Originally posted by inimalistYou're right about that guess. I'm basing my statement on when I try something that I haven't tried before. like when I first tried a peanut butter and marshmallow cream sandwich it was an experiment. Now I know I like it. Was that not an experiment?
I am just going to guess you are unfamiliar with Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, or, in general, any of the philosophy behind experimental methods, yes?
Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right about that guess. I'm basing my statement on when I try something that I haven't tried before. like when I first tried a peanut butter and marshmallow cream sandwich it was an experiment. Now I know I like it. Was that not an experiment?
not in terms of what qualifies as a scientific experiment, no
not even close. You don't have an independant variable, your dependant variable is neither qualitiative or quantitative, you have no controls or experimental manipulations, your n=1, there is no power, etc...
Originally posted by inimalistHowever it is a simple experiment nonetheless. Just because something is simple doesn't make it irrelevant. As with religious zealots, science zealots make it seem as though their way is the only respected way of finding things out. At the end of my experiment I found out something that nobody could have told me correct? That gives my simple experiment relevance, and suggests that there are more simple personal experiments that I should conduct. Scientific experiments aren't the only ones that can yield conclusive results. 😮💨
not in terms of what qualifies as a scientific experiment, nonot even close. You don't have an independant variable, your dependant variable is neither qualitiative or quantitative, you have no controls or experimental manipulations, your n=1, there is no power, etc...
Originally posted by The MISTER
Scientific experiments aren't the only ones that can yield conclusive results. 😮💨
actually, the whole thing is, there is an entire 500+ year history of debate over how and why the results of science are conclusive and to what degree.
We can argue about type I/II error and p values, but outside of specific methodology designed to verify hypothetical predictions based on well understood theories, there is very little way to prove anything is conclusive, outside of the subjective.
All you can know is that, to you, at the time you tried it, based on the contextual factors of that situation, you either "liked" or "disliked" (both terms defined by you in the moment) the sandwich. This is EXACTLY why I posted that optical illusion to you. In terms of using these types of subjective meausre, you would have no other option than to conclude that the circles were in fact moving, because that is the exact same standard of evidence you are using with this sandwich experiment.
Fine, if such standards are what you want to use to define truth, that is your choice. Science has such rigiourous standards, not to try and dismiss things that it doesn't like, but to get away from the fact that we are all flawed, biased and imperfect animals. The rigour in science can, in many ways, be seen as a dehumanization of the process, as it is our own nature that often makes our experiments designed to find results we want. (there are issues with our brains being poor at statistics anyways, but that is sort of beyond the point).
Originally posted by The MISTER
However it is a simple experiment nonetheless. Just because something is simple doesn't make it irrelevant. As with religious zealots, science zealots make it seem as though their way is the only respected way of finding things out. At the end of my experiment I found out something that nobody could have told me correct? That gives my simple experiment relevance, and suggests that there are more simple personal experiments that I should conduct. Scientific experiments aren't the only ones that can yield conclusive results. 😮💨
How do you know that Satan didn't answer you pray just to fool you?
Originally posted by The MISTER
However it is a simple experiment nonetheless. Just because something is simple doesn't make it irrelevant. As with religious zealots, science zealots make it seem as though their way is the only respected way of finding things out. At the end of my experiment I found out something that nobody could have told me correct? That gives my simple experiment relevance, and suggests that there are more simple personal experiments that I should conduct. Scientific experiments aren't the only ones that can yield conclusive results. 😮💨
Simple personal experiments are fine but they really aren't conclusive tests. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove any potential biases of your own and limit the number of variables that could have an effect on the experiment. Simple tests, by their very nature, don't qualify for the second part even if you are unbiased enough to get the first part.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, the whole thing is, there is an entire 500+ year history of debate over how and why the results of science are conclusive and to what degree.We can argue about type I/II error and p values, but outside of specific methodology designed to verify hypothetical predictions based on well understood theories, there is very little way to prove anything is conclusive, outside of the subjective.
All you can know is that, to you, at the time you tried it, based on the contextual factors of that situation, you either "liked" or "disliked" (both terms defined by you in the moment) the sandwich. This is EXACTLY why I posted that optical illusion to you. In terms of using these types of subjective meausre, you would have no other option than to conclude that the circles were in fact moving, because that is the exact same standard of evidence you are using with this sandwich experiment.
Fine, if such standards are what you want to use to define truth, that is your choice. Science has such rigiourous standards, not to try and dismiss things that it doesn't like, but to get away from the fact that we are all flawed, biased and imperfect animals. The rigour in science can, in many ways, be seen as a dehumanization of the process, as it is our own nature that often makes our experiments designed to find results we want. (there are issues with our brains being poor at statistics anyways, but that is sort of beyond the point).
What you are explaining about science is exactly why I love it. The dehumanizing of the world around us and the search for truth and discovery. I really embrace most of what I learn in science. The big bang at first seemed to me like a joke but as I've matured I can see that it's possible that a stone of history has been unturned as so many others have. It's a choice to have an open mind and it's not always easy. It goes against our nature in fact. But the dehumanizing of our experiences should not be permanent in our analysis of our world, especially when the scientific method is not applicable. Saying that it must always be applicable is closed-minded and partial.
Originally posted by inimalistThe burden of proof, in fact, would lie with you to prove that there is a point during the loss of the functions of life in which the soul would leave. Simply pointing to strange experiences someone has while their brain is shutting down doesn't really indicate anything, barring the fact that people experience weird things as their brain shuts down.
When a person has a cardiac arrest the brain is severely compromised not slightly severely, this is due to the fact that it takes seconds for somebody to have a flatline line EEG. When people have NDEs they have highly lucid visions and in some cases you have people who have been blind from birth being able to perceive a reality as well as people who can see. This indicates that the brain is actually working better than normal. What science tells us is that when the brain is severely compromised this should not be possible. If you think the explanation is that the brain does weird shit when it shuts down that’s fine but I want proof because as far as I know science tells us that the human brain isn’t capable of doing that.
Originally posted by inimalist
Not to sound glib, but the most logical explanation for NDE is not that there is a soul that travels to a transcendent place, for the same reason that people experiencing the optical illusion of train tracks converging in the distance is not evidence that train track all eventually converge. Subjective experience is a VERY poor indication of what is true.
It’s not about subjective experience science tells us that a person with a highly compromised brain should not be able to have highly lucid visions and the instruments that are used to detect life say there aren’t any, that’s why it’s proof for life after death. The scientific evidence indicates they these people are dead and it’s not possible for the brain to do weird shit during cardiac arrest (well it’s not possible to have highly lucid visions). Also atheists have had NDEs so there’s a problem with the theory that these experiences are wish fulfilling hallucinations.
Originally posted by inimalist
You put way too much faith in our abilities to measure brain activity and you seem to ignore the fact that anything beyond the most rudimentary EEG scan would be considered clinically neglegent if applied to a person undergoing death. It seems far more likely that you are working from the conclusion that there is a soul, and trying to find evidence that fills that theory.
Well as I said before if you think I’m putting too much faith into these instruments then you need to prove that the instruments are faulty or not accurate enough. They don’t need to place an EEG scan when somebody is undergoing death because we know that a flatline EEG happens in seconds. In some cases you also have controlled cardiac arrest. In the case of Pam Reynolds there is some dispute as to whether she had a flatline EEG for the whole the experience but we know at some point during the NDE she did.
Originally posted by inimalist
Else, you are proposing that all scientists are either stupid or intentionally trying not to make the most significant discovery of the past hundred years. Trust me, if there was even an iota of evidence that, in real or empirical terms, showed that a soul leaves the body, even at the actual time of death (ignoring the question of "what is death"😉, there would be so many people doing that work. Proof of a soul would be an instantanious nobel prize, international fame the likes of which scientists rarely achieve, and millions of dollars.
Human being can’t be prejudiced? Didn’t the Christian Church at one point try to oppressive scientific development, so it’s not possible that this is what’s happening now? I can’t say for sure but it seems to me in the scientific community Atheism and people like Richard Dawkins are extremely popular and religion isn’t, trends happen.
Susan Blackmore has also stated that she has found that there is alot of prejudice when dealing with parapsychology but she did state this occurred from both skeptics and believers. Richard Wiseman has stated that psi has been proven by the standard of science and you have other scientists stating that there is prejudice within the scientific community. There is also nothing inherently illogical about the afterlife, psi etc so I find it suspect that there isn’t supposed to be even an iota of proof.
Bare in mind that proof of the afterlife doesn’t necessarily mean that this will make reality better. If there are places like heaven in the afterlife it could certainly be argued that there will be a hell and that there are entities that make serial killers look like Father Christmas. Proof of the paranormal can actually make reality seem like quite a terrifying place and it could certainly be argued that maybe skeptics are satisfied with a reality which is quite simple, where you die and that’s the end of your life, at least you don’t have to worry about being tortured for all eternity.
I need you to provide references for the following bits:
Originally posted by Deadline
When people have NDEs they have highly lucid visions and in some cases you have people who have been blind from birth being able to perceive a reality as well as people who can see.
Originally posted by Deadline
If you think the explanation is that the brain does weird shit when it shuts down that’s fine but I want proof because as far as I know science tells us that the human brain isn’t capable of doing that.
Originally posted by Deadline
science tells us that a person with a highly compromised brain should not be able to have highly lucid visions
Originally posted by Deadline
The scientific evidence indicates they these people are dead and it’s not possible for the brain to do weird shit during cardiac arrest (well it’s not possible to have highly lucid visions).
Originally posted by Deadline
Richard Wiseman has stated that psi has been proven by the standard of science and you have other scientists stating that there is prejudice within the scientific community.
the stuff about the brain, if you could, from a peer reviewed source
well, maybe this is my fault for not clarifying, but I don't necessarily believe that NDEs are the result of brain activity during the shut down. So, in terms of "the brain doing weird stuff when its dying", thats not the theory I would present.
To me, the idea that NDEs represent more of a cognitive filling in of events after the person is brought back to life (events like bizarre visual phenomenon, audio stimuli, etc, things that I can in fact prove are related to brain death and atrophy) seems much more likely. I don't think a person is lucidly experiencing a NDE as they die, but rather, as with all events and all types of memory, our brains simply fill in the best narrative for the event at the time we remember it.
However, the history of literature on lesions, tumors, alzheimers and other abnormal psychology does actually suggest that people would experience strange feelings and cognitive states as parts of their brain shut down, alzheimers being the most directly related.
but ultimately, the reason I don't have to prove anything is because I'm not saying I know how NDEs work. I'm judging the validity of your theory based on my knowledge of the brain.
Originally posted by inimalist
but ultimately, the reason I don't have to prove anything is because I'm not saying I know how NDEs work. I'm judging the validity of your theory based on my knowledge of the brain.
I think he's saying that it's fair to require you to back up your arguments with science, too. Otherwise the argument could boil down to "I'm an expert on neuro science and I say no!" "Well I'm an expert on psi powers and I say yes!"
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he's saying that it's fair to require you to back up your arguments with science, too. Otherwise the argument could boil down to "I'm an expert on neuro science and I say no!" "Well I'm an expert on psi powers and I say yes!"
fair enough... what am I missing here?
I could do a post on how neuroimaging equipment has flaws, and the limits of EEG. I'm not sure what else though
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he's saying that it's fair to require you to back up your arguments with science, too. Otherwise the argument could boil down to "I'm an expert on neuro science and I say no!" "Well I'm an expert on psi powers and I say yes!"
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Right and inimialist should provide evidence for the positive statements he makes about the function of the brain. That is a reasonable requirement in a semi-formal debate.
Originally posted by King Kandy
He does provide sources and links. And even with minimal sourcing, the person on the negative can still argue Socratic style, only posing questions.
no, its a fair request
unfortunatly, its hard to reference text books I've since sold or lecture notes, but there are a couple of points I could elaborate on, if for no other reason than to prove I am able to.
I do agree with you ultimately though, I'm really not making many positive claims.
Ok concerning people having highly lucid perception during NDEs and that people should not be able to do it. Theres this:
36:32 - 37:05 Sam Parnia state that its a paradox that people can have highly lucid visions during an NDE. Also from what I can remember he's also speaking on the behalf of other scientists and states its a paradox for 'us'.
http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_3_cook.pdf
On Page 3 of this article it's stated that people during NDEs have enhanced mentation. The article also states that this shouldn't happen.
To be fair though I'm not entirely sure why I really need proof for this. If I said that a human being shouldn't be able to breath better than normal with a severely damaged lung I don't think I would need further proof to back it up. Pretty much nobody can explain how this is possible they can only speculate why this happens.
Concerning what Richard Wiseman stated:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.html
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.
He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.
"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.
"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.
"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
Concerning prejuidice within the scientific community
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/sep/30/robinmckie.theobserver
'I think journals like Nature and Science are censoring such research,' he said. 'There is a lot of evidence to support the existence of telepathy, for example, but papers on the subject are being rejected - quite unfairly.'
http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrake-and-richard-wiseman-clash/
My experience is that skeptics explain away positive ones. For skeptics it’s “heads I win, tails you lose.” Whenever I get experimental data, for example, in my telephone telepathy tests which seem to show a telepathic effect, the main reaction of skeptics is not to say, “How fascinating. Let’s try and replicate them.” One or two have reacted like that. The main reaction I get is, “Oh, well the experiments must have been flawed.” People don’t even feel they need to spell out the flaw in many cases. They just dismiss them as flawed if they’re positive.
I had a paper rejected from The Journal where the editor said any positive evidence to parapsychology shows the paper’s flawed and therefore there’s no point in even refereeing it. So this level of prejudice is very, very widespread. That’s why I think that closure in these conditions is not going to be very easy.
Also 11:55 Sam Parnia states if you reasearch into the paranormal other scientists look down on you.
Originally posted by inimalist well, maybe this is my fault for not clarifying, but I don't necessarily believe that NDEs are the result of brain activity during the shut down. So, in terms of "the brain doing weird stuff when its dying", thats not the theory I would present.To me, the idea that NDEs represent more of a cognitive filling in of events after the person is brought back to life (events like bizarre visual phenomenon, audio stimuli, etc, things that I can in fact prove are related to brain death and atrophy) seems much more likely.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think a person is lucidly experiencing a NDE as they die, but rather, as with all events and all types of memory, our brains simply fill in the best narrative for the event at the time we remember it.
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about but I think people having wish-fulfilling hallucinations would come under this category. This does not explain why athiests have NDEs, three year olds have had NDEs and both Sam Parnia and Dr Jeff Long have stated that at that age they shouldn't have a clearly defined idea of the afterlife. There are also examples of individuals seeing relatives who they thought were alive during NDEs (turned out they were dead).
Originally posted by inimalist
However, the history of literature on lesions, tumors, alzheimers and other abnormal psychology does actually suggest that people would experience strange feelings and cognitive states as parts of their brain shut down, alzheimers being the most directly related.
Of course they would but the problem with alzheimers is that it takes years for the brain to shut down, during cardiac arrest it takes seconds therefore during cardiac arrest you are very close to your brain shutting down and its alot worse. Terry Pratchet has alzheimers I wouldn't compare him to somebody having a cardiac arrest.
Originally posted by inimalist
I could do a post on how neuroimaging equipment has flaws, and the limits of EEG. I'm not sure what else though
So are EEG machines the worst scientific equipment in use? Don't other measuring instruments have flaws as well? I'm not sure what that would prove.