Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A vivid imagination. Now, if your dreams allow you to make testable predictions, you might be on to something.I have had dreams about the future and dreams about places I have not been to yet. How do we explain things like that?
Disclaimer: This is being written at 2:40AM. The coherence and accuracy of this post cannot be guaranteed.
I came for a definition, not a sales pitch. Either present it or find a free document that does..
If they had been testable, sure.
Woah, wait a minute. That works both ways. I've seen plenty of atheist handwave away claiming a lack of oxygen was the probable "cause' even though that Lancet study ruled OUT that idea, along with several other possible causes. No published paper is ever offered to support that claim. At least I offered a published study that reports 'out of body experiences' and found a very specific set of 'experiences' that are common in such events.As it is, all results from tests I've seen are pretty much met with "I know I'm right, I don't care if your study says I'm wrong. You need to change this.", repeat to infinity.
H0 sounds like an 'ignorance is bliss' approach to life and unfortunately I don't buy the concept. There has to be a valid scientific explanation for the experience.As for the jump, I think you know what I meant. The ordinary term 'jump to conclusions'.
The null hypothesis:
H0: Near death experiences have no explanation.
Such as? Do you have a PUBLISHED study that tested one or more such ideas, or is that sort of a handwave kind of argument?Several alternative hypotheses can be constructed and tested,
No, wait. The INDIVIDUALS in question provided a "possible explanation" in many cases. While "God" isn't mentioned in the Lancet study, the 'out of body' experience certainly is mentioned, in fact it's a "common" occurrence during NDE experiences, so much so it has it's own 'category' in the study. In terms of the existence of soul from a scientific perspective, the concept of "God' isn't even relevant. Buddhists for instance are typically atheists, but accept the concept of soul, and like Hindus, they typically believe in reincarnation.you have however started by assuming that a soul exists (which in itself has the null hypothesis that it doesn't exist) and apply that to form a different null hypothesis (that the soul explain those NDE's).
Again, I think you and I need to define the concept of a 'test' in this context. There are at least two possible tests for the idea that readily come to mind, out of body experiences during NDE events, and reincarnation (assuming it occurs). Note that not every religion "predicts" reincarnation, so that particular "test" isn't necessarily a given outcome in the context of ideas related to soul, and it therefore cannot be used to disprove the concept of 'soul' or "God". How else would you suggest we "test" the concept of soul? For comparison *ONLY*, how does that "test" compare to any type of "test" for something like 'inflation' or "dark energy" where there is no actual cause/effect demonstration of concept?Including is fine, one among many alternative hypotheses.
But an alternative hypothesis that isn't testable is worthless.
No, but when some hypothesis (like oxygen deprivation and various drugs) have been ruled out in published scientific studies, an atheist handwaving away about oxygen deprivation without so much as a published supporting document sounds pretty much like self serving nonsense.Elimination of other hypotheses doesn't strengthen those left, the number of alternative hypotheses are infinite after all.
Harsh? Hmm. Compared to the treatment that some people suffered at the hands of Hitler and/or Stalin? It seems to me that type of shame and humiliation is likely to last more than a little while. Other "souls" aren't likely to trust those particular "souls" for a long time. I do believe in unconditional love and forgiveness, but some "sins" are pretty "harsh" to begin with. I suspect the forgiveness process is likely to take awhile in some cases. I wouldn't say that anyone is a "mental cripple", but some souls are probably humiliated based upon their actions on Earth. That kind of 'mental anguish/embarrassment/lack of trust in the future' is likely to haunt them for some time to come.So one would spend eternity as a mental cripple? Harsh.
If you have other ways to "test" these ideas, including the NULL hypothesis concept, I'm all ears. I'm not trying to be "attached" to an outcome, I'm just looking for a way to "test" the idea of soul that we can both agree is valid.Of course, that would be under some of your rather strict assumptions (which makes this all speculations with no base).
That is interesting, sort of like that wonderful life movie that they play on tv every year at christmas.
While ignorance is free and easy, education often requires effort and typically a financial investment as well.
For instance, I own 5 textbooks on the topic of plasma physics.
Each of them cost well over $100.00.
I "invested" hundreds of dollars in my 'education' in plasma physics at age 45 or so, not due to any college class that I was taking at the time, but due to my own interest in plasma physics and my own belief in education over ignorance.
I'm sorry, but if you're unwilling to spend a whopping $3.00 toward educating yourself
Use Google if you prefer to find a 'free' presentation of the math and physics if that floats your boat, but don't expect me to do it for you.
Ever heard of "statistics and the subconscious"? The brain is a calculator albeit an analogue one. Did you know that what you see is only a fraction of what your eyes receive as an image? The rest of the picture in your brain is GUESSWORK. Yes the brain guesses what it thinks should be there and fill in the picture.I have had dreams about the future and dreams about places I have not been to yet. How do we explain things like that?
There are plenty of free sources out there. YouTube is a good place to start if you know the right channels. Khanacademy.org is another one.
I don't care.
Unlike middle class people, I don't have money to buy a kindle for some $3 book.
I don't expect anything from a layman with an apparent superiority complex.
I don't know when we might produce a better opportunity, but I guess if you have an alternative hypothesis of worth you might find some way to test it further.Where do we have a better opportunity to 'test' the concept than during (near) death experiences? Define "test" in this context.
I haven't said it doesn't work both ways.Woah, wait a minute. That works both ways. I've seen plenty of atheist handwave away claiming a lack of oxygen was the probable "cause' even though that Lancet study ruled OUT that idea, along with several other possible causes. No published paper is ever offered to support that claim. At least I offered a published study that reports 'out of body experiences' and found a very specific set of 'experiences' that are common in such events.
Ignorance is bliss? Really?H0 sounds like an 'ignorance is bliss' approach to life and unfortunately I don't buy the concept. There has to be a valid scientific explanation for the experience.
I can present you with an alternative hypothesis:Such as? Do you have a PUBLISHED study that tested one or more such ideas, or is that sort of a handwave kind of argument?
Did I ever mention a god?No, wait. The INDIVIDUALS in question provided a "possible explanation" in many cases. While "God" isn't mentioned in the Lancet study, the 'out of body' experience certainly is mentioned, in fact it's a "common" occurrence during NDE experiences, so much so it has it's own 'category' in the study. In terms of the existence of soul from a scientific perspective, the concept of "God' isn't even relevant. Buddhists for instance are typically atheists, but accept the concept of soul, and like Hindus, they typically believe in reincarnation.
You're still working with the assumption that a soul exists.Since the "out of body" experience was common, it's worthy of a PUBLISHED STUDY. Got one? I don't believe (I could be wrong) that Guy1's references were NOT published or peer reviewed. I personally assume there any number of possible ways to separate flesh from soul, including EM influences. I'm not even sure yet whether the ideas presented actually HURT or HELP his case in the context of the 'God' theory I presented in another thread.
If you're going to test these things you need to decide whether you're testing the existence of a soul with the help of NDE's or trying to establish that the NDE's are due to the existence of a soul.Again, I think you and I need to define the concept of a 'test' in this context. There are at least two possible tests for the idea that readily come to mind, out of body experiences during NDE events, and reincarnation (assuming it occurs). Note that not every religion "predicts" reincarnation, so that particular "test" isn't necessarily a given outcome in the context of ideas related to soul, and it therefore cannot be used to disprove the concept of 'soul' or "God". How else would you suggest we "test" the concept of soul? For comparison *ONLY*, how does that "test" compare to any type of "test" for something like 'inflation' or "dark energy" where there is no actual cause/effect demonstration of concept?
As is basing speculations upon assumptions.No, but when some hypothesis (like oxygen deprivation and various drugs) have been ruled out in published scientific studies, an atheist handwaving away about oxygen deprivation without so much as a published supporting document sounds pretty much like self serving nonsense.
I definitely think an eternity as a cripple is worse than a few years of living torment.Harsh? Hmm. Compared to the treatment that some people suffered at the hands of Hitler and/or Stalin? It seems to me that type of shame and humiliation is likely to last more than a little while. Other "souls" aren't likely to trust those particular "souls" for a long time. I do believe in unconditional love and forgiveness, but some "sins" are pretty "harsh" to begin with. I suspect the forgiveness process is likely to take awhile in some cases. I wouldn't say that anyone is a "mental cripple", but some souls are probably humiliated based upon their actions on Earth. That kind of 'mental anguish/embarrassment/lack of trust in the future' is likely to haunt them for some time to come.
The null hypothesis concept is there to prevent the 'first crap served is the correct crap served'-scenario.If you have other ways to "test" these ideas, including the NULL hypothesis concept, I'm all ears. I'm not trying to be "attached" to an outcome, I'm just looking for a way to "test" the idea of soul that we can both agree is valid.
I don't care if the concept of a soul is tested, to me there aren't a good enough definition of it to indicate a testable concept.
You've started at the wrong end with talking about NDE's, don't ask "Is this explained by the soul?" ask "What can explain this?"
I can present you with an alternative hypothesis:
"The presence of a pinky toe causes the out of body experience."
The amount of alternative hypotheses are always infinite.
You're still working with the assumption that a soul exists.
Are you using the NDE's to evidence the existence of a soul or the opposite?
No problem, I think it's good entertainment in answeringFYI, thanks for your responses. I think I have a better insight into what you're trying to convey at this point. As I have pointed out several times now, there are various physical/mathematical descriptions of "soul" that have been put forth by different authors if you want to keep looking for "good enough" definitions to work with.
It is among the most important IMO, it forces the replacement to stand on it's own feet, not an argument of ignorance.In terms of actual "science", and how it actually operates, "first served" is pretty much considered to be "correct" until proven otherwise, and the NULL hypothesis isn't nearly as important as you seem to imagine it to be.
I won't get into this again. You been into that quite a few times, with quite a few people.The lack of cause/effect justification is TYPICAL of scientific theories, particularly as it relates to cosmology theories and several aspects of standard and non standard particle physics theories.
I protest against the start from the wrong angle.If the NULL hypothesis were used in cosmology the 'flatness' observation would NEVER be used to try to support "inflation". There's no empirical cause/effect connection between 'dark energy" and 'acceleration'. Gravitons and SUSY particles have no empirical justification in the lab. Lot's of ideas are simply "tossed into the hat" in terms of what MIGHT be the 'cause' of something. Why would you suddenly balk at offering the concept of "soul" to explain any set of data related to life after death, and/or reincarnation?
It leaves us with a few less hypotheses.It's not like that Lancet study did NOT try to isolate a PHYSICAL cause for those out of body reports. It did in fact study a list of things most commonly cited as potential 'causes', and systematically ruled them out. After ruling out some of the more obvious options, where does that leave us?
And why stress out an answer that holds such a weight about the human nature?It seems to me that any and every "theory" (religious and "scientific') make any number of various 'predictions' about what occurs at physical death. An out of body experience is certainly a prediction of many religious predictions. The NDE is the only experience short of reincarnation that might actually be studied scientifically with the intent of answering those questions.
That is an argument of ignorance.I still have never seen any PUBLISHED alternatives that provide any 'better' physical explanations in terms of demonstrating any cause/effect links to events described in NDE accounts.
I had a dream when I was around 12 that the universe was expanding and at some point in time would come back together again. That is something that maybe testable. In fact they have names for it, the big bang and the big crunch.A vivid imagination. Now, if your dreams allow you to make testable predictions, you might be on to something.
No problem, I think it's good entertainment in answeringas for the definitions of a soul, quite a few of those are hard (/impossible?) to test.
But that's just it, there are such mathematical models/justifications. I'm not suggesting that any of them are necessarily 'great' but there are such models to be found.I protest against the start from the wrong angle.
If there was a mathematical model, like for gravitons and SUSY, there would be more to go after.
It's more of a form of pure scientific curiosity than anything else.And why stress out an answer that holds such a weight about the human nature?
Unfortunately that's not a valid justification for rejecting any concept, not in religion and not even in "science' apparently. The whole "dark matter" search is one huge argument from ignorance. It's essentially based on the argument: We don't know what did it, therefore 'dark stuff did it". They cant even tell you where 'dark matter" comes from, but somehow they can "detect" it, and feel quite confident that they can COMPLETELY eliminate any other possible cause under the sun. They don't even have a known or theorized source or a control mechanism like they did with neutrinos to "turn it off" to make sure their claims have any merit whatsoever. Go figure.That is an argument of ignorance.
Exactly my pointPerhaps. Then again, not all hypothesis are even logical, let alone provide any sort of 'explanation' for the events.
But that possibility is based on the existence of a soul...FYI, I'm actually not "assuming" anything. Its just a possibility without data.
You would need more data than NDE's have given at this moment (and can produce?) to evidence a soul.Obviously the former. I'm not even sure how one might go about using NDE experiences to demonstrate the opposite is true, particularly without published material to show any actual cause/effect justification for any experience reported. Now of course if that Lancet study HAD in fact isolated a specific physical 'cause', or causes for such a wide range of experiences, THAT would be a different matter.
I think it's reasonable to demand some ground for the hypotheses/theories.That doesn't stop anyone from postulating string theory, gravitons, dark energy, inflation, or anything else that is 'hard to test' in controlled laboratory experiments on Earth. It's not reasonable to exclude only 'theistic' ideas/theories based on some arbitrary need for empirical cause/effect justification from the outset.
And why isn't there more hype about those models? If they had any strength to them, they should make more of a mark.But that's just it, there are such mathematical models/justifications. I'm not suggesting that any of them are necessarily 'great' but there are such models to be found.
Then take your time.It's more of a form of pure scientific curiosity than anything else.
If you're claiming that the dark matter/energy theory is an argument of ignorance, you're wrong. I won't pursue in explaining why, several people here on this forum has explained to you about that, in more depth than I could do by far.Unfortunately that's not a valid justification for rejecting any concept, not in religion and not even in "science' apparently. The whole "dark matter" search is one huge argument from ignorance. It's essentially based on the argument: We don't know what did it, therefore 'dark stuff did it". They cant even tell you where 'dark matter" comes from, but somehow they can "detect" it, and feel quite confident that they can COMPLETELY eliminate any other possible cause under the sun. They don't even have a known or theorized source or a control mechanism like they did with neutrinos to "turn it off" to make sure their claims have any merit whatsoever. Go figure.
I think it's reasonable to demand some ground for the hypotheses/theories.
After noting that it took the mainstream over 60 years to finally figure out that electrical currents flow in aurora, and considering the fact that they STILL haven't figured out that solar flares are CAUSED by an electrical discharge in plasma, even though Birkeland 'predicted" that 100 years ago, not really. Science progresses at a SNAILS pace in my experience. I'll likely be dead and buried by the time the mainstream figures out atmospheric solar physics. Birkeland has already been dead for 80+ years and they STILL haven't gotten as far as he did in terms of understanding basic solar atmospheric physics.And why isn't there more hype about those models? If they had any strength to them, they should make more of a mark.
From my perspective, I'm doing just that. Like everyone else on the planet I have personal preferences and biases of course, but I'm not closed minded toward any possibility. I simply think ONE option is the 'better' one for the time being.Then take your time.
Like it or not, I'm right. There is no cause/effect link between dark energy, God energy, magic energy, soul energy and a PERCEIVED concept (not even a given) of 'acceleration'. Any label that we subjectively slap some math on, be it magic energy or God energy, or "dark energy" isn't magically "mathed into existence' simply by virtue of the addition of our POSTICTED math! Come on. Atheist have absolutely two hypocritical sets of standards as it relates to 'evidence', one for 'science" and one for 'religion". Anything with the label "religion" requires empirical cause/effect justification in the lab or it's not to be "believed". Anything "scientific' however is given an automatic free pass and suddenly that emotional need for empirical justification of any claim goes flying out the window.If you're claiming that the dark matter/energy theory is an argument of ignorance, you're wrong. I won't pursue in explaining why, several people here on this forum has explained to you about that, in more depth than I could do by far.
I'm still mystified as to how to deal with that clear bias you're putting up in front of the theory of 'soul', but not in front of any other 'scientific' theory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If "dark energy did it" is an acceptable premise *WITHOUT* any cause/effect justification for such a claim, then why isn't 'soul did it' an equally valid theory, with or without PRIOR justification? You don't see a double standard there?Knowledge of the origin isn't necessary to gain knowledge of the matter, take the field of biology and abiogenesis as an example.
I hope you just flung that out without thinking. Really.
The theories are many decades old - there's no way to test whether your dream was genuinely prophetic, or simply influenced by what you'd heard around you.I had a dream when I was around 12 that the universe was expanding and at some point in time would come back together again. That is something that maybe testable. In fact they have names for it, the big bang and the big crunch.
Exactly my pointlets remember the pseudo-sciences of old as well.
People who write about WIMP theory are predicating that possibility upon the existence of WIMPS. That can also be said of authors who currently write about gravitons, other particles of SUSY theory, string theory, MOND theory, the Higgs Boson of standard particle physics theory (although that could change any day now), and pretty much all of cosmology theory. All those ideas are theories without empirical laboratory support at the moment. The possibility of these things existing at all is based upon the assumption of the existence of such things in the first place, otherwise they're just useless theories with math.But that possibility is based on the existence of a soul...
Well, it would actually be quite helpful if someone actually were able to read one of the messages that have been setup in the hospital rooms that are designed to only be seen from high in the room. A number of such accurate reports might actually 'confirm' the idea of them being 'out of body' at that time. I'll certainly admit that there is room for improvement in terms of corroborating data.You would need more data than NDE's have given at this moment (and can produce?) to evidence a soul.
The Lancet study eliminated several such hypothesis related to potential physical 'cause'. How many of them must I actually eliminate before it is acceptable in your opinion to seriously consider the possibility that the explanation for NDE's might be related to 'soul'?Elimination of competing hypotheses is of course a good start.
I was only 12 years old, no one told me about a big bang or a big crunch. I did have a dream about a bottomless pit when I was in the second grade. I read about that later on in the Bible. All I am saying is that the dreams are testable with what we read in the Bible or read in our science book.The theories are many decades old - there's no way to test whether your dream was genuinely prophetic, or simply influenced by what you'd heard around you.
I am not arguing this with you, those better educated than me has tried to explain it to you but you either refuse to get it or can't get it.Oddly enough I agree with you on that point, but that isn't actually how "science" operates, nor is it a requirement in science. Assuming we even agreed that the universe was accelerating rather than experiencing plasma redshift, what 'cause/effect" justification is there for claiming "God energy' did it, or 'soul energy did it", or "magic energy' did it, or "dark energy did it'? None of those claims have any justification whatsoever, not even by virtue of slapping some math to the label or by slapping that same math onto all of those labels!
Monumental changes requires monumental evidence.After noting that it took the mainstream over 60 years to finally figure out that electrical currents flow in aurora, and considering the fact that they STILL haven't figured out that solar flares are CAUSED by an electrical discharge in plasma, even though Birkeland 'predicted" that 100 years ago, not really. Science progresses at a SNAILS pace in my experience. I'll likely be dead and buried by the time the mainstream figures out atmospheric solar physics. Birkeland has already been dead for 80+ years and they STILL haven't gotten as far as he did in terms of understanding basic solar atmospheric physics.
Good.From my perspective, I'm doing just that. Like everyone else on the planet I have personal preferences and biases of course, but I'm not closed minded toward any possibility. I simply think ONE option is the 'better' one for the time being.
You mean except that the dark matter/energy concept was invented to explain some observed curiosities?Like it or not, I'm right. There is no cause/effect link between dark energy, God energy, magic energy, soul energy and a PERCEIVED concept (not even a given) of 'acceleration'. Any label that we subjectively some math on, be it magic energy or God energy, or "dark energy" isn't magically "mathed into existence' simply by virtue of the addition of our POSTICTED math! Come on. Atheist have absolutely two hypocritical sets of standards as it relates to 'evidence', one for 'science" and one for 'religion". Anything with the label "religion" requires empirical cause/effect justification in the lab or it's not to be "believed". Anything "scientific' however is given an automatic free pass and suddenly that emotional need for empirical justification of any claim goes flying out the window.
I'm biased because the concept of a soul has existed for a very, very long time.I'm still mystified as to how to deal with that clear bias you're putting up in front of the theory of 'soul', but not in front of any other 'scientific' theory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If "dark energy did it" is an acceptable premise *WITHOUT* any cause/effect justification for such a claim, then why isn't 'soul did it' an equally valid theory, with or without PRIOR justification? You don't see a double standard there?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?