General anesthesia and consciousness

[Tropical Wilds]

No a living person was able to verify the NDE of another person having a NDE ie they saw the deceased person having a NDE standing in front of them. They gave them some information which the person told to another which was information they could not have possibly known which verified the case.

So a person had an NDE and was visited by a deceased person, and a third person not having an NDE verified that a dead person was present and came to visit the person having the NDE…? Again, that is remarkable.

 

[All Becomes New]

So I'm wrong in trying to be more rational. That's just odd.

Do you somehow change your humanity (biases) by magically becoming more rational?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

What you are really saying here is, "I'm the objective one. I'm not swayed by things so easily. I'm the one who figured out the problem," as many atheists do. It has nothing to do with the evidence as such. It has everything to do with elevating your own ability to think rationally, which is a form of arrogance.

Why are we turning NDEs into something owned by or indicative of Christianity? What does somebody’s belief structure have to do with the situation? I’m Christian and in training to be a death doula and I’ve likely heard and researched more about NDEs than anybody on this thread. I will be the very first to admit that you haven’t shown any empirical evidence that NDEs occur and what they experience is supernatural as opposed to a neurological or physiological response to the body crossing certian waypoints in the process of dying.

A person relating their experience of seeing or interacting with people who have already died is anecdotal, not provable. A person describing what they saw and experienced when supposedly dead, then another person verifying that the details they described were accurate is anecdotal. There’s a thousand ways to explain it occurring, the first being that the patient was not actually unconscious or unaware of their surroundings, only seemingly unconscious. There are many conditions where one seems unconscious, but aren’t, sleep paralysis being one a lot of people can relate to. When one has sleep paralysis, they seem not aware and brain function even more resembles that of a person who’s asleep and dreaming. However, they are quite aware of what’s going on around them. Heck, even certain drugs (illicit and legal) cause what appears to be and neurologically resembles a total lack of consciousness but really, they’re processing what’s going on just fine.

In fact, people who are ODing are, percentage wise, the ones most likely to report NDE by an incredibly wide margin.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you somehow change your humanity (biases) by magically becoming more rational?

Yes. But but there's no magic involved. It's a learning experience. The more times you get things wrong, the more you learn how to get them right.

 

[All Becomes New]

Why are we turning NDEs into something owned by or indicative of Christianity? What does somebody’s belief structure have to do with the situation? I’m Christian and in training to be a death doula and I’ve likely heard and researched more about NDEs than anybody on this thread. I will be the very first to admit that you haven’t shown any empirical evidence that NDEs occur and what they experience is supernatural as opposed to a neurological or physiological response to the body crossing certian waypoints in the process of dying.

A person relating their experience of seeing or interacting with people who have already died is anecdotal, not provable. A person describing what they saw and experienced when supposedly dead, then another person verifying that the details they described were accurate is anecdotal. There’s a thousand ways to explain it occurring, the first being that the patient was not actually unconscious or unaware of their surroundings, only seemingly unconscious. There are many conditions where one seems unconscious, but aren’t, sleep paralysis being one a lot of people can relate to. When one has sleep paralysis, they seem not aware and brain function even more resembles that of a person who’s asleep and dreaming. However, they are quite aware of what’s going on around them. Heck, even certain drugs (illicit and legal) cause what appears to be and neurologically resembles a total lack of consciousness but really, they’re processing what’s going on just fine.

In fact, people who are ODing are, percentage wise, the ones most likely to report NDE by an incredibly wide margin.

Anyone can come up with any reason that seems plausible why something did or did not happen. It's never about possibility, but about probability.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes. But but there's no magic involved. It's a learning experience. The more times you get things wrong, the more you learn how to get them right.

How does one eliminate their biases? You seem to think this is possible. So I ask how.

 

[Bradskii]

How does one eliminate their biases? You seem to think this is possible. So I ask how.

You need to become aware of them. Then you must act rationally as opposed to emotionally. Takes time. And experience. Plus empathy and an ability to admit that you could be wrong. It's not easy...

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Anyone can come up with any reason that seems plausible why something did or did not happen. It's never about possibility, but about probability.

Well, yes, anybody can come up with plausible reasons why things did or didn’t happen… But in areas of science and medical knowledge, one needs to go on a little more than plausibility to determine outcomes and fact.

 

[partinobodycular]

Lol cut off again gee. When the going gets tuff. Not even a draw which I think is being generous to the skeptics arguements considering I knocked most of them down or at least undermined their strength.

First, let me say that I appreciate the fact that you're putting up a vigorous defense of your position. It's what was asked of you... so kudos on that.

However your rebuttals have now gotten to be both extremely inaccurate and repetitive, and rather than continuing to respond to false claims I am indeed going to cut you off. I always dislike when posts start getting overly long, because I'm aware that almost no one is going to take the time to read them. Thus my time will be better spent elsewhere.

You can continue to believe that you've won this debate, I have no problem with that, nor with your declaring as much. So unless you have an honest, constructive question to ask, or point to make, this discussion is over.

 

[All Becomes New]

It's not easy...

It's not just not easy, it's not possible. Your biases just shift, they do not disappear.

 

[All Becomes New]

Well, yes, anybody can come up with plausible reasons why things did or didn’t happen… But in areas of science and medical knowledge, one needs to go on a little more than plausibility to determine outcomes and fact.

Science is always open to reinterpreting things that are taken as "fact." "Fact" is boogie man. It hardly ever exists.

 

[All Becomes New]

You can continue to believe that you've won this debate, I have no problem with that, nor with your declaring as much. So unless you have an honest, constructive question to ask, or point to make, this discussion is over.

That is usually what people say when they no longer have an argument.

 

[partinobodycular]

That is usually what people say when they no longer have an argument.

Or as in this case, when they realize that there's no one left who's willing to listen to it. Arguing with the wall does become frustrating after a while... wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bradskii]

It's not just not easy, it's not possible. Your biases just shift, they do not disappear.

Not all the time. They quite often bubble along somewhere under the surface. But if you know that they are there then you can eliminate the negative actions you might take based on them. Eventually most of them dissapear.

 

[Bradskii]

That is usually what people say when they no longer have an argument.

It's mostly used when they have made all the arguments they think are worthwhile but they are not accepted as being valid. Note that I didn't say 'agreed with', but not accepted as a valid argument in the first place.

Any further discussion is not much more than typing practice.

 

[stevevw]

So a person had an NDE and was visited by a deceased person, and a third person not having an NDE verified that a dead person was present and came to visit the person having the NDE…? Again, that is remarkable.

So there are a few different NDE's that have happened. First there's the ones in the example we are debating which is most common. A single person having a NDE and later coming back.

Then theres the NDE where a person is dying or has actually died vists someone alive usually a relative and then is resuscitated or lives to describe their experience.

Then theres the situation where a living person (not dying) can experience the NDE of a dying person who either comes back to life or ends up dying and crossing over. The living person actually sees the dying or deceased person going to the light, meeting other deceased people.

Then theres the NDE's where more than one person has deceased in some accident or event and they see each other in an OBE but end up living to descibe the experience later. An example was some fire fighters were overcome by a fire and they experienced the same NDE.

You need to read up on these experiences and then decide whether they have some credibility. BUt you can't just dismiss them out of hand before knowing what happened. I think reading a number of cases allows you to get an understanding of the first hand experiences and helps determined whether people are just deluded or imagining things hearing their stories.

 

[stevevw]

Not all the time. They quite often bubble along somewhere under the surface. But if you know that they are there then you can eliminate the negative actions you might take based on them. Eventually most of them dissapear.

wrong post

 

[stevevw]

I think humans have this capacity to be bias about their non bias and even bias about their non bias and their non bias they think they have about being non bias lol. Its like layers of self getting in the way that have to be peel away to reveal the truth. Group think is a good example especially on an intellectual level where people believe they have rationalised their group think and present themselves to be neutral only to find that the rationalisation was itself another way of justifying their group think.

We are where masks to deflect reality as humans can't handle reality all at once. Its just a natural human trait I guess.

Thats why I think experience and resulting beliefs are so important rather than rationalising everything away as I think for the most part our experiences express close to what is really going on. This is more about phenomenology "what its like to experience something" rather than rationalising its existence or realiness away because of some pre concieved ideology.

Somewhere in our experiences is the truth. So we have to both acknowledge the experience and drill down into it with some rationality to reveal the truth or realness of it without rationalising it away. Sometimes that realness may not be completely rational. Like the experience of colour or pain is not rational but its real.

Our beliefs persist because something is really happening just as we experience it. So our experiences can be real, can be a true representation of what is going on but not always be rational.

 

[stevevw]

First, let me say that I appreciate the fact that you're putting up a vigorous defense of your position. It's what was asked of you... so kudos on that.

However your rebuttals have now gotten to be both extremely inaccurate and repetitive, and rather than continuing to respond to false claims I am indeed going to cut you off. I always dislike when posts start getting overly long, because I'm aware that almost no one is going to take the time to read them. Thus my time will be better spent elsewhere.

You can continue to believe that you've won this debate, I have no problem with that, nor with your declaring as much. So unless you have an honest, constructive question to ask, or point to make, this discussion is over.

Well I gave up half way through about keeping count as I don;t think thats the right way to look at it. No one is a winner or loser but rather its a continuous exchange of arguements and if everyone is honest then this should produce some truths.

I am not really saying I am right but rather perplexed at how skeptics often claim there is absolutely no evidence when 1) they don't have sufficent evidence themselves to either to prove NDE don't happen or to prove the examples given are completely false and 2) there is some evdience for what happened as it did if we are honest. There are millions of these experiences and their all fobbed off as unreal.

In fact if you take all lines of evdience like tests on brains signals for consciousnes when unconscious or dead, evolution, psychology and in quantum physics a pretty strong case can be made.

Like I said this doesn't mean theres something supernatural going on. But I think sssskeptics resist admitting the unusual evenst because they think this also opens the gate for them to have to admist something supernatural. BUt it doesn't.

Thats the frustrating thing that this is more or less the same as what skeptics accuse religion of doing and yet its not religion. I can understand atheists getting frustrated with some believers who cannot get past their blind beliefs.

I think the posts will get long because when your argueing a topic it gets details to work out the facts. It cannot be any other way. If its short and sweet then I don't think its really investigated everything.

I cannot see how you could deny that at the very least my arguements brought up some challenging issues for the skeptic. Like giving themselevs points for certain facts but not doing the same for the pro case. Its simple logic.

At the very least I think the most reasonable position to take is that something unusual is happening that science cannot explain at the moment, its not all delusion and made up stories but we just don't know at this stage what this all means. But skeptics won't even do that which becomes frustrating.

 

[Bradskii]

Unsubscribing. I've reached my tolerance limit. Hasta la vista.