How do you visualize God?

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't neccsearily disagree with you and I'm not completely satisfied with just clinical death, I'm just saying its a double standard. Not sure what you're implying about common experience, they hallucinated and saw what they wanted to see?

I don't think the AWARE study will prove anything people will just say veridcal NDEs are just a coincedence.

Light probably or a feeling of energy.

Originally posted by Mindship
By common experience, I simply mean death as is familiar to us, familiar to human beings since the dawn of our history. Death. The End. Or, maybe it really is the Road to Awe. It's certainly worth the investigation, IMO.

Ok but not sure how that reinforces the point that death should be irreverisble.

Originally posted by Mindship

If results are significant and survive professional review, I would think further studies would be done.

Depends on what you mean by significant but people always find something wrong sometimes they're justified but not always the case.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but not sure how that reinforces the point that death should be irreverisble.

Depends on what you mean by significant but people always find something wrong sometimes they're justified but not always the case.

Originally posted by Mindship
Not that it should be irreversible. Common experience indicates death is (apparently) irreversible, and the onus, therefore, is to prove (or at least, give good cause to think) it isn't (via, eg, Parnia's study).

Ok but common experience tells you there are no molecules and atoms, science says otherwise.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but common experience tells you there are no molecules and atoms, science says otherwise.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but common experience tells you there are no molecules and atoms, science says otherwise.

Which is people had to work so hard to prove that atoms exist in the first place. Once they did that and others repeated the experiments to confirm the results scientist started making use of atomic theory and eventually is seeped down to the rest of us as common knowledge.

Now if you believe people can come back from the dead you have to prove that they can within statistical significance and let other people try the same experiments or studies themselves to confirm it.

Originally posted by Mindship
What science tells us about molecules and atoms becomes part of one's common experience as soon as one starts learning about molecules and atoms in school and doing experiments (eg, for Brownian movement).

You don't see molecules and atoms, which is my point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is people had to work so hard to prove that atoms exist in the first place. Once they did that and others repeated the experiments to confirm the results scientist started making use of atomic theory and eventually is seeped down to the rest of us as common knowledge.

..and scientists define clinical death as death.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Now if you believe people can come back from the dead you have to prove that they can within statistical significance and let other people try the same experiments or studies themselves to confirm it.

No I don't. I didn't invent the term clinical death, therefore its up to you to prove they're not dead.

Originally posted by Deadline
You don't see molecules and atoms, which is my point.

Originally posted by Mindship
For humans, 'common experience' also includes what we reliably know of the world through our intelligence.

Right but you need science to tell you that bit.

Originally posted by Deadline
Right but you need science to tell you that bit.

Originally posted by Mindship
And the world as understood by science is part of our common experience, and currently, it says death is final.

Yea it says death is final so if we want to prove that their is life after death we have to look at the current defintion of death in science.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yea it says death is final so if we want to prove that their is life after death we have to look at the current defintion of death in science.

Funny thing is, even if Parnia's study shows very significant, paradigm-shattering results, it still won't actually prove consciousness survives when the body no longer exists, though it will suggest so.

Originally posted by Deadline
..and scientists define clinical death as death.

No I don't. I didn't invent the term clinical death, therefore its up to you to prove they're not dead.

So you've reduced it to a purely semantic argument. Congratulations?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you've reduced it to a purely semantic argument. Congratulations?

You clearly don't seem to understand what I'm talking about. Maybe if you scroll back and read the points made you might get it instead of trying to just catch people out.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, in plainest terms, we have to show that consciousness can exist independently of the body.

Funny thing is, even if Parnia's study shows very significant, paradigm-shattering results, it still won't actually prove consciousness survives when the body no longer exists, though it will suggest so.

If you go to the beach, and look at the ocean, you will see waves. We know waves exist. However, if you remove the water from a wave, then the wave will not longer exist. The reason for that is because the wave is a product of the water in the wave. This is how the mind is. The physical brain is what makes the mind (wave) exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you go to the beach, and look at the ocean, you will see waves. We know waves exist. However, if you remove the water from a wave, then the wave will not longer exist. The reason for that is because the wave is a product of the water in the wave. This is how the mind is. The physical brain is what makes the mind (wave) exist.

With the observable strict correlation between brain process and subjective experience, including the creation and recalling of memories, how can one claim any aspect of the mind can survive without the brain? Even people who remember coming back from the dead are doing so with their brains, which means those memories were created in their brains as physical patterns either during the cardiac arrest called 'clinical death', in which case it is living brain activity, altered state as it may be, or afterwards, which can easily be explained away as the brain creating a false experience as it 'recalls' it. There'd be nothing to prove with the tunnels of light and seeing people they knew.

Out of body experiences on the other hand could be proven, if someone claiming them could give exact information about events they could not know about through any way other than going through walls to see while in trance. Experiments to determine this can be easily designed if the spiritual wanderer can enter the state at will, which they either claim they can't or that the presence of skeptics is ****ing up their mojo. So far, all experiments designed to atest the existence of paranormal phenomena have turned out squat and using data from non-controlled situations is gonna lead nowhere as there is a number of variables to acount for such as cold reading, individuals learning of events after waking up (which will be virtually impossible to control for), coincidence, vague descriptions of common or easy to predict events, the want to believe commonly found among parapsychologists, etc.

Big Electron

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
The Big Electron