desire to engage in the ongoing NDE entanglement. And there's no way that anything I write here is scientific.
On the flip side of the coin, what tugged at me to add my understanding of NDE is because I'm having trouble with the use of the word "supernatural" as well. For me it's all about consciousness and the self being aware of that last moment of it's own death. Which doesn't make it supernatural, at least in how I understand the term.

 

[partinobodycular]

Look, the reason NDEs are unique is that there is no natural explanation and people have really tried to figure them out.

Nothing fascinates me more than human behavior, and in particular how prone people are to believing in the absurd. If there's an argument to be made for the supernatural, that's it... supposedly rational people believing in completely irrational things. I mean, what possible survival benefit could there be to being irrational? It baffles me.

For years some people looked at the murmurations of starlings and concluded that it was evidence for the supernatural. Science could find no way to explain it... so the only possible explanation left was... the birds are psychic. The most amazing thing is that there are still people today who believe that the murmurations of starlings are evidence of the supernatural.

Yet my pointing this out will do absolutely nothing to dissuade anyone, they'll go right on believing in the absurd, and be amazingly confident in doing so. Yup, no doubt about it, people are fascinating.

So if there is a God I'm not sure whether I should thank Him or curse Him, He certainly didn't make people boring... but did He have to make them so gosh darn aggravating?

 

[Astrophile]

I don't know why it is you keep only focusing on parts of my posts. It's very dishonest from you to do so, so I'll copy and paste my comment in full:

Keep looking.

As I said: lack of natural evidence does not preclude that the supernatural is valid. That's not how science works.

Show me how you can study the supernatural.

I think that you are misusing the word 'preclude'. It means 'exclude, prevent, make impracticable'. You seem to be using it to mean something like 'imply', 'confirm' or 'prove'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that you are misusing the word 'preclude'. It means 'exclude, prevent, make impracticable'. You seem to be using it to mean something like 'imply', 'confirm' or 'prove'.

I have never been told I've been using that word incorrectly. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that you are misusing the word 'preclude'. It means 'exclude, prevent, make impracticable'. You seem to be using it to mean something like 'imply', 'confirm' or 'prove'.

In light of that, I do hope that what I've been saying does make sense to people.

 

[Mountainmike]

So I gave you a valid argument and that's all that you have for a counterargument. Excuse me, but if that's all you've got... bye.

You did exactly what illinformed apriori sceptics always do.

1/ Not study anything. Not read a single book or substantive paper
2/ Respond only to the summary of a case, without studying the detail of it.
3/ Use a cookie cutter objection however irrelevant to the details of the specific case, presumably from a skeptic site.

You will never know the truth of NDE because - you will never study them.

Meanwhile many well qualified medics who
1/ who are far better qualified than you to judge
2/ they were there, and you were not
3/ they actually STUDIED the cases and all the obvious objections.
4/ wrote many peer reviewed papers and books
They think one thing, you think another.

I side with the informed and clever....

Read van lommels book , or "the self does not die". Read the science instead. Then try to think of objections they have not.

 

[Emmawowee]

You did exactly what illinformed apriori sceptics always do.

1/ Not study anything. Not read a single book or substantive paper
2/ Respond only to the summary of a case, without studying the detail of it.
3/ Use a cookie cutter objection however irrelevant to the details of the specific case, presumably from a skeptic site.

You will never know the truth of NDE because - you will never study them.

Meanwhile many well qualified medics who
1/ who are far better qualified than you to judge
2/ they were there, and you were not
3/ they actually STUDIED the cases and all the obvious objections.
4/ wrote many peer reviewed papers and books
They think one thing, you think another.

I side with the informed and clever....

Read van lommels book , or "the self does not die". Read the science instead. Then try to think of objections they have not.

Agreed. If neurosurgeons who studied the brain for decades can’t figure this out, then how on earth is an internet atheist gonna have all the answers to life, consciousness, and the origins of the universe

 

[partinobodycular]

You did exactly what illinformed apriori sceptics always do.

I did exactly what I should be expected to do on a forum such as this one. I should not be expected to buy and read a book every time that I want to engage someone here in a discussion.

1. I asked for a specific case example.
2. After numerous futile attempts by others, you finally gave me one... thank you
3. I then spent a number of hours searching the internet for all the pertinent information that I could find on the case. (If I'm missing some, please point out what it is.)
4. I then formed what I believe to be a very cogent argument questioning the claims of a supernatural explanation, and I presented it to you for your assessment. #171

But rather than respond to my argument you've chosen to attack my qualifications, as if the veracity of my argument is somehow determined by how much I've read.

If I'm lacking some crucial bits of information, now is the place in the discussion where you're supposed to point it out to me. If my argument is somehow flawed, now is your chance to demonstrate how. If you would like me to clarify my argument, now is the time to ask.

You can't simply dismiss my argument with the claim that smarter people than I disagree with it... therefore it must be wrong... you have to demonstrate how it's wrong.

So... can you do that?

The fact that you choose to side with them instead of me is irrelevant.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I did exactly what I should be expected to do on a forum such as this one. I should not be expected to buy and read a book every time that I want to engage someone here in a discussion.

1. I asked for a specific case example.
2. After numerous futile attempts by others, you finally gave me one... thank you
3. I then spent a number of hours searching the internet for all the pertinent information that I could find on the case. (If I'm missing some, please point out what it is.)
4. I then formed what I believe to be a very cogent argument questioning the claims of a supernatural explanation, and I presented it to you for your assessment. #171

But rather than respond to my argument you've chosen to attack my qualifications, as if the veracity of my argument is somehow determined by how much I've read.

If I'm lacking some crucial bits of information, now is the place in the discussion where you're supposed to point it out to me. If my argument is somehow flawed, now is your chance to demonstrate how. If you would like me to clarify my argument, now is the time to ask.

You can't simply dismiss my argument with the claim that smarter people than I disagree with it... therefore it must be wrong... you have to demonstrate how it's wrong.

So... can you do that?

The fact that you choose to side with them instead of me is irrelevant.

I don't know what your religious beliefs are and neither do I know what your political beliefs are. I don't care because you have come up with a very good reason to object to those who disagree with you and expect you to read a whole book before you respond to them. I have encountered these types before and they don't understand what the burden of proof is and how it is applied to a forensic debate. They often want me to read a book just to counter one debate point and usually they won't even read a link to an article you send them.

Debate vs. Forensics: Seemingly similar classes vary in technique, structure - BV Tiger News

Debate and forensics classes often go hand-in-hand but are two very different activities. Debate involves creating a specific speech and a plan — an affirmative side and a negative side — whereas forensics is more like a track and field event. There is acting and speaking, partner events and...

bvtigernews.com