…and this is a 
Richard Dawkins hits this one out of the park: he slams the ignorance of Rick Perry specifically and the Republican party generally. There is no excuse for the foolishness we get from Perry, or Bachmann, or Huckabee, or Palin, or Robertson, or any of the candidates who have sought validation through the Republicans — it's as if they're selecting for stupidity.
There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today's Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous 'GOP' nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered 'grand') is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today's Republican Party 'in spite of' is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Any other organization -- a big corporation, say, or a university, or a learned society - -when seeking a new leader, will go to immense trouble over the choice. The CVs of candidates and their portfolios of relevant experience are meticulously scrutinized, their publications are read by a learned committee, references are taken up and scrupulously discussed, the candidates are subjected to rigorous interviews and vetting procedures. Mistakes are still made, but not through lack of serious effort.
The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.
A politician's attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry's and the Tea Party's pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician's attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.
Darwin's idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or 'intelligent design' theory is such a rotten theory.
What any theory of life needs to explain is functional complexity. Complexity can be measured as statistical improbability, and living things are statistically improbable in a very particular direction: the direction of functional efficiency. The body of a bird is not just a prodigiously complicated machine, with its trillions of cells - each one in itself a marvel of miniaturized complexity - all conspiring together to make muscle or bone, kidney or brain. Its interlocking parts also conspire to make it good for something - in the case of most birds, good for flying. An aero-engineer is struck dumb with admiration for the bird as flying machine: its feathered flight-surfaces and ailerons sensitively adjusted in real time by the on-board computer which is the brain; the breast muscles, which are the engines, the ligaments, tendons and lightweight bony struts all exactly suited to the task. And the whole machine is immensely improbable in the sense that, if you randomly shook up the parts over and over again, never in a million years would they fall into the right shape to fly like a swallow, soar like a vulture, or ride the oceanic up-draughts like a wandering albatross. Any theory of life has to explain how the laws of physics can give rise to a complex flying machine like a bird or a bat or a pterosaur, a complex swimming machine like a tarpon or a dolphin, a complex burrowing machine like a mole, a complex climbing machine like a monkey, or a complex thinking machine like a person.
Darwin explained all of this with one brilliantly simple idea - natural selection, driving gradual evolution over immensities of geological time. His is a good theory because of the huge ratio of what it explains (all the complexity of life) divided by what it needs to assume (simply the nonrandom survival of hereditary information through many generations). The rival theory to explain the functional complexity of life - creationism - is about as bad a theory as has ever been proposed. What it postulates (an intelligent designer) is even more complex, even more statistically improbable than what it explains. In fact it is such a bad theory it doesn't deserve to be called a theory at all, and it certainly doesn't deserve to be taught alongside evolution in science classes.
The simplicity of Darwin's idea, then, is a virtue for three reasons. First, and most important, it is the signature of its immense power as a theory, when compared with the mass of disparate facts that it explains - everything about life including our own existence. Second, it makes it easy for children to understand (in addition to the obvious virtue of being true!), which means that it could be taught in the early years of school. And finally, it makes it extremely beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas anyone ever had as well as arguably the most powerful. To die in ignorance of its elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature, or a beautiful sunset.
There are many reasons to vote against Rick Perry. His fatuous stance on the teaching of evolution in schools is perhaps not the first reason that springs to mind. But maybe it is the most telling litmus test of the other reasons, and it seems to apply not just to him but, lamentably, to all the likely contenders for the Republican nomination. The 'evolution question' deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.
That Dawkins took to clearly stating exactly what was wrong with these bad anti-science candidates doesn't sit well with some people. Jamie Vernon at the Intersection (of course) thinks his opinion piece was an ineffective violation of all that the mush-brained accommodationists hold dear.
In one short paragraph, Dr. Dawkins has violated nearly everything we have come to know about effective science communication. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how Dr. Dawkins believes hurling insults, like "uneducated fools" and "ignoramus," can advance his position. How far do you think readers of the opposite mind continued into this article?
Oh, man. These clowns always practice industrial grade irony. If describing Perry in unflattering terms in the first paragraph is a barrier, what is the fact that Vernon called Dawkins a "crotchety old man" in the freakin' title of his post? I don't mind if the softies want to try their supposedly subtler, more psychologically informed tactics on the opposition, but somehow they never do — Vernon doesn't do anything to persuade Perry, and doesn't even suggest alternatives — and instead they always resort to hectoring activists who do speak their mind. It's impossible to avoid the conclusion that all they want is passivity and silence, and that they just love wallowing in hypocrisy.
So get out there, Mr Vernon. What are you doing to inform people of the disastrous ignorance of Rick Perry? What are you doing to oppose his candidacy? Are you even willing to state that he's unfit for office, and why? Don't you think evolution-denial is a very good marker for science illiteracy?
This is precisely what infuriates me. We have a functional moron running for the presidency, and a small crop of presumably pro-science people are busily trying to shush the opposition up so they can work their clever psycho-mojo and gently enlighten Perry by…I don't know, wiggling their fingers, thinking happy thoughts, or maybe they're going to use The Force.
Perry is a disastrously bad candidate (as is Bachmann). Call me a radical, but maybe it's a good idea for the opposition to oppose them, openly, and with thorough, rational explanations? And if the candidate is an ignoramus, as Perry clearly is, SAY IT.
And then Vernon perpetrates this nonsense:
The problem is that the Governor, and many like him, subscribe to a type of thinking that embraces hierarchical authoritarianism. People who participate in this form of thinking are not satisfied with the uncertainty that comes from evolutionary science. They need black and white answers…answers that the existing science cannot provide.
Let's see. Perry is an authoritarian who is unpersuaded by science. Isn't this sufficient to convince Vernon that he must be opposed?
And then, basically what he's saying here is that evolution is uncertain. It is not. Evolution is an established fact; Dawkins, no doubt intentionally, chose to make that the focus of the title of his piece, "Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact". There is no uncertainty here. The community of scientists has spoken, and has said repeatedly, in black and white terms, and with near-unanimity that evolution happened.
Vernon is claiming that Dawkins is all wrong because Perry is looking for clarity. But clarity — clarity supported by evidence — is exactly what Dawkins offers. Vernon is full of crap.
What Dawkins does, as do many of us on the side the accommodationists hate, is provide sharp, clear, strong positions. What Dawkins does in that op-ed is play the role of Joseph Welch, confronting wicked folly and stating his position lucidly and with acid contempt for the forces of ignorance and deception.
You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
If Jamie Vernon had been writing in 1954, he would no doubt have castigated Welch for his harshness, and suggested some compromise…perhaps a few more hearings, helpfully exposing a few more Communists, perhaps asking for a little more respect for the distinguished senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy. Unfortunately for Mr Vernon, history now regards the apologists and the silent as accomplices to a dark period in American government, and the people who spoke up in opposition as the heroes.
(Also on FtB)
Politics
Comments
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmJdJvz1GLHUMtwW6LNan71n0kV5tFIsS4
|
August 25, 2011 8:29 AM
Here here. I keep telling people it's the noisy people speaking their mind that actually get things done. So what if people retrench when hearing contrary points? Eventually the seed planted will start to grow if there's any chance of convincing anyway.
Here and now more than ever.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn
|
August 25, 2011 8:46 AM
Maybe the accommodationist psycho-mojo has its place or maybe not. The science is soft and unconvincing to my mind on this subject. All I know is there have been times that harsh words were what it took for me to admit I was wrong. I don't like like being called a fool or an idiot, but on occasion that's just what the doctor ordered. Diplomatic criticism isn't always enough.
Sure, I didn't come clean there and then. But after retreating and sulking for a bit, I'd come around.
This doesn't meant a Bachmann or a Perry is similarly vulnerable. But my experience tells that most people are, at least some of the time. And I don't think I am all that different from the average arrogant boor.
Posted by: PS9
|
August 25, 2011 9:14 AM
This video talks about the leucochloridium paradoxum, a parasite that infects snails and birds. The parasite doesn't go after larger creatures, it goes after easily controlled and invaded animals that help spread itself widely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWB_COSUXMw
The leaders of both political parties are the snails. Wall Street and all related criminals are the parasites. That's why no qualified candidate has been or can get nominated to any political office in the US since World War II, because that wouldn't be easily controlled.
Unlike war profiteers in Germany who were overt in their greed, those in the US try to direct US policy for themselves but do it quietly, leaving the blame for the politicians. The only people who can get financial backing to become president are those willing to be stooges for Wall Street.
.
Posted by: Bill McElree
|
August 25, 2011 9:23 AM
Religious tolerance ends where we get to show them they are demonstrably wrong.
Posted by: Platypus
|
August 25, 2011 9:40 AM
PZ:
Please stop being such a mushy accommodationist towards the end there. Say that "Vernon is full of shit. not that he's full of crap.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eZ..kUogl8RAvw1CqcZr1SPXcf7BG0ICZjvx#79382
|
August 25, 2011 10:01 AM
It doesn't really matter whether Dawkins is rude or not in the intro of any of his writing, retard republicans, if that even got past the headline, would not likely get passed the first 150 words.
Posted by: Peter H
|
August 25, 2011 10:13 AM
Just a small point: natural selection as we think of it today was first proposed by Wallace.
Posted by: sgd.homelinux.net
|
August 25, 2011 11:01 AM
Wow! That fella writes so much gooder than me. Dawkins rules.
Posted by: WCorvi
|
August 25, 2011 11:34 AM
I'm sorry, but evolution is NOT a fact! There are certainly observations that could contradict it, directly and totally. One would be, for example, the heavens open up and a booming voice says, "I didn't use evolution!" That, of course, has never happened, and we seriously doubt it WILL happen, but the point is, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory that has overwhelming support. I'm willing to change my mind, but only based on evidence that is equally overwhelming. To do otherwise is to become as dogmatic as those we oppose.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
August 25, 2011 12:03 PM
WCorvi, gravitation is not a fact either. Whether you want to use Newton's formulation or Einstein's, it's just a theory that has overwhelming support. Sure, we've sent spaceships to Mars, but how do we know that it was the ballistic flight calculated on Newtonian laws of motion that did it? After all, only some small fraction of the ones we send actually make it.
If you want to be pedantic, then step back a moment and ask what you're trying to say is not a fact: evolution or mutation with natural selection? Evolution occurred; of that there is no doubt. Fossils and genes show is that it did occur. What's contentious is the mechanism of evolution, and even that has been demonstrated to the extent that one might as well accept it as fact.
Posted by: Peter H
|
August 25, 2011 12:23 PM
@ #9:
"There are certainly observations that could contradict it, directly and totally."
But you provide none. You do provide a hypothetical example which no rational person would accept as tenable. Hypothetical examples neither support nor refute established data.
Posted by: Science Avenger
|
August 25, 2011 1:00 PM
Worse yet, some are actually claiming that asking Perry about his creationism is a gotcha question! I'm sure he'd love a few visits from some Pharyngulites.
As I said there, having a president who thinks the world is 6,000 years old is like having a doctor that thinks disease is caused by demons. Any good decisions would be dumb luck.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U
|
August 25, 2011 1:28 PM
WCorvi, all facts are subject to error. Perhaps the atoms we think we see thru electron microscopes are actually some artifact of as-yet unknown technical limitations, like the canals of Mars some 19th century astronomers saw through their telescopes.
But if we go about acting like the merely conceivable possibility of error is actual a significant problem, then the word "fact" is useless. Evolution has been observed in action. It is as much a fact as is the claim that there are atoms, or that some stars go nova.
This is why I do not call myself an agnostic. Agnostics - by Huxley's definition - are not people who are undecided, but folks who do not try to convince others that X is true if X has insufficient evidence to justify it. Sure, there might be a God, Obama might be an android from Mars, and maybe evolution hasn't happened. But I'm going to treat my opinions on these subjects as facts because of the supporting evidence, or the complete dearth of evidence for the opposing views. Anyone is welcome to change my mind on these using data. I'm not holding my breath.
No belief about the world is certain, but some are so likely that it would be perverse to not call them facts, and evolution is one of those things.
Kermit
Posted by: AlanMac
|
August 25, 2011 1:49 PM
@WCorvi #9
Evolution,(or as Darwin preferred, Decent with Modification) is a fact.
The origin of species by means of natural selection acting on these modifications; is the theory.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 25, 2011 1:50 PM
Vernon seems to labor under the assumption that Dawkins' target audience are those of "opposite mind", ie Perry supporters, when it's pretty clear that if he had a target audience in mind at all, it would be the undecided voters who would be the swing vote.
On the other hand, Vernon's target audience is pretty clearly supporters of Dawkins, whom he wishes to convince to change their mode of speech. So how far does he think they continued into his article, after reading the title?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 25, 2011 1:56 PM
Sure there are, hypothetically. But the possibility of their existence doesn't change evolution from fact to not-fact, anymore than the possibility of the hypothetical observation of a plutonium reactor in your chest cavity instead of a heart changes the statement "WCorvi is a human being" from fact to not-fact.
To change anything from fact to not-fact would require an actual observation.
(Evolution is both a fact and a theory, BTW).
No, that wouldn't actually. Given the weight of evidence as it currently stands, if that booming voice said only this, and provided no further back up evidence, the most parsimonious explanation would be that the booming voice was lying.
Posted by: jackolantern
|
August 25, 2011 3:18 PM
I think that changing minds involves engaging them on an emotional level with passion and conviction, and no one can say that this isn't Dr. Dawkins. While Vernon is probably right in assuming that Dr. Dawkins' article won't win any of the truly ignorant over to "our side," there are many on the fringes who will acknowledge that Perry, Bachmann, etc. are woefully ignorant and utterly unsuitable to lead your country. Hopefully that will also sway their voting preferences when the time comes.
It was the loud objections of the Four Horsement (and others, such as PZ) who made me aware of the skeptical and atheist communities. Silencing them would be a great disservice to others sitting on the fence, or fearing to step into the light.
Posted by: tarmacrider
|
August 25, 2011 3:48 PM
I used to be the apologist when talking to my fairly religious Father-in-Law regarding politics and religious matters. No longer the case and here is why:
When you are and act as an apologist, in doing that, you put them in a position of power and they get off on it. Truly they do, they think they've won. The cold hard fact is that they don't like being told that they are wrong and they certainly don't like it being backed up with facts. In my opinion there is no compromise with stuff like that mentioned in the Dawkins article. They are wrong and need to be told they are wrong and shown why they are wrong and then called whatever numerous synonyms for idiot exist. Dawkins was spot on and should continue carrying the torch in the same manner in the future.
Posted by: Vicar of Art on Earth
|
August 25, 2011 4:10 PM
The problem all monarchs have is all the princlings want to take over, even if there is no problem.
I think of poor Helen Keller's modern image. Here was a self actualized person with significant disabilities, thinking and speaking great political and social thoughts.
Reduced to a "inspiration" overcoming her crippledness, the penultimate "Tiny Tim", a fundraiser for cheap sentimentality.
I have been to jail seveal time in my life for disability rights like thousands of others, yet sell outs living on our work like Maria Shriver prosper, diluting the message of freedom and inclusion to a classy sports "freak show."
Professor Dawkins' was/is a major force in getting non belief as respectable or mainstream as it is, not whoever is complaining of no one following them.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
August 25, 2011 5:22 PM
Yeah, but Dawkins shouldn't get so exercised because Muslim women are worse off. (Someone had to say it.)
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
August 25, 2011 5:26 PM
Corvi, evolution is an observed fact. the theory of evolution is its well-tested explanation.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
August 25, 2011 5:30 PM
tarmacrider, I've seen the positive results of standing up to other "religious" arguments, such as the time my dad started going on about how "they don't make cars the way they used to." My SO interrupted with, "That's right! Modern cars are much better made." And my dad shut up about the good old days.
Posted by: Shouting Thomas
|
August 25, 2011 6:33 PM
My first visit here.
At first glance, this site appears to have originated in a South Park episode about the arrogant stupidity of liberal intellectuals.
Another shitload of liberal geniuses!
Posted by: Northwest Kirk
|
August 25, 2011 7:38 PM
PZ, you are my hero. Let me know the next time you are in Seattle so I can buy you a beer.
And Shouting Thomas - are you fucking kidding me? WTF?
Posted by: James_Evans
|
August 25, 2011 8:23 PM
Yeah, guest-blogging with the ole "Be nice to the jerks who think you are going to burn in Hell for not believing in their favorite fairy tale" routine. Gee, thanks for that, Dr. Vernon. You're a big help. Can't wait for the next original, pressing thought from ya.
And, Sharting Thomas, I was gonna say make it your first and last visit, but you got more important problems to address. I mean, when South Park goes sailing way over yer head, for fuck's sake, just turn off the TV for a few years and read some fucking books or something to at least catch up mentally with middle school kids who get the show's jokes, would ya?
Posted by: Garth Patrick
|
August 25, 2011 9:46 PM
Vernon notes:
"It has been documented here at the Intersection countless times that the problem with conservative white males like Perry is not a lack of education. I’ll have Dr. Dawkins know that Governor Perry graduated in 1972 from Texas A&M with a 2.22 GPA and a bachelor’s degree in animal science."
A 2.22 GPA does not strike me as the badge of a highly educated person. Dawkins is correct. Perry is uneducated.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 25, 2011 9:52 PM
The presence or absence of degrees and GPAs of whatever magnitude do not ultimately determine how highly educated a person is. They are only correlations, and weak ones at that.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
August 25, 2011 10:31 PM
What bothers me the most about Perry and nearly all republithugs (besides the obvious gross pandering to the Koch bros of the world) is their complete lack of curiosity about the world. The way he talks about it - it's like he's never given the question of origins five minutes thought in his entire life. Like Billy Graham, he took the answers he got in Sunday School at face value. He doesn't even care enough about it to even try to defend his creationism. At least fundamentalist politicians at one time like William Jennings Bryan at least took time to try to articulate their ignorance. This is worse than ignorance. It's the "I could care less about the question" type of ignorance. Our modern society is inextricably tied to science and technology -a person with abysmal ignorance about evolution (but more broadly science in general) has no business running the country. But given that he starts with a 40% creationist base, he only needs to con 10.0001% of the voting populace (assuming he's the nominee) to become president.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 26, 2011 12:24 AM
PZ said:
"And the whole machine is immensely improbable in the sense that, if you randomly shook up the parts over and over again, never in a million years would they fall into the right shape to fly like a swallow, soar like a vulture, or ride the oceanic up-draughts like a wandering albatross. "
PZ sounds a bit like a creationist here. Never in a million years. I submit that in spite of natural selection, flight would never develop in a million years.
On Perry, Bachman, etc. I agree whole heartedly that they would make extremely poor candidates. That said, let's hope one of them makes it because they will most likely lose.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
August 26, 2011 4:57 AM
It's Dawkins, not PZ. That's why it's in a quote.
Well, it did take a little longer. Perhaps up to 10 million years in the case of bats. :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
August 26, 2011 5:12 AM
And yes, "microbe mats" have been found, though AFAIK only from later times.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 26, 2011 6:49 AM
I submit that the evidence from insects, pterodactyls, birds and bats say natural selection will allow flight to develop, albeit perhaps taking longer than a million years. Plus humans developed flight in much less than a million years.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
August 26, 2011 7:08 AM
Posted by: WCorvi | August 25, 2011 11:34 AM
But that could just be Loki screwing with you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 26, 2011 7:10 AM
Developed separately in insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats. Doesn't take that much actually. Your incredulity simply means you can't think through the process, not that the process is wrong. You should have learned that much by now. Your imaginary creator is superfluous.Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 26, 2011 8:46 AM
WCorvi (#9):
So a proposition that is falsifiable in principle can never be a fact? In other words, you're denying that there can be empirical facts at all?
Well, wrong. In the real world a proposition doesn't have to be established with 100% certainty in order to count as a fact. All it has to be is established beyond all reasonable doubt. All empirical knowledge comes with error bars, but that doesn't make it any the less knowledge.
Shiloh (#29):
Then it's a good job that multicellular life has had over 500 million years in which to develop it, isn't it?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 26, 2011 11:03 AM
It is a sad state of affairs that just when you think the Republicans can't come up with dumber candidates for president, they prove you wrong. Funny, Perry's party came down on him when he stated that Bernanke should be lynched for spending money in his attempt to get us out of a depression. Republicans especially didn't like Perry suggesting the person appointing him, George W., should also be lynched. Ya gotta luv it. Can you picture this guy, who comes across as an evangelical minister, leading our country? Scary.
BTW, if you haven't watched it yet, check out Jesus Camp. In it a woman evangelical preacher gets this idea to start a camp to develop children as Christian soldiers. I found it hard to watch. Quite frightening how these kids were being indoctrinated. Her idea is to get people with her beliefs into power. Look out!!! The teaching of evolution in science classes could be wholesale replaced with "Creationist science" if we aren't careful.
Posted by: Schenck
|
August 26, 2011 4:07 PM
"what is the fact that Vernon called Dawkins a "crotchety old man" in the freakin' title of his post?"
It actually shows that Vernon has little respect for his opponents, whereas Dawkins is at least nice enough to call stupid, stupid. People like Vernon (at least from this) seem to take a very paternalistic view of things, "I'm right and I need to manipulate you and I can do it because I'm your superior'.
Dawkins uses insults, but equals often insult each other, Vernon is saying 'you're beneath me'.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 26, 2011 6:27 PM
Shiloh, get your act together. This is what I mean:
You believe in a creator. You have argued endlessly for a creator. And now you pretend to mock those who advocate "creationism". Think about that for ten minutes, then come back with an apology one way or the other. Or, better yet, fade into the bandwidth, never to be heard from again.Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 26, 2011 8:51 PM
Nerd of Redhead
"You believe in a creator. You have argued endlessly for a creator. And now you pretend to mock those who advocate "creationism"."
Nerd, I have a feeling you simply are not listening. Yes, I lean towards a creator, but not to be taught as science in a classroom for the good reason that it is not science. There is no scientific proof of a god, so it definitely does not belong in a science class. Evolution, on the other hand, has been thoroughly studied, and can be claimed by science to be factual because the evidence is there. So I very militantly object to creationism being taught in a science classroom as an alternative "scientific theory" to evolution.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 26, 2011 8:55 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/pat-robertson-washington-monument-crack-god_n_938075.html
Now Pat Roberson is suggesting that the crack in the Washington monument, due to the earthquake, might be a sign from God that the end is near. We already got hit by nonsense of the end of the world by Howard Camping, who will keep trying in desperate hope that he may eventually be right.
Now idiot Robertson is getting into the act.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 26, 2011 9:10 PM
No, you don't lean, you require. We know that. You should know that. That you don't, says you are a liar and bullshitter.What you mean, is that there is no conclusive physical evidence for one. Which means it doesn't exist, and you should have shut the fuck up about a year ago as a delusional fuckwit.There is no proof of your imaginary creator whatsoever, not even philosophically without presupposition. There is just your presupposition that one exists. That you can't tell the difference between the two says you need to shut the fuck up on that subject, and all consequences thereof.Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 26, 2011 9:19 PM
Watch out! The right wing has taken over the School Board in Texas and is now rewriting history. This is a big problem since Texas is such a big procurer of books and could have effect on the entire U.S.. It's like we are under communism. For instance, they replaced imperialism with expansionism. Photos of women's breasts in a description of how to exam them for cancer, was removed because it was considered offensive. And I don't have to mention evolution VS creationism. They argue that the left has written history incorrectly.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 26, 2011 9:33 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
"There is no proof of your imaginary creator whatsoever, not even "
Same old Bullshit from you. You still have not shown any evidence how the universe started, yet you will call my argument for a creator as imaginary. PROVE IT!!! You can't, yet you will say that a creator is imaginary. Nothing more than empty words. I have given you a number of reasons why a creator may be necessary, yet you chose to close your eyes and stick your head in the sand hiding behind empty words not backed by proof of any kind. The truth is that neither one of us can prove or disprove a creator. That is why the only sensible position is agnosticism, which means you don't know, not making statements based on nothing more than faith and speculation, and presenting them as fact, which they are not. I, on the other hand, have the sense to state that I am speculating and admit that these speculation are not fact.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 26, 2011 10:19 PM
The Texas school board have made statements that it was men who voted to give women the right to vote, as if they did it because it was simply the right thing to do rather than because of suffrage demonstrations by women which forced them into voting for it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 26, 2011 10:56 PM
Shiloh #43
You're the guy making the positive statement that The Big Guy In The Sky exists and poofed the whole universe into existence. So it's up to you and your fellow goddists to produce evidence to support your myths. Can't do it, can you?
Yes, you've given sophistry and "well, perhaps it happened that way" and "nobody actually knows, so god could possibly, perhaps, maybe exist, I hope." But actual evidence of TBGITS's existence? No, you're lacking in that department.
No, there's another possibility. Since evidence for TBGITS is completely and totally missing, as in there fucking isn't a single scrap of a hint of evidence to support TBGITS's existence, then the reasonable thought it "pending some convincing evidence, TBGITS doesn't exist." Sure, the possibility of TBGITS's existence is not zero, but it's so close to zero as makes no difference. And it's folks like you doing the faith and speculation business about TBGITS.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 26, 2011 11:44 PM
It is imaginary until you can provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary creator, not philosophical sophistry, also known as mental masturbation, or as I prefer, bullshit. As you have been told time and time again. You have to prove yourself right with the existence of your deity. Non-existence is the null hypothesis. What a simple minded and arrogant person you are, if you can't understand basic logic.We don't have to disprove you, as that is proving a negative, and can't be done, as your imaginary creator is ill-defined. You have to prove yourself right, with solid and conclusive evidence, not by a presupposed philosophical argument, which is all you have, and nothing more. We are still waiting for your EVIDENCE.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 12:55 AM
Ah, Shiloh. Continuing to fail to understand how the scientific method works for fun and profit.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 1:02 AM
Only to someone who doesn't understand the topic at all (like your average creationist). PZ's statement was in Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. And Dawkins was paraphrasing Darwin himself.
Well, it's a good thing that the fossil record demonstrates that flight evolved in insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats over at least 20 millions each, then, isn't it?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 1:04 AM
Hey look, Shiloh's become an agnostic!
Progress!
Posted by: txpiper
|
August 27, 2011 1:19 AM
"Darwin explained all of this with one brilliantly simple idea - natural selection, driving gradual evolution over immensities of geological time."
And of course, no mention of mutations, the supposed actual reckless 'driver' of evolution. Just another metaphorical genuflect and appeal to nonexistent authority.
Posted by: thedawk
|
August 27, 2011 5:40 AM
Could Dawkins or Coyne or anyone just answer these questions....
An Open Letter to Professors Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins on the Nature of Natural Selection
Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92
|
August 27, 2011 5:55 AM
The author of that screed, thedawk, would find all his questions either answered or rendered meaningless - mostly the latter - if he took the trouble to find out what the ToE is.
That's rather than expecting people with work of their own to do to help him hack it about until it fits some theological formula of this own devising.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
August 27, 2011 6:16 AM
Shiloh,
*sigh*
Who's doing this? Who here has presented speculations about how the universe started as facts?
And when are you going to understand that most of us here are agnostic atheists? We don't know with absolute certainty that there isn't some being out there to which the word "god" could be applied, but based on the (lack of) evidence we have concluded that there are no reasonable grounds for belief in one, so we don't believe and call ourselves atheists. We are also pretty sure that something specific like the Christian god does not, in fact, exist. What part of this do you disagree with, btw?
Not only are they not fact, they're also unparsimonious, unfounded, incoherent, and not well formulated. They are nonsense.
And you are tiresome.
(Apropos of, uh, nothing - did you ever read that essay on Defining the Supernatural by Richard Carrier? Are you ever going to go back to that discussion?)
Posted by: Nightjar
|
August 27, 2011 6:31 AM
txpiper,
Only in the sense that mutations are one of the sources of the variation we observe and upon which natural selections acts. But we've been over this countless times before, and you're even more tiresome and intellectually dishonest than Shiloh. Go away.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 27, 2011 8:22 AM
Yawn, txpiper can't or won't understand natural selection, so he can only see mutations as bad things, no matter how much evidence is presented to him. That is utter and willful ignorance and arrogance on his part, typical of liberturds. Until he can present real evidence, and cite entire papers, not just quotemines of papers, txpiper has nada, nothing, zip, zilch, and zero.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 27, 2011 9:43 AM
Shiloh (#43):
The hypothesised mechanisms by which universes form have been pointed out to you, and people have also taken the time to point out your misconceptions about the Big Bang and related cosmological issues. You cannot pretend that people have not made the effort to educate you in this regard.
You, on the other hand, have never provided any kind of supporting argument for a creator. So Nerd is being generous when he (Nerd's a he, remember?) described your creator as imaginary.
This is an outright lie. All you have ever offered is an argument from ignorance (i.e., your own personal ignorance, which you have consistently refused to remedy) coupled with vague "what ifs" which you then - equally consistently - refuse to examine critically.
This is kind of jolly, coming as it does from someone who is notorious for their refusal to engage with reasoned criticism.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 27, 2011 10:43 AM
Nerd of Redhead
"We don't have to disprove you, as that is proving a negative, and can't be done"
I submit to you that just by the fact that you make an uniformed statement that a creator is imaginary requires you to prove it. If you cannot prove a negative, as you say, than shut up. BTW, you can still prove a positive. Soooo, how about proving how the universe came about by chance. You can't. So your stating that the universe came about by natural means is like Iain Walker stated, a hypothesis, an educated guess. My statement that it appears that a creator was necessary, is also a hypothesis, an educated guess.
"It is imaginary until you can provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary creator, not philosophical sophistry, also known as mental masturbation, or as I prefer, bullshit"
You are doing the same thing, so the same holds for you then. You can't have it both ways.
amphiox
"Hey look, Shiloh's become an agnostic!"
Where have you been? I've stated up front numerous times that I am an agnostic, because I cannot prove or disprove a god, but, at the same time, I have leanings towards creationism and I gave reasons for that.
Same old crap here. You argue I must be wrong because I have no proof. Yet, somehow you all think you are immune to that argument because, "baby I have science backing me up". Yet, when I ask you to show me your proof, you don't have any either. And you wonder why I suggest you convert to being agnostic with atheistic leanings.
All I can say is KEEP THE FAITH, because that is really what you doing. You are basing your belief on faith since you have no proof how it all began.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 27, 2011 12:10 PM
Shiloh (#57):
Entirely wrong. Naturalistic hypotheses for the formation of universes, such as inflation theory or brane theory, may count as educated guesses, but that's because they provide a rigorous theoretical framework which explains the how of the matter. They have explanatory value, in addition to which they are also extensions of what else we know about the universe.
But "a creator did it" is an uneducated guess - there is no theoretical framework (let alone a rigorous one) postulated which would explain how the universe was brought about. It has no more explanatory value than simply saying "the universe appeared by magic". And on top of that, your concept of a "creator" is also self-contrdictory, as I seem to recall pointing out several times while you stuck your fingers in your ears and went "la la la".
So there's really no comparison at all.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
August 27, 2011 1:51 PM
Shiloh,
It's not an uninformed statement. We have evidence that a creator exists in your imagination, but we don't have evidence that one exists in reality (and neither have you). So, indeed, everything points to it being imaginary.
Wow. So many people who have patiently explained to you what the naturalistic hypotheses for the formation of the universe actually say in such detail and over so many threads and... this is what you got away with? This is what you think all those hypotheses boil down to? Really?
You're hopeless. I don't know if you're trolling us or if you're just not very bright, but either way... you're fucking hopeless.
It's not. It is nonsense.
No, but I do wonder why you always ignore my posts.
And when are you going to understand that most of us here are agnostic atheists? We don't know with absolute certainty that there isn't some being out there to which the word "god" could be applied, but based on the (lack of) evidence we have concluded that there are no reasonable grounds for belief in one, so we don't believe and call ourselves atheists. We are also pretty sure that something specific like the Christian god does not, in fact, exist. What part of this do you disagree with, btw?
FUCK YOU.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 2:06 PM
Every single work of fiction that mentions a creator in it, (examples of which would include all of your posts) prove the imaginary creator.
That was easy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 27, 2011 2:08 PM
Fixed that for you. Your guess isn't educated, but presupposed. Your dishonesty starts there.In order to become a hypothesis, some evidence other that your presupposition that you imaginary creator exists must be there. What physical evidence can you present, that can only be explained by your "hypothesis", and no other more solid hypotheses like the science that has presented to you time and time again? No evidence not explained by science has been put forth, just your desire for the conclusion (hence presupposition). And how did your creator come to be? That explanation is required for your "hypothesis", which isn't complete until you add that concept. And you never go there, just the vague "eternal" or "outside of space and time". Both are philosophical, scientific, and intellectual cop-outs, that are treated with the derision they so richly deserve.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 2:13 PM
No, you dishonest sack of excrement, as has been explained to you multiple times from the very first thread where you posted this drivel, NATURAL SELECTION is the 'driver' of evolution, (and it is a reckless one indeed). Mutations are just the raw material.
If there were no mutations whatsoever, and some other source of variation, evolution would work exactly the same. Darwin didn't even know about mutations at all when he first formulated his theory, and PZ was absolutely right not to mention mutations in a statement about what Darwin proposed.
The idea of mutations was added to evolutionary theory in the Modern Synthesis, when later evidence arose that demonstrated that mutations exist.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 2:17 PM
If mutations didn't exist or suddenly stopped occurring, so long as there remained preexisting heritable variation in a population, evolution would occur, until such variation ran out.
If selection suddenly stopped, or did not exist, no matter how many mutations occur, evolution would almost entirely grind to a halt, except for a few minor changes wrought by genetic drift.
Selection is the 'driver', (or 'engine' to use a more poetic metaphor already widely recognized) of evolution.
Posted by: txpiper
|
August 27, 2011 7:01 PM
amphiox,
"and it is a reckless one indeed"
Well I should say so. Have you ever wondered about the gene responsible for hair growth? I mean, at some point in time, scalp hair (and facial hair in males) lost the growth shutdown function that keeps your armpit hair from getting unmanageable. I can't imagine, short of being a fairy's idea of a joke, why that would have been selected for, since it obviously happened after the divergence, but probably long before anyone had scissors.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 27, 2011 7:08 PM
I can't imagine you believing anything about how evolution happened due to your arrogance and ignorance. Stop showing us these parts of your idiocy, and may you can figure out why on your own. But then that would require you to acknowledge you have been wrong, and no libertdurd can do that, as it is against their fuckwittted religion.Posted by: txpiper
|
August 27, 2011 7:27 PM
Nerd,
"I can't imagine you believing anything about how evolution happened..."
Don't you mean 'happens'? If a few mutations produced devices to process a narrow little band in the EM spectrum, could AM receivers be far behind? I'm thinking it's pretty much inevitable. You can't tell me that NS wouldn't go for an advantage like that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 27, 2011 7:48 PM
Repeating a citation for the lurkers, but not for you, as you are a liberated who is never, ever, wrong. But then, that shows to us with real intelligence, your lying and bullshitting. Lurkers are far, far smarter than you, and see your arrogance and ignorance. Something you never, ever, thinks is seen...Being the fuckwitted idiotic fool you are.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 8:21 PM
Are you so sure about that?
Get your facts straight before trying to imagine an argument out of such ramblings.
The poverty of your imagination is already well established. Why draw even more attention to it?
Having failed to establish the first clause, the second is rather academic. But regardless, scissors aren't the only means by which hair length might be controlled. (The very first scissors ever made date only back to 1500 BC. That means, of course, that the builders of the pyramids didn't have any, and, apparently, uncontrolled growth of scalp and facial hair was not a problem for them. Pharaoh Khufu, builder of the Great Pyramid, according to surviving pictures and statuary, was clean-shaven. His successor, Pharaoh Kafre, builder of the second pyramid, sported a well-trimmed beard. Lack of scissors were not a problem for either man, it appears)
Truly, only an idiot would think such an argument as this was worth the effort of typing.
Lacking foresight, natural selection is not guaranteed to find every possible beneficial adaption.*
But an intelligent benevolent foresighted designer surely should have done so. The lack of obvious examples in nature seems rather damning to the design hypothesis.
Thanks for yet another argument demonstrating the superiority of evolutionary theory over design.
*Assuming that it would be beneficial. A clueless moron declaring it does not make it so. Is there a natural source for AM radio wavelengths in nature? Is that source one that provides relevant information for organisms such that detection of it would actually make a survival difference? Do the laws of chemistry allow for the assembly of a detection apparatus from the chemical building blocks at hand? (IR, visible light, and UV wavelengths happen to be within a range wherein the molecular bonds formed by organic molecules can absorb and emit them, allowing for the evolution of proteins that can detect them via reacting with them. It is a different story entirely with much longer and much shorter EM wavelengths) And how much would such biological apparatus, even if possible to build, cost for an organism to maintain? Is that cost sufficiently low that a putative advantage would outweigh it?
Picking up Glenn Beck broadcasts doesn't typically provide a survival advantage for most organisms.
Posted by: txpiper
|
August 27, 2011 10:08 PM
amphiox,
"Is there a natural source for AM radio wavelengths in nature? Is that source one that provides relevant information for organisms such that detection of it would actually make a survival difference?"
Good gosh. What does any of that have to do with it? Look how much selection pressure momentum Pakicetus picked up on its way to becoming a blue whale from just hanging around the water's edge.
"Do the laws of chemistry allow for the assembly of a detection apparatus from the chemical building blocks at hand?"
Building blocks at hand? Were all the building blocks at hand when RNA starting long-chain replicating without enzymes? You deal in materialist miracles. I don't see why you would feel constrained by chemical considerations.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 27, 2011 10:57 PM
Iain Walker
"But "a creator did it" is an uneducated guess"
No, that's just your bias opinion. I have given you well thought out reasons why a creator was necessary. You have not given me any proof to show that it came about by natural means.
A scientific theory is well tested and considered fact. A hypothesis is not.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 27, 2011 11:03 PM
Nerd of Redhead
"No evidence not explained by science has been put forth, just your desire for the conclusion (hence presupposition)."
Yep. That fits you to a T.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 11:06 PM
No, you have provided completely very poorly thought out reasons.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 27, 2011 11:11 PM
Then you should be able to prove that there is no invisible gold dragon in my garage with solid and conclusive physical evidence. Oh, that's right, you can't prove a negative. Which is the same idiocy you expect for your imaginary creator. You are the one who presupposes the existence of your creator. I only ask for solid and conclusive physical evidence for said creator, which you acknowledge you can't supply. And why should anybody believe your delusional presupposition without conclusive evidence fuckwitted fool?Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 27, 2011 11:12 PM
No, you've given your opinion as to why a creator is necessary and absolutely refused to consider our reasons why one isn't necessary.
You're not even given hypotheses. You're pulling your guesses and opinions straight out of your rosy red rectum. Tell us again about how Stephen Hawking is simultaneously an atheist and a promoter of a divine creator. That bit of mental tapdancing never gets old.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 11:23 PM
Absolutely everything, as has been already explained to you multiple times. And until you demonstrate the faintest modicum of understanding of this point, you're really not worth talking to, except to mock for the education of bystanders.
It picked up none. The selection pressures acting on Pakicetus at the water's edge pushed it towards becoming something like Ambulocetus, and nothing more.
Ambulocetus (or something similar) went on to colonize a different environment, and experienced different selection pressures, which happened to push it in the direction of becoming something like Dalanistes.
Dalanistes (or something similar) in turn experienced different selection pressures that happened to push it in the direction of becoming something like Rodhocetus, which in turn experienced different selection pressures that pushed to towards becoming something like Dorudon, which went on, through several more intermediates, to experience selection pressures that eventually pushed it in the direction towards becoming something like a Blue Whale.
Your use of the phrase "on its way to becoming a Blue Whale" is indicative of your complete and utterly failure to comprehend even the most basic aspect of evolutionary theory. And yet, from this well of utter ignorance you have the arrogance and presumption to make judgments on a subject you know nothing about, and of which you seem incapable of or unwilling to learn.
You are a pitiful, pathetic, deluded incompetent, whose only value to this ongoing discussion is to act as an abject illustrative example of how not to think and how not to act.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 11:38 PM
The building blocks in question are the elements carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorus, and the molecules they can form with one another in aqueous conditions.
The point with respect to EM detection is that the molecular bonds that can form between these atoms, by the laws of chemistry, are such that they can potentially absorb EM energy in the wavelengths from the IR through the visible to the low(long) UV, and change their bonding configuration in response. That is the bare minimum needed for an organic detector molecule to be even possible. But, with respect to detection of longer wavelengths in the AM radiowave region, it is unclear if such actually can be formed, by the laws of chemistry. If not, then organic detection systems would not be able to evolve no matter how favorable such an ability would be.
An intelligent designer, of course, could have applied foresight and added some extra building materials, such as metallic iron and steel (for antennas). But we don't see that in the natural world, do we?
C, N, O, H, P. So therefore, yes.
At any rate, it's RNA short chain replication without protein enzymes, that would be required for the RNA World (assuming this hypothesis is the correct one). Long-chain replication probably did require protein enzymes, but that's irrelevant to that particular question.
And I should also point out that the critical catalytic portions of the ribosomes is the RNA and not the protein. So for RNA to "invent" proteins would have not needed any pre-existing proteins.
That's because you are a blind, pretentious incompetent idiot who is not qualified to make such a statement.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 11:43 PM
For those, unlike texpip the willfully ignorant, who are interested, if one could go back in a time machine to the time of Pakicetus, and replay the course of evolution over again, it is virtually certain that the Blue Whale would not evolve a second time.
Something similar to a Blue Whale might evolve, some of the time (if you did the re-run many times) but how similar and how likely it would be is a matter of much interesting debate among real evolutionary scientists.
The appearance of a trajectory from Pakicetus to the Blue Whale is artifactual, evident only in hindsight.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 27, 2011 11:57 PM
And since texpip has so graciously brought up the subject, here's a few links to some recent discoveries filling in yet more of the links between Dorudon and its contemporaries and both the modern baleen whales (such as the Blue) and the toothed whales. Showing the transitional form/precursor adaptions that led to the toothed whales' echolocation, and the baleen whales' method of feeding.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/08/23/ancient-whales-twisted-skulls-were-useful-they-helped-them-hear-better/#more-31320
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/page/2/
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 28, 2011 12:27 AM
Amphiox
"No, you have provided completely very poorly thought out reasons."
That is merely your opinion, and I'm here to tell you it is still wrong.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 28, 2011 12:35 AM
Nerd of Redhead
Hey, I already proved to you that I can prove a negative. Let me do it again since your memory is a bit tarnished. I can prove to you that there is not a live 40 foot visible T-Rex in my 19 CU Inch refrigerator. Also, I have even given you an out. All you need to do is prove to me how the universe started by natural means. So far you haven't done so. You come down on my suggestion of a creator because I have no proof, but you don't have any proof for a natural solution either. Until you are able to do that, you are simply talking through your hat. You can call me what ever you want, but so long as you have no positive proof of a natural means, it won't stick.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
August 28, 2011 5:51 AM
Shiloh,
Bwahahahaha.
Links or it didn't happen.
Oh, please do! But don't just tell, show.
Please do provide such a detailed description for the creator we're supposed to disprove and we'll see what we can do, yes?
But of course we already sort of did that with your incoherent "supernatural intelligent creator outside of space and time", remember? When we pointed out the problems with the notion of agency outside time (which you haven't even tried to address), and when we asked you to define supernatural in a coherent and meaningful way? Don't you remember you had homework to do, Shiloh? Why are you back if you haven't done it yet?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 28, 2011 7:31 AM
Shiloh the idjit fuckwit
Sorry Shiloh, you are WRONG, not us. You make the positive and inane claims for your imaginary creator, so you either provide the evidence to back up those claims, or you shut the fuck up about the inane claims like your imaginary creator. Those who can't put up or shut up are liars and bullshitters, which we have exposed you to the world to be.Sorry, you failed for the reasons we keep specifying to you. A visible t-rex is well defined concrete idea, and can or cannot be verified with typical instruments, like a camera. That has been our point you all along.You can't disprove the invisible gold dragon in my garage, nor have you presented any method to do so. It, like your imaginary creator, is ill-defined, nothing there to test for. Your imaginary creator cannot be disproved, as the concept is simply too nebulous. You also keep attempting to make this idiotic argument of that we must disprove your ill-defined philosophically derived vague concept. It is so vague it can't be disproved, and you keep it vague on purpose. Until you give us something concrete to work with, and a solid and conclusive method to test for and determine if your imaginary creator really exists, you can't logically keep expecting us to prove the negative. And nothing comes from you on how to test for the existence of your imaginary creator.
We make no positive claims for a creator, so we have nothing to prove on that account. This is where we started months ago. You were stymied then, you are stymied now, and will continue to be stymied in the future, as your whole argument is still your personal incredulity. What next? I suggest you fade into the bandwidth.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 28, 2011 8:22 AM
Shiloh (#70):
And of course my explanation of why it was an uneducated guess sails right over your head, as usual ...
The same old lie again. Your "reasons" (which were never thought out at all) were roundly criticised in detail, with lengthy explanations as to why they were mistaken, by several commenters, including myself. You, of course, didn't want to hear.
Yet there is more to the viability of a hypothesis than testing and evidence. Even before the question of evidence arises, a viable hypothesis has to be internally coherent and possess explanatory power if it is to be of any use at all. Naturalistic hypotheses of universe formation possess these virtues. Your creator does not - as has been explained to you time and time again.
Now, you can address these issues or not. My guess is that you will continue to refuse to do so, and will continue to clutter up the comments section with your tiresome bluster.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 28, 2011 10:25 PM
Nerd of redhead,
"Sorry, you failed for the reasons we keep specifying to you. A visible t-rex is well defined concrete idea, and can or cannot be verified with typical instruments, like a camera. That has been our point you all along."
Now you are grasping at straws. I proved to you that I can prove a negative, but you are trying to say that I need special instruments to see something I can see with my own two eyes.
Ian Walker
"And of course my explanation of why it was an uneducated guess sails right over your head, as usual ..."
No, you still do not get it. I gave you so many reasons why a creator might be necessary instead of the universe starting all by itself by producing matter out of nothing and then expanding it into the big band. I showed you that there are a number of parameters that have such a close tolerance that the odds of it coming about by chance are extremely small. I also countered your argument for a multiple universes by showing you that you have not one ounce of proof, just speculation. I also showed you examples of people who had heart attacks on the operating table plus being under anesthesia with brain activity shutting down, yet they had a vivid out of body near death experience and met deceased relatives including ones who they thought were still alive, but who had died suddenly unknown to them. Yet this is waved off as some sort of dream. And I might add without any proof. Also, a dream would not account for the person meeting someone who had just died who they had just talked to and had no idea this person had died. It amazes me that some people are so indoctrinated by science (don't get me wrong, I love science) that they will ignore reason and evidence that could indicate a creator. It is so easy to sit there and go ahaha, any belief in a creator is imaginary. That may be your problem. Your minds are so hung up on the belief that only material things are possible, that if a creator tapped you on the shoulder, you would believe it.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 28, 2011 10:31 PM
Correction. Your minds are so hung up on the belief that only material things are possible, that if a creator tapped you on the shoulder, you wouldn't believe it and would find some argument to explain to the creator that he was really imaginary.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 28, 2011 10:56 PM
You get a creator to tap us on the shoulder, we'll give it a lot more attention than you've given to our arguments about the non-necessity of a creator.
See, two can play the non sequitur game.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 28, 2011 11:21 PM
And what part of my explanation of why you are wrong are you attempting to refute? I acknowledge you can see the t-rex in the refrigerator, because it is a true physical object. Hence it can be seen. Which wasn't what I asked you to demonstrate, which was the invisible gold dragon in the garage. You failed spectacularly in not keep with the idea of what was required. Typical of liars and bullshitter to evade the questions that disprove them.What you have not demonstrate in your fuckwittery, is how to disprove a nebulous and unsubstantial piece of bullshit like the invisible gold dragon in the garage, which is just like your imaginary creator, not well defined, and not a solid concrete object. With your asinine and irrelevant example, you demonstrated squat, because you can't disprove it and you know that.
You have failed to demonstrate what you claimed once again, proving yourself a liar, bullshitter, and shallow thinker. Show me how you can use your eyes to see the invisible god dragon in the garage. Show me how to see your imaginary creator. Put up, or shut the fuck up. You have no honesty and integrity. You, like all godbots, are full of lies and bullshit.
With this inane example, you are saying you creator is a real object and can interact with the universe. Now, tell us how you will identify and prove the creator such physical evidence. The burden of proof is still where it belongs, on you to provide the solid and conclusive physical evidence for your claim. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2011 7:07 AM
Shiloh, we aren't going to take your lies and bullshit about your "soul" or creator without you presenting solid and conclusive physical evidence to back up your claims. You can't present that. Your creator is a phantasm, an imaginary thing. Your evidence of NDEs is explained by false memories, which you simply cannot refute. You can only claim it has been refuted. So, you have nothing solid and concrete. Hence, you get nowhere.
As I asked above, what next? Are you going to keep acting like a petulant and immature person, and keep whining forever to us, or are you going to show some maturity and acknowledge you don't have the evidence to convince us, and just fade into the bandwidth? Your choice cricket. Choose wisely.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 29, 2011 8:31 AM
Shiloh (#84):
No, you didn't. And you're still making the same stupid misinformed error as if no-one had ever attempted to correct you (and they have, until they were blue in the face). Depending on how "nothing" is defined, then either (a) we have a reasonable idea of how matter can be produced out of "nothing" (e.g., quantum fluctuations plus inflation), or (b) there is no reason to suppose that the universe arose out of "nothing" in the first place - our universe could just as easily be an ephemeral structure in a larger system that has always existed.
And as long as either of those are live possibilities, there is no necessity to posit a creator at all.
No, you didn't. You simply asserted this, and continued to assert it despite the fact that people explained to you repeatedly and at length that there is ample evidence that this is not true. The work of Victor Stenger and others shows that if one varies multiple parameters at the same time, one still comes up with a sizable minority of universes with the potential to support the complex chemistry required for life. As far as anyone can tell, it looks very much as if there are multiple combinations of universal constants that allow life, and the "close tolerance" you prattle on about simply doesn't exist.
Furthermore, even if it were true that the actual measured values of physical parameters of the universe were extremely unlikely, this tells us nothing about the necessity of any particular explanation. At most, it means that some explanation is necessary - and even this is arguable, since vastly improbable outcomes happen at random all the time. The odds, for example, of dealing a particular sequence of 52 playing cards from a well-shuffled deck is approximately 1 in 8x1067. But only an idiot would claim that a Cosmic Card Dealer is necessary to explain why the cards happened to fall in that particular sequence and no other. Chance alone is a sufficient explanation.
So cosmic "fine-tuning" makes a creator no more likely than any other possibility, and so one must evaluate the idea of a creator as a hypothesis on its own merits. And those merits are slim to non-existent - the idea is vague, it is unparsimonious and raises far more difficulties than it solves, it proposes no mechanisms that would show how the universe was created, and as formulated by you, it is logically flawed. That alone is sufficient grounds for rejecting it as a viable explanation, even before the issue of evidence arises.
So the "fact" that you think your creator is necessary to explain appears not to be a fact at all, and your "hypothesis" in fact explains nothing.
No, you didn't. You ignored every single point that I made. To whit, that unlike your creator, the multiverse hypothesis has explanatory value, it is parsimonious, and it is predicted by cosmological models that enjoy some (if maybe not conclusive) evidential support. Now it may or may not be true, but on logical, epistemological and methodological grounds, the multiverse hypothesis is a viable explanation.
And as long as it remains so, there is again no necessity for a creator.
No, you don't. If you did, you would have made an attempt to learn some, and you would be willing to subject your own ideas to critical examination. What you've demonstrated in these threads is a steadfast refusal to do either.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 30, 2011 9:20 PM
Iain Walker,
"The work of Victor Stenger and others shows that if one varies multiple parameters at the same time, one still comes up with a sizable minority of universes with the potential to support the complex chemistry required for life. "
The above is based on the assumption that there are multiple universe, an assumption that has no evidence what so ever. It is merely speculation.
"we have a reasonable idea of how matter can be produced out of "nothing" (e.g., quantum fluctuations plus inflation)"
This again ignores the point that if there is nothing, how could there exist quantum fluctuations.
"there is no reason to suppose that the universe arose out of "nothing" in the first place - our universe could just as easily be an ephemeral structure in a larger system that has always existed."
Evidence shows that it has been expanding indicating that it began in a "big bang". Many notable physicists claim this.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
August 30, 2011 9:31 PM
Nerd of redhead,
"Which wasn't what I asked you to demonstrate, which was the invisible gold dragon in the garage."
Who the fuck cares? What I am proposing makes more sense and that is that the likelihood of matter coming from nothing and expanding into a universe with extremely close parameters required for life and occurring all by itself is a bit of a stretch. An intelligent being outside of space and time is a more logical answer. BTW, I am still waiting for your proof that matter came from nothing and expanded into the universe with finally tuned parameters required for life of any kind. Either put up or shut up. Time to leave your fantasy world behind and think outside of the science box which cannot help you address this quandary.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 31, 2011 6:28 AM
Shiloh the idjit fuckwit:
An imaginary and unprovable creator makes more sense? There is no way it makes more sense. You have to prove this creator exists, with solid and conclusive physical evidence. All you have is philosophical sophistry, which fails miserably the criteria necessary. Which is solid and conclusive physical evidence. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. And you can't do that, and you admit you can't do that. And you can't shut the fuck either, confirming your dishonesty.What it comes down to Shiloh, is that you are adamant we must accept your delusional and faulty thinking. We won't do that. Your opinion, your sophistry, your dishonesty, and your failure to provide the necessary evidence is obvious to most casual observers. All you have is persistence. You have nothing to offer use that isn't refuted by parsimony.
For example, you need your imaginary creator, which came from nothing, to create the universe. How did your creator come about? Until you explain and demonstrate this, you have nothing. Otherwise, science just skips the step of the creation of your imaginary creator. Still the loser hand Shiloh. What next? Continuning lies and bullshit?
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 31, 2011 8:45 AM
Shiloh (#90):
Bollocks. It makes no such assumption whatsoever. All it assumes is that there is a range of possible values for the various universal constants, and that these can vary independently - which is exactly the assumption that your "fine-tuning" argument makes.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Don't you ever read for comprehension? That was why I specifically said - depending on how "nothing" is defined. Physical nothingness (basically a uniform vacuum) is unstable, and tends to give rise to more stable structures (e.g., universes). This is not the same as nothingness in the sense of a complete and utter absence of anything (assuming that such an idea is coherent to begin with).
I know that, you blithering imbecile. Which is entirely consistent with our universe being a transient, ephemeral structure in a larger system. I.e., that the Big Bang is a local phenemenon in a larger framework which never had to arise out of "nothing" (in any sense of the term), because it has always existed in some form or other.
How many times do we have to explain these things to you? Jesus fucking Christ.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 31, 2011 9:06 AM
Let me catalog your inane arguments and results for you Shiloh:
Creator-special pleading without solid and conclusive evidence, and misuse of what is meant by nothingness. Your imaginary creator is a unneeded phantasm, not logically needed except by those who delusionally presuppose one.
Physical constants-special pleading, god of the gaps, and ignores the evidence that other combinations of the physical constants can also give rise to life. No evidence for the need of your imaginary creator for them to be set where they are, just your delusional desire that it is the case. Wait 20 years and the string theorists will be able to calculate these constants.
NDE-ignores the idea that these memories are tricks the mind plays during the shut down/start-up process to interpret what is happening. No case for a soul, unless one is a delusional fool and wants there to be a soul, essentially a presuppositionalist position. Absolutely no conclusive physical evidence for a soul.
Essentially, your whole argument is "I believe do to me being a presuppositionalist, and I am not validated unless you believe too." Which is the problem with such inane godbot arguments. You fail to understand the gnu atheist have a need, not for arguments, but for real and conclusive physical evidence. Which you never provided.
So, you have strived mightily and failed to convince even one gnu atheist you have anything to support your imaginary creator. What next? Can you really just fade into the bandwidth like a person of honor and integrity would do?
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
August 31, 2011 9:13 AM
Shiloh (#91):
Find yourself another strawman, Shiloh. You've been beating this one to death for months now, and we're bored with trying to correct your errors and misunderstandings. Come up with some other ignorant, misinformed fantasy to argue against. Or alternatively, learn some science.
Sorry, but you don't even get to use the word "logical" when you've shown that you have no grasp of logic whatsoever. It's been pointed out to you multiple times why "an intelligent being outside of space and time" is self-contradictory, and yet you have never addressed this issue. Instead, you just repeat the same discredited claims over and over. You may not think of yourself as a creationist, but you sure as hell argue like one.
Why do you even bother coming here? You're obviously not interested in dialogue, since you won't even try and understand anyone's counter-arguments, let alone address them. You're not interested in learning any science or philosophy, since you refuse to do that either. It seems to me that the only thing you're interested in is validation, validation for your muddled, uninformed ideas. In which case, you're looking in the wrong place, and you'd really be a lot happier if you went elsewhere. Playgroup, perhaps?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 4, 2011 11:55 PM
Iain Walker,
""The work of Victor Stenger and others shows that if one varies multiple parameters at the same time, one still comes up with a sizable minority of universes with the potential to support the complex chemistry required for life. "
In your last comment you indicate that Victor Stenger wasn't suggesting multiple universes. So, if not, then what do you mean by saying that if one varies multiple parameters at the same time, one will still comes up with a sizable minority of UNIVERSES? Sounds to me like you are talking through both sides of your mouth. On one side you indicate multiple universes and on the other side you say you didn't say that. I say that you did and I will repeat my last response. There is not one shred of evidence of the existence of multiple universes. The only evidence we have is this universe which if it had not had several finally tuned parameters, no life of any kind could have come about. The odds of this occurring by chance are pretty much nil.
Also, a number of well respected physicists, like Hawking have stated that matter came from nothing and expanded into the big bang. Again, I will repeat that this is no more believable, and actually appears to be less believable that this came about all by itself with no intellect behind it. Therefore, considering a creator is not off base.
Also, Nerd of Redhead, I stated that this creator has always existed. You can call it imaginary, but again I will state that you have no proof of natural means of the universe coming about either. So your belief is also based on speculation. I keep asking for your proof, and all you can come back with is that I have no proof, which I have already stated is true. Again, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? As long as you cannot present me with proof, you have no room to state that my suggestion of a creator is imaginary.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 5, 2011 4:19 AM
Agnostic atheism.
We don't know with absolute certainty, but because there is no reason to believe a creator exists, we think the probability that one exists is negligible.
Russell's teapot.
Ockham's fucking razor, the bigger part of the scientific fucking method.
No evidence, no belief.
You can't.
You can't prove shit outside of mathematics and formal logic. And even in those disciplines you have to assume that, say, Loki isn't messing with everyone's heads to make us overlook flaws in proofs.
You make a claim, you explain why your claim is a more parsimonious explanation of the evidence than all alternatives. That's how it works. That's all anyone can do.
Living in the water provided Pakicetus with FOOD and FREEDOM FROM COMPETITION.
Yes, I am shouting. I think even you aren't too stupid to understand how food and freedom from competition can lead to increased success in reproduction.
How would perception of AM lead to such success?
Of course. Adenine in particular is just five times hydrocyanic acid, and two nucleobases (not ones that happen to occur in RNA or DNA on Earth, but chemically very similar ones) were recently found in a meteorite.
Next question?
It's not.
Reading comprehension: ur doin it rong.
When you vary only one parameter at a time, almost all possible universes are uninhabitable for anything similar to Life As We Know It. That's the "fine-tuning argument".
When Stenger varied two parameters at once in his computer simulations, 21 % of the possible universes were inhabitable.
None of this requires that more than one possible universe actually exists. It was quite stupid of you to think otherwise.
I just facepalmed in meatspace, so hard that it hurts.
Shiloh, if you cannot read, you cannot argue on the Internet. Why isn't that obvious?
Is it easier for you to talk to people in person than to read? If so, why don't you visit about 20 of us in Rhinebeck, NY, from Oct. 14 to 16?
When physicists say "nothing", they mean a complete quantum vacuum, complete with virtual particles appearing and disappearing. Apparently that's not what you mean by "nothing".
Yet one more utterly unparsimonious claim for which you give no evidence whatsoever!
You keep trying to save your unparsimonious claims by making up more and more unparsimonious claims. It's exactly like Sagan's parable of the imperceptible dragon in his garage. It's pitiful.
Science, philosophy, everything: ur doin it rong.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 5, 2011 6:09 AM
Can't have always existed, if we started with nothingness, and you know it. Just inane and illogical sophistry to avoid having to deal with your critical error in reasoning. If it doesn't interact with matter, it can't form the universe. If does interact with matter, prove it exists. I'm waiting for your evidence, which is not your presuppositional reasoning, but solid and conclusive physical evidence. There is no need for your imaginary creator except to satisfy your presuppositional need for one. There is no logical or scientific reason for one. A totally bogus and unparsimonious concept, as we have explained to you time and time again. It's almost like you can't comprehend what you read.Posted by: Iain Walker
|
September 5, 2011 8:13 AM
Shiloh (#96):
Possible universes, you moron. Are you really completely incapable of grasping the idea of quantifying over a range of possible states of affairs?
If I want to determine the probability of a particular X having a particular value of property P, then I quantify over a range of possible Xs to see which proportion of them are going to have that value of P. In doing so, at no stage do I need to assume that those possible Xs are real.
Jesus fucking Christ.
And the work of Stenger and other physicists contradicts this. So you can repeat this inane mantra as often as you like, but that still won't make it true.
I.e., physical nothingness or a quantum vacuum, as I have already described. How many times do I have to point out that the term "nothing" is ambiguous? The way you are using it and the way physicists like Hawking are using it are different senses of the term, and it is really very stupid or very dishonest of you to keep equivocating between the two - especially when the distinction has already been explained to you.
"Appears" to whom? What actual objective metric are you using to determine the relative "believability" of competing hypotheses? Really, this is just the same old argument from incredulity (plus the same old refusal to engage with the numerous problems with the notion of a creator) that you spout in every single post. You really are impossible to have an intelligent conversation with.
Which contradicts your assertion that the creator exists "outside" space and time. Something can't exist "outside" time and have always existed, because only something that exists within time can be said to have always existed. "Always" means "for an unending period of time".
Don't you ever think about what you're saying before you post? Or do you just simply not know what ordinary English words mean? Is English not your native language?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2011 6:16 PM
Scientific explanation for NDE. No need for imaginary souls or creators, ever!.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 11:48 AM
Nerd of Redhead,
Thank you. Interesting article.
I would still question why so many people meet dead relatives and have been told they must return and then wake up back in their bodies. I would also like science to explain how this phenomenon occurs when the heart has shut down and brain activity ceases, and in some cases, the patient is also under anesthesia. Maybe you are right that this occurs after the heart starts again and the anesthesia wears off. My father-in-law, after his heart attack, called his wife and told her to come get him because the hospital was about to do something terrible to him. Doctors later explained to him that this phenomenon frequently occurs in heart attack patience, and they wish they could find a way to prevent it. Still, how do you explain the cases where the person expresses surprise that they met up with a sister or brother who they thought was alive only to find out afterwards that this person had died suddenly while the individual was in the hospital or on the operating table? Also, after your heart starts again, how do you have vivid hallucinations when your brain has got to be fogged up at the least?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 15, 2011 11:57 AM
Read the article repeatedly until you finally understand it. Your answers are there. Your musings on your inabiltiy to properly ponder the scientific findings is not our problem.If there is a soul, provide solid and conclusive physical evidence for one. And the evidence from NDE's must be excluded, since science has spoken, and found it is not a soul. Grab that soul you presuppose exists, weigh it, measure other properties, or it doesn't exist. That is your problem. You like phantasms, not reality.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 1:51 PM
Nerd of Redhead
First site referred to said the following:
http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-0025114649&origin=inward
"The claim of enhancement of cognitive functions despite the likelihood that brain function had probably become disturbed and possibly diminished, deserves further investigation."
This is exactly what I have been saying. So long as science does not show how someone can have vivid Near Death Experiences while the brain is shut down, this still leaves open the possibility that these experiences may be due due to the consciousness being separate from the body.
"Grab that soul you presuppose exists, weigh it, measure other properties, or it doesn't exist. That is your problem. You like phantasms, not reality."
It might be my problem, but it is also the problem for those who claim that there is a natural physical explanation for NDEs. When a person is close to death, they can put them in a plastic bag and weigh them, then, since they are going to die anyway, just kidding, they can seal up the bag and then weigh them again as soon as they are dead to see if they are any lighter due to the soul leaving the body. Such a lovely thought. Any volunteers out there?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 15, 2011 2:22 PM
Also left open is the possibility that a teapot with an albedo of exactly zero orbits in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
Which has the greater a priori likelihood, that a soul exists (the mere existence of which automatically violates several well established laws of physics, chemistry, and biology), or that the supposedly shut brain isn't actually shut down, but only that our present technical capability (which we know is still comparatively crude, primitive, and insensitive compared with the physical intricacy of the human brain) isn't able to measure the activity?
Remember that even if you find some experimental evidence that could suggest the presence of a soul, the fact that the mere existence of a soul violates several very well supported natural laws means that unless you can provide a new theoretical framework that can both explain the soul AND everything those well supported natural laws also explain equally well, the most parsimonious interpretation of your experimental result remains experimental error or chance event.
Actually, I'm pretty sure this and other similar experiments have already been attempted back in the 1800s, with consistently negative results with respect to soul existence. There was significant interest in life-death research around the time of the French Revolution and beyond, and lots of attempts were made to figure out what things happened at the moment of death.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 2:30 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
Some statements in the article come across as not being conclusive. For instance, "A variety of explanations MIGHT also account for reports by those dying of meeting the diseased." "And when it comes to the common experience of reliving moments from one's life, one culprit MIGHT be the locus coeruleus."
By using the word MIGHT, it is obvious that these are more speculations than factual conclusions.
Here's more:
"Finally, one of the most famous aspects of near-death hallucinations is moving through a tunnel toward a bright light. Although the specific causes of this part of near-death experiences remain unclear, tunnel vision can occur when blood and oxygen flow is depleted to the eye, as can happen with extreme fear and oxygen loss that are both common to dying."
This explanation might explain the tunnel vision, but it doesn't explain the movement through the tunnel and the coming out into some sort of beautiful garden setting with extremely vivid colors unlike what the NDEr has seen while alive and then either meeting up with some sort of being of light which emanates a powerful feeling of love and peace.
The author states that there are different customs all over the world as to how people view death, but the author failed to research the fact that, in spite of these differences in customs, they all have experienced very similar Near-Death-Experiences.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 2:48 PM
Amphiox
"Which has the greater a priori likelihood, that a soul exists (the mere existence of which automatically violates several well established laws of physics, chemistry, and biology), or that the supposedly shut brain isn't actually shut down, but only that our present technical capability (which we know is still comparatively crude, primitive, and insensitive compared with the physical intricacy of the human brain) isn't able to measure the activity?"
I would be inclined to go with the fact that brain is not completely shut down, but for the fact that people have come back with stories of seeing dead relatives and some are completely taken back because they also saw their sister or brother who they had just talked to before their heart attack and the person was in great health. Only to find out later that they had just died suddenly in an auto accident. Also, even if the brain is not completely shut down, doesn't it stand to reason that what ever hallucination, if such, is experienced, would be hazy at best and not extremely vivid like talking to a dead relative as though you were completely awake?
"Actually, I'm pretty sure this and other similar experiments have already been attempted back in the 1800s, with consistently negative results with respect to soul existence."
I believe the Egyptians did some sort of Near death experiments. As far as the experiments in the 1800s, I'm not familiar with them, but if they were trying to find weight differences before and after death in an attempt to prove or disprove a soul, it may have failed because their instruments were too crude.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 15, 2011 2:50 PM
Shiloh, you moron, why are you pretending we haven't had this conversation before? Why are you pretending your inane questions have not been answered many times on this blog by many different people who you simply ignored?
You know, it didn't take me long to find this comment by Kel, or this one by Forbidden Snowflake, or this one by nigelTheBold, or many others you'll see if you follow the links and scroll up and down. Please go read them, because you evidently forgot to do it last time around.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 4:31 PM
Amphiox,
From one of the websites referenced in your article"
"Admittedly, neither of these illusions precisely match the classic example of the out-of-body experiences reported by patients near death who say they floated out of their bodies but were able to continue observing scenes from above or elsewhere in the room."
So, it has been proved that the mind can be tricked, but still not conclusive if that is the case with Near Death out of body experiences when the brain shuts down due to a heart attack.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 15, 2011 4:57 PM
Only in your delusion and unrational mind. It is all explained. You don't want to see it, ergo you don't. Just like Txpiper doesn't want see that random mutation/natural selection effectively describes evolution, and fully explains it. Why the brain shuts down is irrelevant. The fact that it does is what is important.But then, you won't allow your presuppositions of an imaginary creator and and imaginary soul to be totally refuted, giving you no hope of using that inane argument again, or having to readjust your world view. That makes you scared and irrational. I see the flailing around of a loser. You lost this argument, now fade into the bandwidth.
NDE is all the brain setting in false memories, nothing else. Understand that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 15, 2011 5:35 PM
Shiloh,
After NDE, which one of your arguments is up next? Is it the Weak Anthropic Principle or is it "nothing comes from nothing"? I've misplaced my copy of the Shiloh checklist and I'm too lazy to look at previous threads.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 15, 2011 6:06 PM
Quick question: do you also think that the effects of psychedelic drugs require a supernatural explanation?
How similar? Anything concrete showing statistical significance? And why is similarity in brain physiology not enough to account for that?
Why? I don't think this is as self-evident as you seem to think.
Even false memories can seem quite vivid and real when you remember them. And false memories are things that never happened, not even as hallucinations. It's your brain filling in the gaps afterwards. Recall Ing's experience, for example.
...
Oh, but why the hell am I bothering. It's like debating a parrot, only less intellectually challenging.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 15, 2011 6:37 PM
You forgot "science cannot disprove the supernatural, a concept I refuse to define coherently, so there nyah!" That may well be the next one.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 15, 2011 7:07 PM
Unless Shiloh can put up conclusive physical evidence for his arguments, which he hasn't done to date with any of his claims (they must be accepted on faith--har!), he should just shut the fuck up. But then, that requires knowing you are in over your head, and knowing the first rule of holes...Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 15, 2011 7:13 PM
No it doesn't. It isn't known how much brain activity, or where, is necessary to produce a vivid memory. Or even when, seeing as our subjective sense of time itself is produced after the fact. Which is to say that the memory of the NDE could easily have been generated at a different time then the actual physical near death episode, both before or after, and then stitched into that subjective timeframe after the fact.
First you have to demonstrate that the brain actually "shut down" due to the heart attack, which you can't, before you can even bring up the suggestion of the hint or the idea of the concept of an NDE.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 15, 2011 7:22 PM
Awareness under anesthesia is a known phenomenon.
Hell, some anesthetics are known to produce vivid dreams.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 8:56 PM
Amphiox,
"First you have to demonstrate that the brain actually "shut down" due to the heart attack, which you can't"
I thought that brain "shut down" was demonstrated by instruments that indicated brain "flat-lined".
"Awareness under anesthesia is a known phenomenon.
Hell, some anesthetics are known to produce vivid dreams."
Ok, that I wasn't aware of. How about general anesthesia? I know that when I have come out of general anesthesia I have absolutely no memory of anything other than having it flowing into me. However, we are talking here about a flat lined brain from a stopped heart plus the anesthesia, a double whammy. It just doesn't make sense how you can have vivid hallucinations under such circumstances.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 9:14 PM
Amphiox,
"It isn't known how much brain activity, or where, is necessary to produce a vivid memory. Or even when, seeing as our subjective sense of time itself is produced after the fact. Which is to say that the memory of the NDE could easily have been generated at a different time then the actual physical near death episode, both before or after, and then stitched into that subjective timeframe after the fact."
Which makes me think that until these things are definitely known, we cannot not necessarily state whether or not NDEs are due to some sort of natural explanation or due to the consciousness being separate from our physical bodies. I realize that most here will refuse to consider the latter, and that is understandable.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 15, 2011 9:27 PM
Night Jar,
"Quick question: do you also think that the effects of psychedelic drugs require a supernatural explanation?"
No, but then the effects of psychedelic drugs don't consistently send you down a dark tunnel, as though you are going from one dimension to another, and ending up in a different more beautiful area where you meet up with relatives that have died. The clincher is those who are surprised to see someone there they had just talked to before their heart attack and who was in excellent health only to find that they had died suddenly.
"How similar? Anything concrete showing statistical significance? And why is similarity in brain physiology not enough to account for that?"
Out of body experiences. Seeing dead relatives. Meeting up with a warm loving being of light. There is more, but I will have to go look at the book that did much research in this area. You would think that they would be all more unique than similar.
"Why? I don't think this is as self-evident as you seem to think.
Even false memories can seem quite vivid and real when you remember them. And false memories are things that never happened, not even as hallucinations. It's your brain filling in the gaps afterwards. Recall Ing's experience, for example."
You may be onto something there. But, if this is true, why are all the NDEs very similar? You'd think they would mostly be all unique.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 15, 2011 10:46 PM
The brain shuts down and starts back up in typical pattern. The similar memories (people and faces) are stored in similar places, and memory processed in similar places. If the resulting memories weren't similar, I would be surprised. DUH.Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 16, 2011 5:52 AM
Oh great. Maybe in a few hundred comments or so you'll start spelling my 'nym correctly, but until then you're Shi Loh as far as I'm concerned.
So, Shi Loh:
Yes, I'm not saying a psychedelic trip and a NDE experience are similar or that the processes involved are the same. But note that at least three things in the paragraph I quoted are not at all rare in psychedelic trips:
- "vivid colors unlike what the NDEr has seen while alive"
- "meeting up with some sort of being of light"
- "a powerful feeling of love and peace"
So we know that at least these three characteristics of a typical NDE (according to you, anyway) are not that impressive and don't require a supernatural explanation. It could well be that ChemicalsInTheBrainDidIt, as I told you last time around. And as I also told you, that's the most parsimonious explanation until you a) come up with a coherent and precise definition of "soul"/"supernatural" and b) show evidence that it exists and is the best explanation for NDEs. Until then you don't even have a hypothesis, let alone a convincing one.
*sigh* You don't follow links, do you?
Anyway. Selection bias. Confirmation bias. Reporting bias. Improbable things (playing and winning the lottery) happen all the time as long as the more probable alternative (playing and not winning) happens with even more frequency. You have to deal with these objections by showing us the data and its statistical significance. You have to establish that those cases aren't coincidences amplified by the biases I mentioned.
Stop pretending no one has challenged that particular argument, Shi Loh, because it's simply not true.
Speaking in front of audiences while naked. Teeth falling off. Being chased. Falling but never hitting the ground. Clearly there's something supernatural to dreams!
Yeah, I'm not impressed. You quoted but didn't answer my questions.
Why? Why not both? Dreams can be unique, but there are recurring, universal themes too. Are you sure the same doesn't happen with, say, anaesthesia induced hallucinations or near-death hallucinations? How do you know that the apparent similarity is not mainly an artifact of things like reporting bias? Aren't people more likely to report their oh-my-god-I'm-going-to-heaven type of hallucinations than other types, like Ing's? I would think so.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 16, 2011 6:01 AM
Fixed.
Of course it's understandable. We're being reasonable, not gullible.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 16, 2011 7:37 AM
Of course, when the heart shuts down, brain activity doesn't cease immediately. Death isn't magic. Every cell suffocates or starves on its own, one by one, and that takes some time to even begin.
Coincidence.
Remember, maybe 15 years ago, my brother once woke up crying, saying mom had died. She's in very good health. People dream all manner of things about their loved ones all the time – most of those dreams are obviously false, so nobody records them.
When else would you have hallucinations??? :-D
That's also how we know that severed heads take up to several minutes to die. Death isn't magic. Every cell suffocates or dehydrates on its own.
You're just having a culture shock. Scientists are very cautious about marking hypotheses, even strongly supported hypotheses, as such in writing. Where other people would say "proves", scientists use "suggests" or at most "strongly suggests".
Scientists are a strange tribe with strange customs. Trust me about this, I'm one of them.
The movement is an interpretation of the fact that
the light gets brighterthe sensation of light gets stronger as more and more cells in the retina run out of oxygen.The colors are because we have cones and not just rods in our retinas.
The powerful feeling of love and peace is caused by the sensation of light. It's the opposite of winter depression. I love looking straight into the sun (with closed eyes, of course – my eyelids are transparent enough to let the red-to-yellow part of the spectrum through); it brightens my mood. (Look what I did there.) Incidentally, sugar has the same effect as light. It, too, leads to the destruction of melatonin and production of serotonin.
The garden, which is not a universal feature of NDEs, is an interpretation of the colors and the love & peace.
Meeting loved ones is also an interpretation of love. After all, we aren't used to feeling love without feeling love to someone.
It's because they're caused by our biology, and biologically humans – indeed, vertebrates, as far as eye physiology is concerned – are pretty much all the same.
Why???
The dreams I have when I'm sound asleep are much more vivid than the daydreams I have when I'm almost asleep.
I want to grab you by your shoulders and shake you.
If the soul has mass, it is not immaterial, not made of ghost/god stuff, and therefore does not provide the slightest evidence for gods or anything else supernatural. If the soul has mass, it's a gas at best. If the soul is magic, how could it have mass?
Hi, Mr. of Ockham! This is Shiloh. He'd like to try your razor.
Come on, Brother William. He'd only like to borrow it for a minute. Pleeeeease...
Oh dear. You have already forgotten comment 104 and have gone back to overestimating the instruments.
You confuse "it makes sense" with "I personally can imagine it".
In science, that's a cardinal sin.
Razor.
Psychedelic drugs don't consistently rob you of oxygen.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 16, 2011 9:11 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
"The brain shuts down and starts back up in typical pattern. The similar memories (people and faces) are stored in similar places, and memory processed in similar places. If the resulting memories weren't similar, I would be surprised"
I understand what you are saying, but there is more than seeing faces involved in a NDE. First there is the leaving the body and seeing doctors working frantically on you trying to revive you. There is even description of some sort of instrument that the patient would have to be conscious to see. Then there are the movement through a dark tunnel and then seeing either a being of light which exudes extreme warmth and love and/or seeing dead relatives who talk to them and in some cases state that it isn't their time, so they must not cross some sort of barrier and must return to their bodies. Also, there is seeing someone who was thought to be alive but later the NDEr finds that they had just died suddenly.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 16, 2011 9:39 PM
Night jar,
"note that at least three things in the paragraph I quoted are not at all rare in psychedelic trips:
- "vivid colors unlike what the NDEr has seen while alive"
- "meeting up with some sort of being of light"
- "a powerful feeling of love and peace""
Yes, psychedelic drugs like LSD produce vivid colors, but most users report that their first few tricks are like a ride through the funhouse. Everything seems bizarre and completely unlike normal reality. That certainly does not, as you indicated, match what happens during a NDE. Now, perhaps there is some strange occurrence in the brain that occurs when it restarts. If you want to stay focused on science and away from something nonmaterial like an explanation that the consciousness is separate from the brain, I can readily buy that. Still, it is not necessarily factual.
LSD does produce an ecstatic feeling of love and happiness. My source article goes on to say that occasionally, with large does of LSD, one will encounter what is known as the "Clear Light" or "white light". This is perceived as a supernaturally brilliant and blazing pure light which radiates from within. The feeling which accompanies being in the presence of the Clear Light is almost always described as divine bliss.
So, you might be onto something, but is the restarting of the heart similar to a jolt of LSD?
The author of DMT, The Spirit Molecule describes trips where trippers see all sort of beings and feels that these are real beings and that these people are leaving their bodies. He even goes onto state that one organ in our body produces this chemical. However, when I see such description by a tripper that he just had sex with a grasshopper, alarm bells go off. Sounds more like hallucinating to me.
You take exception to my mentioning people coming back and stating that they were surprised to see so and so because they just recently spoke to that person who was very much alive only to find that that person has just died. Coincidence? Perhaps, but when you have several, and no cases of these people turning out to be still alive, it does give one pause. I do admit that another explanation is that the stories are contrived. Still, authors of books I have read have done investigative research in which they quizzed witnesses who confirmed these statements.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 16, 2011 10:09 PM
David Marjanovic,
"When else would you have hallucinations??? "
I would think that vivid hallucinations of being outside your body and meeting up with dead relatives so vivid like you were actually there talking to them would not occur when your brain is in a fog. Also, can the meeting up with a relative you thought was still alive but later is confirmed as suddenly have died, be considered a hallucination?
"the sensation of light gets stronger as more and more cells in the retina run out of oxygen.The powerful feeling of love and peace is caused by the sensation of light. It's the opposite of winter depression.
The garden, which is not a universal feature of NDEs, is an interpretation of the colors and the love & peace.
Meeting loved ones is also an interpretation of love. After all, we aren't used to feeling love without feeling love to someone."
Interesting. I didn't know that about light getting stronger as the retina run out oxygen. The other seems more like metaphors and not so certain that would explain the occurrences.
"It's because they're caused by our biology, and biologically humans – indeed, vertebrates, as far as eye physiology is concerned – are pretty much all the same."
Ok, that could be the answer or,if there is other than a natural explanation, then it could be because these experiences are the real McCoy. But I was asking for a natural explanation, so I find you comment plausible.
"The dreams I have when I'm sound asleep are much more vivid than the daydreams I have when I'm almost asleep."
Yeah, but is the brain partially shut down when you are dreaming sound asleep? I would think this is not the case like when the heart stops and the brain flat lines.
"If the soul has mass, it is not immaterial"
Agreed. What I was trying to say is that it may be extremely light and since the instruments during the 1800s were crude, they may not been able to detect the difference.
"Psychedelic drugs don't consistently rob you of oxygen."
But don't you see? Scientific experiments have already been performed and these studies show that as the brain becomes anoxic, it ceases to function. As the oxygen supply is reduced, the person becomes progressively more disoriented and confused. This is in sharp contrast to the clarity of thought and perception described over and over again in the reports of near-death experiencers. I got this from Chris Carter's book, Science and the Near-Death Experience How consciousness survives death.
Posted by: Athyco
|
September 16, 2011 11:09 PM
Aaaarrrrrrrgh, Shiloh! How you can read these from Nightjar:
This from David Marjanović:
And then, less than four hours later, write this:
Forget the proof of the soul for a moment. Where's the proof that you or your "investigative research" authors have found no cases have these people turning out to be still alive? I have one that seems not to have been reported. My uncle's NDE in 2002 included seeing his wife telling him he had to return. They're both still alive. But you know what I've found about hearing his NDE story over the years since then? He's changed "wife" to "mother," a woman who was dead before his event, and he feels indignant if you try to tell him it was "wife" in the first few accounts. We original witnesses go along with him now to avoid a heated argument.
Will you please, please, please read carefully about bias before you post again?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 17, 2011 12:31 AM
holy crap!
Shiloh is STILL here?
either that's one determined troll, or one horribly demented human being.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 17, 2011 6:06 AM
Funny how they never seem to see anything that is not visible from the table. That is hard evidence refuting your fuckwittery and presupposition. Ergo, you still lose, as you have nothing cogent to present.You wish to believe, but can't show the solid and conclusive evidence to convince anybody who is even slightly skeptical. Still playing the loser hand, and you will continue to do so until you understand what is and isn't evidence. All you have is the mind trying to integrate various pieces of memory into a narrative like anyone dreaming. You haven't flown or soared in dreams? I have, and I wasn't having an NDE.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 17, 2011 6:23 AM
The boy just can't stay away. Unfortunately, he's recycling the same arguments he's been using from previous visits at Pharyngula. Stephen Hawking and the Weak Anthropic Principle should be making appearances soon.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 17, 2011 7:43 AM
Better but still wrong.
Shi loh,
Indeed, it is not necessarily factual. It could well be the case that tiny and invisible pink unicorns floating in the aether enter your brain when you're about to die or under anaesthesia and sabotage the movie your homunculus was watching, making you "hallucinate". Ha, bet you hadn't thought of that possibility!
*eyeroll*
Well, very generally speaking, what LSD does is activate and stimulate your serotonergic, dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems in, er, unusual ways. One would expect high levels of dopamine and noradrenaline in situations of stress and trauma, and some anaesthetics do increase serotonin levels in the brain. The locus cœruleus, mentioned in the article you quoted in #105, is known to be involved in LSD trips as well.
But no, I wouldn't say NDEs and LSD trips are very similar. I guess there may be some similarities, but different factors are certainly involved in each experience. For one thing, and as David said, psychedelic drugs don't rob you of oxygen.
Again, I'm not saying that the mechanisms involved in psychedelic trips are the same as in NDEs, or enough to account for them. I'm saying that the former show that there doesn't have to be something supernatural about the latter. If chemistry can be blamed in one case, I don't see why it can't be blamed in the other. It only seems logical to me.
I don't get it. So, seeing a bright light that isn't there and interacting with beings that only the tripper can see does not sound like hallucinating to you? But fucking a grasshopper (that is, interacting with a being that only the tripper can see) does? Why?
You seem to have a very strange definition of "hallucination".
No cases? How do you know? How can you be sure?
Also, what Athyco said.
***
Wait... Are you saying that the soul may be material?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 17, 2011 7:49 AM
Look, I'm glad you can now spell Nerd of Redhead, but... could you please continue your learning spree?
Maybe this will help. Nightjars aren't cookie jars, you know.
Why the fuck? Why?
Of fucking course. That it happens to agree with reality in one point, or indeed all points, doesn't mean it's not a hallucination. That you imagine stuff, and your imagination happens to mimic reality, doesn't mean your imagination is actually perception. It's still imagination.
Now I get angry.
You did, liar. We've been telling this to you so many times, perhaps 20, that it's simply not possible you managed not to read every single instance of that.
Liar.
We always interpret what we perceive or imagine to perceive. The garden that occurs in some NDEs is such an interpretation; that's what I'm saying.
Sure; but we don't need to assume that, because we already have a perfectly simple explanation that doesn't require any such extra assumptions. That is my point. Once we have a natural explanation, we don't need an imaginary one anymore.
Duh? Isn't that the definition of "asleep"? Perception is mostly turned off, consciousness is partly turned off, voluntary movement is completely turned off...
If the soul is a gas, what element(s) does it consist of?
That takes a while.
Sounds like dreaming to me.
No, why? What are your dreams like? Clarity of thought and perception occurs even in the most chaotic dreams. On rare occasions, I've done simple math and spoken several languages in my notoriously chaotic, disconnected, illogical dreams.
I think he didn't read them before he wrote his comment. I think he sees something, immediately replies to it, and then, if ever, goes on to read the rest of the thread.
Interesting...
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
September 17, 2011 7:55 AM
'Tis Himself (#129):
Oh, we did those already in this thread. Not that that's likely to stop him ...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 17, 2011 8:54 AM
I think Shiloh really has trouble with the Null Hypothesis. Scientists and skeptics use the null hypothesis, where there isn't any real evidence one way or the other, to say non-existence of [soul, creator, deity, bigfoot, fairies, etc] is the starting point. So conclusive positive evidence is needed for the thing to be moved from non-existence to existence. It also keeps the burden of proof where it belongs, on those making the claims. Shiloh seems to say if it its existence can't be totally ruled out, one should be "agnostic". Which is weaseling out of making a decision.
The main problem with Shiloh's approach is that he can be easily swayed by anything that appears to be evidence, but only evidence that supports his presuppositions (evidence not supporting his presuppositions is ignored), as it allows him to make the decision he unconsciously desires. His alleged evidence keeps falling apart on him when examined skeptically/scientifically as it isn't conclusive, and usually not even that suggestive except to someone who really wants to believe in his conclusion. We seem to him to be closed minded when we don't swallow his faux evidence.
Whereas the skeptic/scientist requires concrete and conclusive evidence, and knows the level of evidence required. Evidence which Shiloh admits he doesn't have. I find "agnosticism" to be continuous dithering, a way not to make a decision, and prefer a way out of that headache by using the null hypothesis. As I tell those dithering, "make a decision and live with the consequences, but make that decision". Using the null hypothesis sets the stage for those making claims to have to supply the proper kind and level of evidence.
And Shiloh, we are still waiting for that concrete and conclusive evidence. Don't post again until you have it. Which should be a few years down the road.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 17, 2011 6:00 PM
I realized I had left out Shiloh's other problem. His idea that negatives can be proven. Here's why he fails with that argument from Goosing the Antithesis:
All his concepts are vague and designed not to able to challenged. Hence his creator outside of time and space. They are mental masturbation, explaining nothing, but satisfying his need for his presuppositions to be confirmed. Same for his soul. Nothing solid in his definitions to hang something falsifiable on. These are all deceptive mind games proving Shiloh is not a thinker or rational when it comes to his presuppositions. If he has to cheat, he will do so proving his lack of honesty, integrity, and character...Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 20, 2011 9:36 PM
Some here argue that the lucid NDE experiences are merely hallucinations and may even be induced by the anesthesia, though, often there is no anesthesia involved. Here something to contemplate from the book Science and the Near Death Experience. "With regard to hallucinations as an explanation of the NDE--whether caused by anoxia, temporal lobe seizures, or drugs--psychiatrists Bruce Greyson, editor of Journal of Near-Death Studies, notes, "Without exception, every report of a large study of NDEs published in a main-stream medical journal has concluded that these phenomena cannot be explained as hallucinations. Such unanimity among scientific researchers is unusual and should tell us something. Why is it that scientists who have done the most near-death research believe the mind is not exclusively housed in the brain, whereas those who regard NDEs as hallucinations by and large have not conducted any studies of the phenomena at all? Most near-death researchers did not go into their investigations with belief in mind-body separation, but came to that hypothesis based on what their research found. In fact, one researcher, Michael Sabom, entered the field of NDE research specifically to debunk reports of the NDE.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 20, 2011 9:42 PM
THAT ISN'T SOLID PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR IMAGINARY SOUL FUCKWIT. TRY AGAIN, WITH REAL EVIDENCE. SOLID AND PHYSICAL.Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 20, 2011 10:11 PM
More from Chris Carter's book, Science and the Near-Death Experience.
"Any physician dealing with head injury, epilepsy, or altered cerebral physiology knows that as cerebral function becomes compromised it becomes disorganized. Even in such simple circumstances as ordinary fainting, recovery from the faint is recovery from a confusional process. Acute cerebral catastrophes result in confusion and not clarity. This important fact is overlooked by those attributing simple chemical explanations to the NDE. Although ketamine may produce experiences that are similar to the NDE, it does not explain how these same experiences can arise in a dysfunctional brain. The only way around this dilemma is to argue (and this has been argued here) that the experience arises as consciousness is being lost or recovered. But memory is very sensitive to any sort of insult or injury to the brain, and events immediately preceding and following a period of unconsciousness are rarely remembered. In fact, it is well known that the length of the period of amnesia before and after unconsciousness is a way of determining the severity of the injury. Recovery after unconsciousness is marked by confusion, and so it seems highly unlikely that any thoughts or perceptions from this period would be remembered with the crystal clarity typical of the NDE."
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 20, 2011 10:29 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
"THAT ISN'T SOLID PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR IMAGINARY SOUL "
You picked out one part out of context. And then you go away thinking you have rebutted my answer. Guess again.
No matter how much you want to delude yourself into thinking that your answer is the only one, you are, as usual, wrong because your arguments have been successfully rebutted. And don't come back and say they aren't because ignoring the facts wont make your argument so.
Whether or not you would like to think that your argument is conclusive, it's not. Why is it, you are so hung up on scientific materialistic reasoning that you tend to ignore the obvious. And that is that there may just be something to the NDEs indicating that consciousness is separate from the brain. But that would mean that you would have to remove your scientific materialistic tunnel vision. Sorry Bunky, but your wishful thinking that science can materialistically explain everything is simply wishful thinking. And your constant mantra that the possibility of a god is fantasy, just doesn't make it so. BTW, I know you won't do it, but you should read Chris Carter's book, Science and the Near-Death Experience. Since you won't, my only question is What are you afraid of? The real problem is that you wouldn't get anything from it because you would be reading it with a preconceived belief, and thus a CLOSED MIND. Sad!!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 21, 2011 1:15 AM
Shiloh, your shtick is old and worn.
I'd blow raspberries, if there was a real way to do so without linking to youtube.
what a waste of space you are.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 21, 2011 1:44 AM
Shiloh:
Irony, how does it fuckin' work? ;)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 21, 2011 2:30 AM
There is a difference between being open minded, and letting your brains fall out. (Foramen magnum extremis en splattus.)
We already have an excellent hypothesis to explain NDEs based on the known mechanisms of neurology. NDEs are not a major mystery, not a "gap" in present knowledge, and not a particularly compelling argument for the existence of souls.
If you want to talk about souls in the context of the subject, you need to formulate a soul hypothesis. That includes describing what a soul is, what it is made of, how one should scientifically go about trying to detect it, and a mechanism by which this soul can interact with the neurology of the brain, such that the revived brain, after recovering, can remember and describe the NDE which per the soul hypothesis, the soul experienced but the "shut-down" brain did not. (And since the brain itself is wholly material, this mechanism MUST at least be partially material as well, and a material means of detecting and confirming this mechanism must also be available. It MUST be possible, at least in theory, to physically detect and identify the specific brain activity that occurs when the brain communicates with the soul.)
Then, after formulating this hypothesis, you must put it in context with the already established laws of physics, biology, and chemistry, and if your soul hypothesis is reliant on mechanisms not compatible with those existing laws, you must provide an additional broader framework in which you can explain BOTH the soul AND everything already explained by the known laws of biology, physics, and chemistry in order to explain away the apparent incompatibility of your soul hypothesis with the known laws of biology, physics, and chemistry.
And THEN, you must show, a priori, on existing evidence (not reliant on proposed experiments or observations not yet done or made), that your soul hypothesis is at least approximately as likely as the existing hypothesis based on neurology and the known existing laws of biology, chemistry, and physics. (The criteria here are fairly generous, anything more than an order of magnitude less likely would be able to garner at least some serious scientific attention).
Only then are your arguments science, and worth being taken seriously by scientists.
So get cracking, Shiloh.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 21, 2011 2:35 AM
Any serious hypothesis about NDEs must also adequately explain all the thousands of people who recover from near death experience who do NOT have NDEs, or have wholly mundane NDEs indistinguishable from regular run-of-the-mill dreams.
And these outnumber the supposedly mysterious "miraculous" NDEs by at least 100 to 1.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 21, 2011 6:46 AM
Shiloh, my mind is open, but no so open my brains fall out as yours did. I require real and solid physical evidence though, which you keep acknowledging you don't have. You presuppose your imaginary creator and the non-existent soul. Then you close your mind to any evidence that refutes your presuppositions. You are a sad, but typical closed minded religious case, not me.As I have repeatedly said, you need solid and conclusive PHYSICAL evidence. you keep presenting weak and not even suggestive idiocy. That will never convince a scientist of anything. You have nothing. You have presented nothing physical, cogent, solid, and conclusive. Just vagary that appears to back up your wrong presuppositions.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 21, 2011 7:26 AM
You quote something that quotes someone who simply claims stuff.
Show us the studies, or go to Sweden! Citing supposed authorities is not an argument.
Do you even know how to find scientific articles on the Internet? It's easiest if you start here: http://scholar.google.com
Ketamine and lack of oxygen aren't the same thing.
...And again you quote someone who says "I think that's unlikely" but doesn't do any research. Show us the research, or you have no argument!
As usual, you completely misunderstand how science works.
No answer is ever the only one.
That's why we must look for the simplest answer, the one that requires the fewest extra assumptions!!!
Whether that which appears obvious to a human mind is actually true must be tested! It's obvious that the sun rises and sets, but nonetheless it is wrong. Never rely on what anyone considers obvious. Always test, test, test all assumptions, the explicit ones and the implicit ones, or you shall learn nothing.
So Shiloh has been committing the logical fallacy of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
Shame on him.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 23, 2011 10:50 PM
David Marjanovic
"No answer is ever the only one."
My point exactly. However, everyone here insists that there is only ONE answer and that it is a materialistic one. When I try to show evidence that the mind may actually be separated from the body, everyone jumps on it and insists that my "brains are falling out". :-)
Amphiox insists that I must show exactly what a soul is like before he will accept evidence indicating that there might be one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we had atomic theory before we actually could see atoms and it was by observing evidence. I have shown possible evidence that there is something to the belief that the mind is indeed separate from the body. But, like I said, it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, so you refuse to even consider it. Your minds are shut tight.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 23, 2011 11:22 PM
Shiloh:
A remarkably stupid point, which originates from your lack of knowledge and your poor comprehension.
There are many answers, but only one is rationally and empirically justifiable. Duh.
Sure, one among many, and it was wrong in pretty much every detail. It was called 'atomism' and dates back to the 6th century BCE.
You have shown the worst possible kind of evidence, to wit: wishful supposition and selected hear-say; such feeble evidence for something that contradicts everything we know about science is as close to worthless as it's possible for anything to be.
Psychological projection — how does it fucking work? :)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 23, 2011 11:42 PM
Citing supposed authorities is not an argument.
sure it is.
Hell, it's even in the name:
argument from authority.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 23, 2011 11:44 PM
everyone jumps on it and insists that my "brains are falling out".
not everyone.
I've been convinced since you first came to Pharyngula that your brains fell out long ago.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 24, 2011 12:31 AM
There is always only ONE correct answer to each SPECIFIC question. Sometimes a phenomenon consists of many different questions, and will have several different answers, each of which are correct, within their specific domain.
For this particular phenomenon there are actually many different reasonable possible answers, ALL of which are materialistic.
Don't put words into my mouth, oh dishonest one. Nowhere did I ever say exactly. I ask only for a reasonable hypothesis concerning what a soul is like. If you cannot describe what a soul might be like, then how can you claim that ANY particular evidence constitutes evidence for it and not for something else? If you refuse to even describe what a soul is like, how do you distinguish soul from not-soul?
This is a very simple concept. Any grade school child can understand this.
We had several. And the FIRST THING each and every one of those theories did was propose a specific definition of an atom, and provide a hypothetical description of an atom, by which an atom might be recognized.
Also note that the early atomic theories proposed by ancient Greek philosophers were NOT widely accepted by their peers UNTIL empirical evidence for atoms, evidence that CLEARLY distinguishes between atoms from not-atoms, was presented.
No you haven't. All the evidence you have tried to propose to date ALL are more consistent with the mind NOT being separate from the body AND with NDEs being a wholly materialistic phenomenon of neurology than with ANY other explanation. And if you cannot or refuse to comprehend why this is so after all this time then there is no hope for you.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 24, 2011 12:47 AM
IF the mind is truly separate from the body, THEN the laws of conservation of mass and energy (among many other things) must be wrong.
IF the laws of conservation of mass and energy are wrong, then fire would not burn the way it does, the stars would not shine in the way they do, rain would not fall the way it does, the moon would not move around the earth in the way that it does, we would not be able to hear each others voices in the way we do, and the computers that we use to make these posts would not work the way they have been assembled, and there would be no blog page upon which we are having this discussion.
BUT, fires DO burn the way they do, stars DO shine the way they do, rain DOES fall the way it does, the moon DOES move as it does, we DO hear as we do, and we ARE using our computers and posting without problems on this blog.
See, IF your proposal is true that there is such a thing as a nonmaterial soul that creates a mind separate from the body, THEN not just the materialistic hypotheses of how the brain works must be wrong, but the WHOLE INTERCONNECTED EDIFICE OF ALL MODERN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MUST BE WRONG.
ALL OF IT must not work the way we think it does, and instead must work by another way.
But it all DOES work, so to make your soul hypothesis plausible, you have to explain WHY it works and WHY it appears to follow all the currently known laws and theories of science, even though all of those laws and theories must be wrong, because for a soul to be able to exist, they MUST be wrong.
So you have to REPLACE these theories with new theories that EXPLAIN EVERYTHING THEY EXPLAIN, in addition to explaining this additional thing, the soul.
If you cannot do this, then the little bit of evidence you think suggests the existence of a soul must be weighed against ALL the evidence in support of ALL those other laws of science that ALL say that a nonmaterial soul separate from the body cannot exist. And in that analysis, the simplest and most likely resolution of the conflict is that you have simply interpreted your evidence WRONG.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 24, 2011 7:15 AM
I immediately went on to say that therefore we must apply the principle of parsimony: whenever there are multiple explanations for the same phenomena, we must choose the simplest one, the one with the fewest extra assumptions. (What else?)
You are intellectually dishonest.
I puke on your shoes.
Nobody has asked you to bring us a soul on a silver plate.
Instead, we have asked you to describe what a soul is – in sufficient detail that if we find a soul we can recognize it as such.
You have failed to answer. Evidently, you haven't even understood the question in the first place.
You have shown evidence that is consistent with such a belief, yes.
Unfortunately for you, this evidence is equally consistent with the belief that the mind is just what the brain does.
Multiple hypotheses that explain the same phenomena. What shall we do, what shall we do? We shall apply Ockham's Razor with extreme prejudice.
You're either lying, or you have extremely little reading comprehension.
Again multiple hypotheses that explain the same phenomena. What shall we do, what shall we do?
Given the fact of how slowly you learn to spell people's names, I think lack of reading comprehension is the more parsimonious hypothesis. But feel free to convince me otherwise.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 24, 2011 8:10 AM
Shiloh, how open is your mind to the concept you are wrong? Not open at all. You can't conceive that you are wrong. Until you consider and accept you can and are wrong, you can't debate/discuss honestly. Want to change my mind? Easy. SHOW ME CONCLUSIVE AND SOLID PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM, THAT ALLOWS FOR NO OTHER EXPLANATION. Your NDE data fails utterly as is explained by natural brain processes without the need for an imaginary soul. Hence your soul, like your creator, remains imaginaryAs other folks have said, you need solid definitions of something like your soul so it can be verified. You keep thinking your inane and presupposed points are made by deliberately keeping your arguments vague (exists outside of space and time is the perfect example of such vagary). It doesn't work that way with science. You must always allow for the concept you are wrong. So you prove your ideas by trying to prove them wrong. Except in your case, we proved your ideas wrong by showing parsimony supports the scientific explanation. Your imaginary creator and soul add nothing to the explanation, and there is no data it explains that is not also explained by science. Science wins because it is a simpler explanation without the need for an unnecessary supernatural component.
Shiloh, you have nothing in the way of evidence to support your claims at the moment. You need to get solid definitions for your creator and soul, so solid they can be falsified (proven wrong). Then you need to go out an get real data, not imagufactured data like your NDE crap, to support those ideas. Until then, which will probably be never, you really need to shut the fuck up. Your whining and whinging of your recent posts shows your intellectual immaturity and that your brains fell out years ago. Stop that.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 24, 2011 11:01 AM
Oh yeah, there are indeed many answers. One of them is that tiny and invisible pink unicorns floating in the aether enter your brain and cause you to hallucinate when you're about to die or under anaesthesia, like I explained in my previous comment. But I see you're too closed-minded to consider this possibility, even though it makes about as much sense as yours.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 24, 2011 6:31 PM
Shiloh,
You're a fucking liar, Shiloh. Not only did we consider your hypotheses and arguments and discussed them at length over many threads, but at least one of us went as far as turning one of them into a formal argument only to be completely ignored by you. You never deserved it, but Kel took you and your arguments seriously enough to try and help you formulating them better. And you ignored him.
How can you now accuse us all of refusing to consider arguments that don't fit our preconceived notions when that's so obviously untrue?
Liar.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 25, 2011 12:05 AM
Nerd of Redhead,
You continue to insist I give concrete evidence, yet you seem to think you are immune here. Not so. You have not given me concrete evidence that the NDEs are due to natural causes.
I apologize, but I can't find it again, but someone has suggested that science presents a hypothesis but then looks for ways to disprove it. That is exactly what many scientists have tried to do to explain NDEs. However, I have presented rebuttals to pretty much all of the attempts to explain the NDEs as natural materialistic occurrences. Yet, everyone appears to be not listening, or at least refusing to even consider them. As far as Ockham's Razor goes, that is a good place to start, but the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one. Also, who's to say that the suggestion that consciousness is separate from the physical body is not the simplest answer?
BTW, did anyone here see the news that scientists believe that they have found subatomic particles that may be traveling faster than the speed of light? This could turn the Theory of Evolution on its ear if confirmed.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 25, 2011 1:27 AM
You're a fucking liar, Shiloh.
what the hell more is there to say?
wasn't this fucking obvious MONTHS ago?
why are you people still feeding it????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 25, 2011 4:56 AM
Our concrete evidence is the entire field of neurology and neuroscience.
But even if we didn't have any of that, my dear obtuse and dishonest friend, science doesn't work that way.
We already have plenty of evidence that the natural mechanisms hypothesized to cause NDEs actually exist.
We have no evidence whatsoever that a disembodied consciousness exists, or can even exist in principle.
When confronted with a novel phenomenon for which one seeks an explanation, the null hypothesis is ALWAYS that this phenomenon is the result of processes and mechanisms already known to exist. You can only validly consider new, unknown mechanisms if you actually have independent evidence from other sources that this unknown mechanism actually exists or you can conclusively rule out all other known mechanisms.
If you see a rock fall, your null hypothesis is that it moved under the influence of gravity, a known mechanism, and not that there are invisible rock dropping fairies in existence.
The onus of proof is on YOU, the one who wants to invoke a previously unknown mechanism.
None of which actually successfully rebut anything of substance at all, as has been extensively explained to you long ago, but which you, in your typical dishonest fashion, simply ignore, while repeating the same discredited arguments over and over again, like some bot.
Because under the existing laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for any form of consciousness to be separate from a physical substrate of some kind. To even postulate a separation of consciousness from a physical substrate in any form whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever is to argue that those laws are wrong. In other words any and ALL explanations involving disembodied consciousnesses REQUIRE the overturning of ALL OF SCIENCE, and the replacement of EVERY SCIENTIFIC LAW AND THEORY with something new. There is nothing more complex than that, which is why any and every materialistic hypothesis is more parsimonious.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 25, 2011 5:01 AM
No it wouldn't, except perhaps for hypothetical lifeforms made of neutrinos.
Life on earth works at sub-light velocities for the most part.
(And the most parsimonious explanation for that result at present remains measurement error.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2011 6:53 AM
Shiloh, liar, bullshitter, and illiterate fuckwit:
From post #100, link to evidence, and paper reported on which came out this month. You see Shiloh, you lie like a dog.No it won't. The speed of light is not relevant to to biology. And most scientists think it is experimental error. There is a difference between ignoring the evidence, which you do, and providing rebuttals, which essentially require you to prove with solid physical evidence your inane and insane claim. Which is required for true rebuttal, and you provide nothing. Speculation is not solid physical evidence. You keep losing once parsimony is on the table. Your extra soul and creator add nothing, and are superfluous.As far as Ockham's Razor goes, that is a good place to start, but the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one. Then prove with solid and conclusive evidence the stupornatural exists, or shut the fuck up about it. Speculation is bullshit, just mental masturbation. You keep forgetting to clean up after yourself.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 25, 2011 9:09 AM
What does evolution have to do with the speed of light?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2011 9:25 AM
My next to last paragraph in #159 makes for sense as intended.
There is a difference between ignoring the evidence, which you do, and providing rebuttals, which essentially require you to prove with solid physical evidence your inane and insane claim. Which is required for true rebuttal, and you provide nothing. Speculation is not solid physical evidence. You keep losing once parsimony is on the table. Your extra soul and creator add nothing, and are superfluous.
Then prove with solid and conclusive evidence the stupornatural exists, or shut the fuck up about it.Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 25, 2011 9:40 AM
Par-si-mo-ny.
Remember what I've told you about the way vertebrate eyes work? Does that not count? Does it only count if Nerd does it himself (and repeats everything that has already been said)?
LOL. We've refuted every one of them about 20 times now. You're just too stupid to read or too scared to remember!
Or you're lying to get on our nerves. Trolling is a bannable offense.
But it's the one that is most probable to be correct.
Hey, it's only science. Humans aren't gods, we can't have absolute knowledge.
Because then we'd need to make lots and lots of extra assumptions:
* souls exist
* souls can perceive in ways that physics doesn't provide for
* even though souls exist, people's personalities still change when their brains are injured
I could go on for hours.
This is so baffling I can't even laugh. Have you confused the theory of evolution with the theory of relativity?
Because we're waiting for it to explode. It's already showing a sign of instability: its density is actually increasing, like that of a red giant that is running out of fuel and will go supernova.
Exhibit A: evolution and the speed of light.
Translation: if you actually have independent from other sources that cannot be explained except by this unknown mechanism (or yet less parsimonious ideas).
QFT!
Agreed.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 25, 2011 12:43 PM
Because "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". That's what Ockham's razor is all about - "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Now ask yourself: do we need to posit a soul to in order to explain NDEs? The answer is no, we don't need to. So we shouldn't.
*headdesk*
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 25, 2011 4:50 PM
This could turn the Theory of Evolution on its ear if confirmed.
did anyone hear about the latest hypothesis on why we yawn? Seems it's to "cool the brain"*.
surely that will turn the second law of thermodynamics on its ear if confirmed.
*no kidding, there really is a researcher that has a plausible hypothesis about this, but IMO, his data is correlative, not causative, and there are other, perhaps better, explanations for his primary results.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 25, 2011 4:53 PM
Trolling is a bannable offense.
doubtful. I think this version of the blog has become a bit of a lame duck.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 25, 2011 4:56 PM
Because we're waiting for it to explode. It's already showing a sign of instability: its density is actually increasing, like that of a red giant that is running out of fuel and will go supernova.
ah.
*goes for popcorn*
...makes sure to get a lid to prevent greasy bits falling into popcorn post-explosive event.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 25, 2011 11:18 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
I looked at your web site which you provided as "proof" that NDEs are due to natural reasons. With comments there like "neither one of these illusions precisely match the classic example of OBEs, doesn't appear to be proof. It is also mentioned that Parkinson's disease can cause visions of monsters and other visions. Again, not what people see during NDEs. Again, you are still playing with different rules. Chris Carter has presented great rebuttals to the scientific attempts to discredit NDEs. But you still want to ignore them because it would go against the grain of your preconceived notion that science is the only answer.
David,
Science is not equipped to prove or disprove the supernatural, so science cannot factually write it off, Occam's Razor or not. Yes the simplest answer is often correct, but that does not mean you can ignore facts to the contrary.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 25, 2011 11:25 PM
David,
"We've refuted every one of them about 20 times now. You're just too stupid to read or too scared to remember!"
Did anybody tell you that you are so full of it that your eyes are brown? Imagining that you have refuted Chris Carter's arguments, is not the same thing as actually having done so. Which you have not.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 25, 2011 11:33 PM
Amphiox,
"Because under the existing laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for any form of consciousness to be separate from a physical substrate of some kind. To even postulate a separation of consciousness from a physical substrate in any form whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever is to argue that those laws are wrong. "
Again, Physics can only talk about the material, it is not designed to make comments on the supernatural, which I believe that separation of consciousness from the body would entail.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2011 11:33 PM
Yep, the rules of science, and not presupposition. That is all you have. Presupposition. You have no unrefuted evidence. The science says false memories implanted by the brain processes, and not a soul. You haven't shown any evidence otherwise, just speculation, which isn't evidence.Shiloh, you are the one with eyes brown from shit. Your evidence is weak and refuted by science. Carter is a true believer who presupposes just like you. His testimony is worth the same as your. Worthless, all cherry picking of data and interpreting it according to presuppositions that a soul exists. Science has no need for a soul. If you posit one, it is up to you to provide solid and conclusive physical evidence for it. To date, nothing.There is no need to run over this again. You had nothing, you have nothing, and you will have nothing, unless you find the solid and conclusive physical evidence. So, shut up here, and go find it.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 25, 2011 11:46 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
"You have no unrefuted evidence."
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong??? As usual, you just don't get it. You want to play with different rules and you absurdly say that science is backing you. BULL SHIT!!! You need to remove the blinders from your eyes. Again, give me irrefutable proof that NDEs are nothing more than natural hallucinations. You still haven't done that. You seem to think that Carter is nothing more than a true believer and that that gets you off the hook. It doesn't. He has taken every scientific argument against NDEs and successfully rebutted them. The only counter argument you can come up with is accusing him of being a true believer? Did you ever stop to think, I know that may be beyond your capability, that he may be a true believer because he has found numerous evidence backing his belief that consciousness may be separate from the physical body?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 26, 2011 12:29 AM
Science is not equipped to prove or disprove the supernatural
it depends on what claims you want to make with it.
You made claims that were disprovable. And, in fact, they were.
the only thing keeping you going now is either OCD or denialism or trolling.
there are no other possibilities.
if trolling, it's quite a sad case.
if OCD, you can get treatment for that.
if pure denialism...
you're fucked.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 26, 2011 6:43 AM
[meta]
I see Shiloh as an Alan Clarke wannabe, only inferior in every sense.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 26, 2011 7:01 AM
Shiloh, you are wrong. Period, end ofd story. You have nothing but presuppositionalism. We both know that. Your Carter is refuted. Period, end of story.He has no solid and conclusive physical evidence. Just bad methodology and wishful thinking. That is true of all such books by paranormalists. The data isn't there, and doesn't mean what they think it means. Show me the soul, either physically or with the proper instruments that we both agree is measuring it. Put up or shut the fuck up. If you can't put up, and can't shut up, you are a liar and bullshitter. But then, that was proven months ago.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 26, 2011 7:06 AM
Shiloh, at the moment, you are throwing an immature temper tantrum. Time to step away from the keyboard for while. I would suggest you don't come back until you have that solid and conclusive physical evidence. Which means never, as you are incapable of recognizing real evidence. Your stupornatural, like your deity, is imaginary.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
September 28, 2011 5:45 PM
Nerd of redhead,
What can I say? It must be quite a trip thinking as you do that you are right even though you still can't show conclusive evidence. You keep saying the same mantra that NDEs and ODEs are just hallucinations. But you cannot explain how hallucination can cause some one to know a loved one is dead when they thought they were alive or for someone to leave his body and go into the hospital corridor where they see something they couldn't known through hallucinations. BTW, you sure do have guts saying I am throwing an immature temper tantrum when you have been doing so for quite some time now. I'm just finally giving it back to you because I am getting frustrated with your narrow mindedness. I've given you counters to all arguments, but they just bounce off your exterior because you are so indoctrinated against anything that might go against a natural explanation even though evidence indicates otherwise. I've tried to get you to think outside the box you are in, but with no success. I can only conclude that you are a hopeless cause. QED.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 29, 2011 7:32 AM
Yawn, other evidence less temper tantrum by Shiloh, a repeat of what he has said before ad nauseum. He can't add anything new to the discussion, as he blew everything he had to say months ago. At this point, sheer stupidity and stubbornness is the only thing keeping him going.
The only hopeless case here is you. First of all, my mind is open, but I require solid and conclusive evidence. I had a long argument with a bigfoot believer. He thought the Patterson film was conclusive evidence. Never mind one of those who made the film acknowledged it was faked. I held out for real physical evidence. A captured creature, the bones of said creature, or even skat that was tested for DNA. Something solid and physical. Same here. You need something other than Carter's book, which was refuted years ago and by the recent paper I have linked to, you would also see the problem if you bothered to take anybody but Carter's word for it. It makes you overly credulous.If you had truly credible evidence for your imaginary soul and creator, and you don't, someone here including myself might be convinced you are right. You need to really consider the fact that you are WRONG about the stupornatural existing. You are also wrong to keep posting without new evidence. Why must I believe in the stupor natural without solid and conclusive evidence? I don't have to believe in your delusions. You know that. Why can't you just let the matter drop?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 29, 2011 8:33 AM
This is wrong three times over.
First, science is not equipped to prove anything. Proof is for math and logic.
Second, whether science is equipped to disprove something supernatural depends on the supernatural thing/event in question. Science is not equipped to disprove a deistic god who doesn't do anything. Science is equipped to disprove testable claims like Matthew 7:7–8.
Third, Occam's Razor has nothing to do with proof or disproof. It's a statement about probability. Why doesn't that get into your head!
Explain how I haven't.
Science is able to show that the material is enough to explain the mind. What reason, then, do we have to believe that anything more exists?
That's Ockham's Razor.
We don't need to. We have explained the way vertebrate eyes work, hallucinations, dreams, confirmation bias & reporting bias (counting the hits & ignoring the misses), and more to you 20 times over. We have shown that the material is enough to explain NDEs. Why, then, should we believe that anything else is going on? Why? Why?
Scientist: Water runs downhill because of gravity.
Shiloh: That may be so, but, again, give me irrefutable proof that there aren't little pixies that carry each water molecule down individually and just mimic the expected effect of gravity.
Scientist: I can't, and I don't need to.
Reporting bias.
Why should I believe that that NDE was any different from my brother's dream, which I have mentioned, that our mom had died? Again, she's in great health 20 years later.
Why?
Coincidence again.
IIRC, several experiments have been done where stuff was placed on top of cupboards in rooms where patients then had NDEs with OBEs and failed to see what was on the cupboards.
You are far too easily impressed, and you are far too resistant to learning. You want to believe, you want it so hard that you refuse to even consider what we're saying. It's like talking to a wall.
So? When he throws a tantrum, does that somehow mean you're not throwing a tantrum?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 2, 2011 9:03 PM
http://gii.josiahconcept.org/proof-8
Here's a Near Death Experience that occurred under extremely controlled circumstances. Brain was completely shut down and eyes were covered up and clicking devices put into the ears. Check out the two videos below. Doctor stated that there was no way that the patient could observe what was going on an to describe the tool being used.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 2, 2011 9:14 PM
David Marjanovic,
So far an NDE has not been duplicated by drugs temporal lobe stimulation, etc, etc, etc. Until, that is done, any statement that NDEs are due to natural occurrences is mere speculation.
Occam's Razor is based on probability, I understand that, however, it does not PROVE that NDEs are not due to consciousness being separate from the body. Some here seem to thing that mouthing it proves their position that NDEs are due to a natural occurrence. Some repeat it over and over like some mantra. It still does not prove their position.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 2, 2011 10:18 PM
My goodness, Shiloh is still here, shambling on this zombie thread?
BRRAAAAIIIIINNNNNNSSSSS.....
For the supernatural to be relevant in any way, it MUST have an interface with the natural - it must be able to affect the natural in some way. If it didn't, then why should we care?
Why do NDEs not occur all the time, if they are the result of a consciousness separate from the body? The physical brain must have some mechanism of suppressing the discorporeal consciousness when it is fully functional, or what's to stop our disembodied spirits from simply up and leaving our bodies at any time? Or the disembodied spirit must have some way of knowing when the physical brain is or is not functioning, to know when to leave, or "take over". Furthermore, NDEs are remembered by the physical brain AFTER they occur, and these memories can be relayed using the physical mechanisms of speech and writing. Thus there MUST be some mechanism whereby what is experienced by the disembodied spirit to be communicated BACK into the physical brain, AFTER it recovers, (because, after all, it is "shut down" during the event and not capable of recording memories).
Well that interface MUST be at last half physical. And so it MUST be subject to the laws physics, and detectable by the science of physics.
And yet we find nothing.
No, it is the NULL HYPOTHESIS, which MUST BE DISPROVEN before less parsimonious explanations such as mind-body separation can even be validly entertained.
This point has been explained to you over and over and over and over again. To continue to use this argument as above is pure intellectual dishonesty on your part, Shiloh.
It says that one should consider the most parsimonious explanation first, and resort to less parsimonious explanations only if the more parsimonious explanation is already PROVEN ABSOLUTELY to be incorrect. That means that it is not up to us to PROVE that NDEs are not due to separation of consciousness from the body. It is up to YOU to PROVE that NDEs are NOT due to standard neurological mechanisms FIRST, before resorting to an explanation by supernatural means.
You haven't, and until you do, we're not obligated to even pay any attention to you. The fact that we've even bothered to respond to you at all is a curtesy. A curtesy which, with your continuing intellectual dishonesty, you haven't done anything at all to earn.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 2, 2011 10:27 PM
As has already been explained to you, it is IMPOSSIBLE at present to demonstrate that any brain that is not permanently dead is "completely" shut down. Neither does covering the eyes completely prevent signals from the retina or activity in the visual cortex, nor does clicking devices in the ears completely prevent any other sounds from being heard.
Our ability to detect neural activity is NOT THAT PRECISE.
It is like dropping a bucket on a 10 foot rope down a well whose depth you do not know, declaring the well MUST be completely dry when you fail to find any water in the bucket, and deciding that the fine white mist that rises up from the well every morning HAS to be the steam from an invisible fairy sauna at the bottom of the well.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 3, 2011 9:55 AM
Oh?
Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions
Out of Body, Roger
No. Science has the evidence that such phenomena are natural occurrences.
Give it up already.
You don't understand anything.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 3, 2011 10:04 AM
Also:
Out‐of‐body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 3, 2011 5:48 PM
Until you can disprove the most parsimonious explanation, any statement that NDEs are not due to natural occurrences are mere speculation which carry the burden of evidence.
How many times do I need to repeat it? Science cannot prove, only disprove. We are not looking for proof. We're looking for disproof of the most parsimonious hypothesis, and both we and you have so far failed to provide such a thing.
The most parsimonious hypothesis, as mentioned, is the null hypothesis, the starting point that must be disproved if we want to leave it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2011 6:16 PM
Shiloh, you can't talk your way out of your problem with the null hypothesis and parsimony, which is what you are doing at the moment, and sounding like a true sophmoric idjit trying to do so. You must evidence your way out, with newer evidence that really and truly refutes the latest scientific paper, showing NDE is all in the brain, and the results of it shutting down and starting back up. You can't do that with old books, or anything outside of the peer reviewed scientific literature. No ifs, ands, or buts. Either you have that level of evidence or you don't. If you don't, like at the moment, you still have nothing, so you might as well fade into the bandwidth. No amount of talking or attempt to reframe your presuppositions changes the facts. If you do have more recent scientific evidence from the publication of the paper that totally refuted your nonsense, present it. At some point you have to put up or shut up. That should have been months ago.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 8:23 PM
Summary of thread to date:
Fruitful animated discussion on Dawkins, accommodationism, etc.
Shiloh.
Zombie apocalypse.
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSOOOOUUULLLLS"
Zombie Us: "BBBRRAAAAIIINNNSSS"
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSOOOUUUULLLLSSSSS"
Zombie Us: omnomnomnomnomnomnomnom
Zombie Us: "BBRRAAAAIIINNNSSSS"
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 4, 2011 10:43 PM
Amphiox,
"As has already been explained to you, it is IMPOSSIBLE at present to demonstrate that any brain that is not permanently dead is "completely" shut down. Neither does covering the eyes completely prevent signals from the retina or activity in the visual cortex, nor does clicking devices in the ears completely prevent any other sounds from being heard."
Come on Amphiox. Can't you SEE that you are grasping at straws here? We have complete control here. The brain has been purposely shut down and the eyes are covered and hearing obscured by ear implants producing clicks. Even the doctors have stated that anything happening on the operation table could not be observed in anyway by the patient. These are not laymen saying this but experts. BTW, your summation is cute. Too bad it doesn't make your argument any less fallacious.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 4, 2011 10:52 PM
David Marjanovic,
"We're looking for disproof of the most parsimonious hypothesis, and both we and you have so far failed to provide such a thing."
Now that is an interesting comment. Correct me if I'm confused here, but that sounds like the same thing as proving a negative. So far, just about everyone here claims that cannot be done, even though I have already countered that argument that I can prove I don't have a live visible 20 foot T-Rex in my 19 CU in. refrigerator. Saying that I can disprove the claim that you have a visible 20 foot T-Rex in your refrigerator would be the same thing.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 4, 2011 11:06 PM
David Marjanovic,
"We're looking for disproof of the most parsimonious hypothesis, and both we and you have so far failed to provide such a thing."
I believe that I have been pretty much saying that for quite sometime now. Many here have shown scientific speculations as to how NDEs may be caused by some sort of natural occurrences. I have countered all of these in that they do not match a typical NDE or OBE. Though no one can disprove my argument, they are quick to say that scientists who speculate that NDES and OBEs could be explained by consciousness being separate from the physical body are wrong. They want me to disprove their argument but they refuse to realize that they are tied to the same requirements, i.e., they must disprove those scientists claiming that consciousness is separate from the physical body. So far, they have not.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 5, 2011 12:20 AM
Ok. Proving a negative is not the same thing as disproving a hypothesis.
Consider yourself corrected.
"You can't prove a negative" isn't strictly true. I accept the sight of your empty fridge as empirical evidence which strongly supports your claim that there is no 20-ft T. rex inside. However, more sweeping claims such as "There is no such thing as invisible fairies" is considerably more difficult to prove.
You're overlooking the fact that David wrote that "We're looking for disproof of the most parsimonious hypothesis...". (Emphasis mine).
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 5, 2011 1:16 AM
Nope. But you sure are.
No we don't. We never do. You can take that as the expert opinion of a practicing neurosurgeon.
To the extent that we can measure. And the extent to which we are capable of measurement relatively crude.
In fact we KNOW the brain is not entirely shut down, because basic homeostasis, which is regulated by the brain, continues. The loss of this homeostasis would result in the rapid DEATH of the patient. Any brain that can actually be revived
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 5, 2011 1:21 AM
Nope. But you sure are.
No we don't. We never do. You can take that as the expert opinion of a practicing neurosurgeon.
To the extent that we can measure. And the extent to which we are capable of measurement relatively crude.
In fact we KNOW the brain is not entirely shut down, because basic homeostasis, which is regulated by the brain, continues. The loss of this homeostasis would result in the rapid DEATH of the patient. Any brain that is "completely" shut down is a DEAD brain. Any brain that can be revived is by definition not "completely" shut down.
It is impossible to completely obscure hearing in this manner, as sound travels to the inner ear through the bones of the jaw and skull. All the clicks can do is partially obscure external sounds. Never completely.
To the extent that current techniques and measurements can ensure. Which I have already explained remain crude.
My summation describes the situation precisely. You thinking it is fallacious does not make it so.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 5, 2011 1:37 AM
Indeed you may be. But it seems more parsimonious at this point given your prior replies that you are not confused at all - you are deliberately and dishonestly ignoring the point.
No, you are being as to disprove a positive. The two are not the same. But you know that, for we have already explained it to you. You are just dishonestly ignoring those explanatios.
It is disproved every time someone has a serious brain injury but does NOT have an NDE. It is disproved every time an anesthetic is administered and the patient wakes up without memory of the events occurring during surgery. It is disproved every time a blow to the head causes a concussion. It is disproved every time a stroke changes a person's personality.
You have failed to even understand your own position. That consciousness is linked to the physical body, the brain, is proven FACT. A fact that must be incorporated into any hypothesis regarding NDEs.
The supernatural hypothesis for NDEs must postulate that consciousness is BOTH separate AND part of the physical brain, that in fact there must be TWO parallel consciousnesses, one material and one immaterial.
The neurological hypothesis for NDEs postulates that there is only one consciousness, the physical one tied to the brain. That is why it is more parsimonious. That is why it must first be disproven before less parsimonious possibilities can be considered.
The principle of parsimony means that they do not have to do so until the more parsimonious explanation that consciousness arises from the brain is disproven.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 5, 2011 1:50 AM
We can go all the way to surgically implanting electrodes, multiple ones deep into the brain, and have all those electrodes read a flat-line, and that would still be not even close to the level of sensitivity we would actually need to declare that a particular brain is "completely" shut down.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 5, 2011 7:01 AM
Quite misquoting what must be disproved. What must be disproved, is a 10 foot invisible gold dragon in the garage. Which is what is required for us to disprove your inane speculations.This is a damed lie. Science doesn't do speculation in this case. What science has shown is to show how and why NDE occurs using physical processes. No speculation involved, pure data. The only person who thinks pure speculation (mental mastrubation) is worth worth anything is you, with your speculations of a need for an imaginary creator and NDE meaning a soul. That is pure and utter speculations without solid and concrete evidence to back it up. In other words, fantasy. *cue theme music to the Twilight Zone.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 5, 2011 7:05 AM
Shiloh, why is it so important for us to agree with you? You have to shave your head or similar fate if we don't? You appear to have lost any rationality with this issue, and are just continuing it because you don't know how to stop. It is obvious that we aren't agreeing with you, as you failed the evidence test. Why can't you accept that?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 5, 2011 10:05 AM
It's really cute how easy you are to impress.
We've done so several times over. You just don't read for understanding. Try it again.
I'm sorry, that's how it is.
See? Again you have failed to read for understanding.
The most parsimonious hypothesis is, by definition, the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions, the smallest number of assumed things. Naturalism assumes one thing, the physical body; consciousness is just what the brain does. Dualism assumes two things: the physical body which performs part of consciousness, and the somehow non-physical rest of consciousness. Dualism loses.
The most parsimonious hypothesis is the null hypothesis. I supplied the link, I don't see a reason to repeat it. As long as the null hypothesis isn't disproven, it must be considered the best explanation. That's how science works. Hey, how else could it work? By starting from the least parsimonious hypothesis? By starting from whichever I like best?
"A stroke to the head confuses a man's thinking, a stroke to the foot has no such effect. This cannot be due to an immortal soul."
– Heraclitus, 500 BCE.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 5, 2011 11:21 AM
The original quote in PZ's quote file says "blow to the head/blow to the foot".
The word "stroke" is a bit weird in that one definition is of something forceful, and another means "gentle caress".
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 5, 2011 11:30 AM
And I'm not entirely sure that Heraclitus actually said that anywhere. At least, I recall trying to find an original source for the quote and failing.
It might be a very rough paraphrase, but I don't think I was able to find the original.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 5, 2011 11:44 AM
That would be the parsimonious null hypothesis.
However, I propose an alternative hypothesis. Shiloh must surely understand what he's been told, what 100 times or more now? He's just deliberately ignoring and distorting it because he's intellectually dishonest and never had any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith.
This alternate hypothesis is less parsimonious because it postulates an additional assumption - mendacity in addition to incompetence. To support it, I draw on the accumulated evidence of all of Shiloh's posts, and argue that, surely, the level of sheer mental denseness required to explain them all cannot possibly be simply from incompetence, but must be evidence of dishonesty.
This, however, is predicated on precisely how dense it is actually possible for a human brain to be. And our current methodologies for quantifying troll denseness of a measurable scale are, sadly, too crude to lend reliable support to my contention.
And so on closer analysis my argument in favor of it boils down to an argument from personal incredulity. I simply cannot believe that Shiloh, or any other human being with enough mental faculty to be capable of typing, could possibly be this dense without deliberate intent. Which, sadly, as we all know, is an invalid argument to make.
And thus my mendacity hypothesis still fails compared to the incompetence hypothesis, due to parsimony and lack of evidence.
See how this works, Shiloh?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 5, 2011 2:02 PM
Oh, yeah, thanks.
Doesn't actually surprise me. Probably it's a very rough paraphrase, like the usual version of the Euthyphro dilemma.
Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, wobei ich mir beim Universum allerdings nicht ganz sicher bin.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not quite sure about the universe."
– Albert Einstein
No, seriously, maybe Shiloh has an actual reading disorder. Remember how long it took him to learn how many words there are in Nerd of Redhead; has he figured out how to spell Nightjar yet?
I hope he does, but I don't expect him to.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 9, 2011 4:02 PM
Amphiox
"In fact we KNOW the brain is not entirely shut down, because basic homeostasis, which is regulated by the brain, continues."
That's all well and good, but can you go one step further and state that it follows that a person with no brain waves with the brain purposely shut down could still have a vivid NDE or OBE?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 9, 2011 4:15 PM
Oh, looky, Shiloh can't put up a citation to prove he is right, just more of the same questions have have been thoroughly answered to the satisfaction of science. Answering those inane questions to the satisfaction of Shiloh, the liar and bullshitter, is irrelevant. You must convince us Shiloh, not the other way around. What a loser, who keeps trying this loser tactic, since we have told you that from your first inane posts this: the burden of proof is upon you to convince us with evidence.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 9, 2011 4:53 PM
The technical term for a person with no brain waves is "dead". Or to put it in other terms:
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 9, 2011 5:03 PM
Uh, didn't you just quote and agree with amphiox saying that the brain was not entirely shut down? So why do you keep phrasing it that way? It's dishonest.
Anyway, dishonest phrasing aside... why not? I know you've been asked this already, but you never answer. Why not, Shiloh? This isn't as self-evident as you seem to think.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 9, 2011 9:22 PM
Amphiox,
"It is disproved every time an anesthetic is administered and the patient wakes up without memory of the events occurring during surgery."
That just goes to show you that you haven't been listening to me. I have mentioned dozen of time that there are patients who were administered anesthetic and had their heart stop and were clinically dead during an operation, who did indeed have vivid OBEs in which they were able to describe something they couldn't know about the surgery. Also, had NDEs where they met dead relatives and even one who they thought was still alive. This is a case of a double whammy.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 9:53 PM
YES.
Absolutely, unequivocably, with-out-a-doubt, YES.
YES. YES. YES. YES. YES! A thousand times, YES!
A "brain wave" is a proxy measure of brain activity. It's an artifact of our current, very limited, technique for measuring brain activity in real time, wherein we measure a difference in electric potential recorded from two surface locations in the scalp where we place electrodes. And what this measures is the difference in average summed activity among groups of hundreds of millions of neurons over an arbitrary period of time, which our instruments read out as a waveform.
Needless to say, this is several orders of magnitude too low a resolution to truly measure what brain activity is really composed of - discrete electrical events occurring within single neurons.
There are 100 billion neurons or so in the human brain. Groups of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of neurons could be actively working at various locations within the brain, and our very best measuring devices would all read a pure flatline.
And so, with our current level of technical capacity, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to declare any brain other than a completely dead one, "fully shut down", and utterly dishonest to continue to make such a claim after this reality has been explained.
We do not know precisely how many neurons need to be working, for how long, in what pattern, or where in the brain, to produce a vivid NDE or OBE-like experience. But based on what we already know about how neurons work to create and recall memories, it could easily be something as low as a few hundred or a few thousand at a time, each group highly localized in a specific region of the brain, and each firing for durations that could be measured in nanoseconds. In other words, several orders of magnitude less, in all three dimensions of magnitude, location, and time, than the minimum level that our very best current instruments can even have the faintest hope of measuring.
Now with an implanted electrode you could in theory increase the sensitivity up to a few tens of neurons (in some animal models scientists have gotten down to even one), but then you run into the opposite problem - you can ONLY measure from that one tiny location where you put your electrode, and you can measure nothing from anywhere else in the brain. Neurons just a few millimeters away could be firing away, and your electrode would read nothing. And current neurosurgical techniques are not capable of implanting 100 billion electrodes into someone's brain without killing them in the process.
To declare any particular brain that isn't irrevocably dead "completely shut down", we would need a Kurzweil Singularity brain upload level technological capacity, able to read and record the activity of each and every single one of the 100 billion neurons, all together, in real-time.
And until we achieve such technology, any and all declarations of brains "completely shut down" is pure intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 10:09 PM
And all this word salad is completely irrelevant to the point I was making that you quote.
IF there is a soul separate from the brain, unaffected by material things like anesthetic, then what you describe above should happen every single time a person is administered an anesthetic. Why wouldn't it, if the soul is immaterial? Anesthesia and cardiovascular arrest do not affect the immaterial.
But we DON'T see it every time. A tiny, tiny minority of cases report something like an NDE. The vast majority of cases report NOTHING.
This is NOT consistent with NDEs being produced by an immaterial soul unaffected by material injury to the brain AT ALL.
It IS consistent with NDEs being produced from rare neurological circumstances wherein some parts of the brain manage to continue working despite anesthesia and cardiovascular arrest, due to natural variations in individual physiology and the unique circumstances surrounding each event.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 10:14 PM
The presence or absence of cardiovascular arrest also means pretty much nothing.
Just because the heart has stopped beating doesn't mean that the oxygen already in the arterial blood instantly vanishes.
It's still there. In the blood within the brain.
Even at full 100% activity, the brain can go a couple minutes or so on this remaining oxygen.
If we're positing a situation where most of the neurons in the brain are at reduced metabolic activity (ie "shut down"), whatever few neurons that remain active can remain active even longer on the available oxygen and nutrient supply.
The neurological hypothesis for NDEs needs no more than this, so cardiovascular arrest is completely irrelevant to it.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 9, 2011 11:09 PM
Amphiox
From Jeffrey Long, M.D.'s book Evidence of the Afterlife. The Science of Near-Death Experiences.
in his conclusion he states that Nine lines of evidence for the existence of an afterlife have been presented. This evidence would be extraordinary even if NDErs were fully awake and alert at the time of their experience. But they're not. People who have near-death experiences are generally unconscious or clinically dead at the time of their experience. It is medically inexplicable that they would have any conscious experiences, let alone experiences so packed with evidence pointing to an afterlife. The nine lines of evidence are:
1. The level of consciousness and alertness during near-death experiences is usually greater than that experienced during everyday life, even though NDEs generally occur while a person is unconscious or clinically dead. The elements in NDEs generally follow a consistent and logical order.
2. W@hat NDErs see and hear in the out-of-body state during their near-death experiences is generally r3ealistic and often verified later by the NDEr or others as real.
3. Normal or supernormal vision occurs in near-death experiences among those with significantly impaired vision or even legal blindness. Several NDEers where blind from birth have reported highly visual near-death experiences.
4. Typical near-death experiences occur under general anesthesia at a time when conscious experience should be impossible. (Note: Amphiox, you gave this as evidence that NDEs were not real)
5. Life reviews in near-death experiences include real events that took place in the NDErs' lives, even if the events were forgotten.
6. When NDErs encounter beings they knew from their earthly life, they are virtually always deceased, usually deceased relatives.
7. The near-death experiences of children, including very young children, are strikingly similar to those of older children and adults.
8. Near-death experiences are remarkable consistent around the world. NDEs from non-Western countries appear similar to typical Western NDEs.
9. It is common for NDErs to experience changes in their lives as aftereffects following NDEs. Aftereffects are powerful and lasting, and the changes follow a consistent pattern.
The author goes onto say The arguments of skeptics have consistently failed to explain how near-death experiences occur and why their content is so consistent. There is no earthly experiences that consistently reproduces any part of the near-death experience.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 9, 2011 11:23 PM
Amphiox,
"IF there is a soul separate from the brain, unaffected by material things like anesthetic, then what you describe above should happen every single time a person is administered an anesthetic. Why wouldn't it, if the soul is immaterial? Anesthesia and cardiovascular arrest do not affect the immaterial."
Why should the soul leave the body under anesthetic if there is no death situation? A person under general anesthetic is not clinically dead. Whereas, the stoppage of a the heart can create a clinical death situation. Why that doesn't happen with every heart stoppage is a good question though. Does it disprove that consciousness is separate from the physical body. Not necessarilly. I had a friend who said that he had a heart attack which required surgery. He said that he was aware and felt the pain and thought to himself that he had to get out of here and then found himself out of his body looking down on it and the operation going on.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 11, 2011 6:13 PM
Amazing, Shiloh. You're like a broken record. You have reproduced this exact list here already and completely ignored pretty much all the subsequent rebuttals. Everyone else can click on that link and scroll down: there's not one single item in that list that hasn't already been addressed by more than one person, several times. Not a single one. Why are you bringing this up again, Shiloh? Did you forget you had already posted it? Did you think no one would recall it? Do you think your refuted and fallacious arguments will magically become valid if only you repeat them enough times? Do you think we do not notice you're unable to address our points so all you can do is keep on restating the same points time and time again?
There's a name for what you're doing here, Shiloh. It's called trolling.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 11, 2011 6:30 PM
Shiloh, until you can produce new evidence, and not a rehash of old like your last several inane and insipid evidenceless posts, you need to stay away. You need something new, not embarrassing yourself with old and solidly refuted stuff.
QFTPosted by: John Morales
|
October 11, 2011 7:41 PM
[meta]
How quickly Shiloh forgets:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/i_get_email_its_not_always_loo.php
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
October 11, 2011 7:55 PM
Kenny????
Is that you, Kenny?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 11, 2011 8:02 PM
No, Shiloh, my dear dishonest dope, I gave that as evidence that NDEs had a neurologic cause, rather than a supernatural one, NOT that NDEs were not real. Your sad attempts to twist my words to make a rhetorical point (and fail in the doing of it), is rather pathetic.
Of course they are real. They are as real as dreams are real. As real as love is real.
(And conscious experience is NOT impossible under ANY kind of general anesthesia that current human medical science is capable of. If it were impossible, we would be able to prevent the extremely serious anesthetic complication of awareness under anesthesia 100% of the time, but we can't. We can't even predict very well who is at risk for having it.)
NONE of those nine points are inconsistent with NDEs having a neurologic cause, notwithstanding the fact that half of them can be easily explained by confirmation bias.
NO.
NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.
NO!
NO IT IS NOT MEDICALLY INEXPLICABLE, not by a long shot. (And NDEs don't have to be conscious experiences either to fulfill all 9 of those points. Vivid =/= conscious, as anyone who has had a vivid dream and woken up momentarily unsure if they were still dreaming or not can attest to).
And I will say, without reservation, as a medical professional, that ANY medical professional who says so, for ANY reason, while using their status as a medical profession to bolster that claim, is guilty of professional misconduct.
As I have already described above, "clinically dead" by today's standards of measurement could still mean millions of neurons happily doing their stuff, below the level of detection by any currently available means.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 11, 2011 8:12 PM
And or course, NDEs, are by definition, NOT conscious experiences, but unconscious ones.
If they weren't, there would be nothing interesting or mysterious about them.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 12, 2011 11:34 PM
Right back at you.
You keep saying this as if it were in any way surprising.
First, death doesn't work by magic, as we have explained about 10 times already. Stop refusing to read what we write, asshole.
Second, I have much more vivid and convincing dreams when I'm sound asleep than when I just fell asleep 3 seconds ago. I'm sure it's the same with you, you're just too careless and uninterested to observe yourself.
"Couldn't know" is irrelevant. What we need here is "couldn't guess". I bet you can't provide that.
I still don't see how. I still maintain we're looking at reporting bias and confirmation bias applied to a very large sample of random occurrences.
And you still haven't even tried to address this objection, asshole. What are we, chopped liver?
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 13, 2011 12:03 AM
If you could convince a pompous nitwit like Shiloh to do that, you could take that act to Las Vegas.Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 13, 2011 12:53 AM
David Marjanovic,
"I have much more vivid and convincing dreams when I'm sound asleep than when I just fell asleep 3 seconds ago. I'm sure it's the same with you, you're just too careless and uninterested to observe yourself."
Why are you talking about vivid dreams. Dreams are dreams, no matter how vivid. I'm talking about something so real it is as though you are awake. In fact people describing them say they are even more vivid than in normal waking situation.
Sorry, but you are still attempting to grasp at bloody straws.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 13, 2011 1:04 AM
Amphiox,
"No, Shiloh, my dear dishonest dope, I gave that as evidence that NDEs had a neurologic cause, rather than a supernatural one"
And I came back at you and stated that your evidence was not evidence at all. It did not explain the consistent descriptions of actual NDEs. You even presented the "fact" that those coming out of anesthesia don't have any memory, to which I countered that there were those who had both a heart attack and were under anesthesia who had vivid NDEs.
You question whether NDEs were contrived. Yet, you ignore the fact that there were those coming back with surprise that they saw someone close to them there only to find that they had just died suddenly. Something they couldn't have known and they had witnesses to this comment. Same thing with ODEs where the person leaving their body sees something going on in the next room which was later confirmed and which they couldn't have seen from the operating table.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 1:10 AM
Herein lies the rub. The above statement, if true, is actually PROOF that NDEs MUST have a MATERIAL cause.
You see, knowledge requires observation.
But observation is a two-way street. It is NOT POSSIBLE to observe any material, natural thing, without being subject to observation yourself via material, natural means.
For example, the invisible eye cannot see. To see you must absorb photons. And in absorbing photons, you cast a shadow. And that shadow can be observed.
And it doesn't matter if the soul is supernatural.
Because the PHOTONS are NATURAL. It is the photon's property that is the point here, not the soul's, and photons cannot be observed without altering their own properties in naturally observable ways.
A soul that can float out of the body and see something about the surgery (the "couldn't know" part is irrelevant), is a soul that must be able to intercept photons. And a soul that can intercept photons is a soul that can be observed by any device capable of detecting changes in photons (like a camera). If this soul can look down and see the surgeons, then the surgeons can look up and see that soul.
Thus a soul that can see is a soul that is detectable by natural means. And that means at least some part of this soul must be natural.
The same is true for all the other senses.
Without some material part to vibrate in the air, a soul cannot hear.
Without some material part to react with particles in the air, a soul cannot smell.
Without some material part to bind to solutes in water, a soul cannot taste.
Without some material part to change shape with pressure, a soul cannot feel.
It is, indeed, the non-material soul that CANNOT know ANYTHING AT ALL about the natural world. Because it cannot sense anything IN the natural world.
So when someone has an NDE and wakes up able to describe ANYTHING AT ALL about the surgery that can be verified to be true and not imagination or a lucky guess, then that is in fact PROOF that the NDE has a material cause. Because only a material observer can observe material things.
The addition of a "could not have known" clause changes nothing. All it means is that either 1) you were wrong about the "impossible to know", and somehow it WAS possible to know, difficult as it might be to figure out how, or 2) the describer managed to guess it without having to observe it.
Non-material souls capable of describing ANYTHING AT ALL, be it details of the surgery, or words of loved ones, or world events, it does not matter, ANYTHING AT ALL, violates cause and effect.
Which is the most fundamental law of science there is.
And this is where Occam's Razor comes in. If you want to posit a non-material soul, you have to re-explain ALL of causality itself. (Indeed, without causality, there is no death, and without death, you can't even have an NDE!).
You are left with two options for your non-corporeal soul hypothesis.
1) You have a non-corporeal, but still material soul. This wouldn't in theory violate any known laws of science. But this material soul in turn is detectable by material means. Thus all you need to do to prove your argument is go out and detect the damn thing. Or failing that, produce a hypothesis explaining what it is, materially, and how one might go about detecting it, compelling enough to convince someone else out there to spend the time and effort to detect it.
2) You have a non-corporeal, non-material soul whose very existence must overthrow the law of causality. Since causality is the foundation of all science, it would automatically overthrow ALL OF SCIENCE at the same time. Thus you must propose a hypothesis incorporating your non-material soul that also manages to REPLACE ALL OF SCIENCE, explaining EVERYTHING that modern science explains just as well or better, at the same time. And you must provide enough a priori positive evidence for your hypothesis to overcome the massive weight of Occam's Razor against it.
Get cracking, Shiloh.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 1:46 AM
Ah Shiloh, my dear boy, you continue to deliberately misconstrue my words. I think my deliberate liar hypothesis is gaining ground against the incompetent idiot null hypothesis.
Your counter is irrelevant, because my argument was about the relative frequencies of both coming out of anesthesia without memory AND having vivid NDEs (or vivid non-NDE experiences, such as vivid dream-like states), and the undeniable fact that one of them is much more common than the other.
It is a FACT that the vast majority of patients coming out of anesthesia remember nothing.
It is a FACT that some patients coming out of anesthesia recall vivid experiences that are clearly NOT NDEs.
It is a FACT that a tiny minority of patients coming out of anesthesia have vivid NDEs.
This pattern is fully consistent with NDEs having a neurologic cause.
It is NOT consistent with NDEs having a non-corporeal cause.
A non-corporeal soul is affected by anesthesia at all. That is the basis of your entire argument bringing up anesthesia at all - that anesthesia "shuts down" (it actually doesn't, which you would know if you knew anything at all about how anesthetic drugs actually work, but that's beside the point) the neurologic brain, and therefore only the non-corporeal soul, unaffected by anesthesia, remains.
But if the non-material soul is unaffected by anesthesia, then NDEs should occur EVERY SINGE TIME AN ANESTHETIC IS ADMINISTERED, TO ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ALL THE TIME.
Not a tiny handful of cases. Not even a large minority of cases. Not even a vast majority of cases.
ALL.
A SINGLE instance of a person going under general anesthesia (which affects ONLY the material neurologic mind) NOT having and NDE instantly refutes the idea of NDEs being caused by a non-corporeal, non-material soul.
And we have MUCH MORE than just a single instance. We have over 99.9% of all general anesthetic cases.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 2:08 AM
That which casts no shadow cannot see.
That which can see MUST also be see-able.
If it can see the material, it must be material. Or else cause and effect is false, in which case NDEs are impossible because death itself is impossible.
(It has also been unequivocably demonstrated multiple times in multiple ways that it is much, much, much, much easier guess/imagine what cannot be seen and have it turn out to be accurate that it would at first, naively, appear. Confirmation bias takes care of the rest).
There are FAR more cases of OBEs where the person FAILS to accurately describe things which he or she cannot see than cases where it appears that he or she can describe such things accurately.
If OBEs are really the result of a non-corporeal consciousness, people having OBEs should be able to accurately describe things they cannot see EVERY SINGLE TIME, ALL THE TIME.
A SINGLE instance of such failure instantly invalidates the non-corporeal consciousness hypothesis for explaining OBEs.
And we not only have a single instance, we have the VAST MAJORITY OF INSTANCES.
Fully consistent with the hypothesis that OBEs have a material, neurologic cause.
Completely inconsistent with OBEs having a non-material, non-corporal cause.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 13, 2011 3:52 PM
David is talking about vivid dreams because he, like me, has had vivid dreams that felt so real it was as though he was awake.
Moron.
Yes, and if amphiox had presented the fact that some apples are red, you would have "countered" that by saying that there are green apples. And it would have been just as relevant.
Liar. You ignore us when we don't ignore that. As David says, you haven't even tried to address the objections we bring up when we don't ignore that.
Coincidences amplified by confirmation bias and reporting bias. Show us that this does not satisfactorily explain the data. Deal with this objection, or at least stop pretending it hasn't been made.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 13, 2011 4:53 PM
Shiloh, your NDE evidence is dead. It died the death of natural (scientific) explanation and Occam's Razor (parismony). You keep trying to stupidly and vainly resurrect it, but like all dead things, it doesn't come back to life. It just lies there decomposing. Give up on it.
You need new evidence. The same level of evidence required for your imaginary creator, jebus, or a soul. Conclusive physical evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained, your Achilles heel), origin. Something equivalent to an eternally burning bush. Instead, you don't even have a small candle. More like a wet match that won't light.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 13, 2011 6:08 PM
I'm sorry, but you having a functioning brain is NOT a fact! There are certainly observations that could contradict it, directly and totally. Your post here isn't one of them but it certainly leans in that direction. (OTOH, you're a genius compared to Shiloh and txpiper).
More evidence that you lack a functioning brain. As others have pointed out, that would not be evidence contradicting the fact of evolution at all, let alone "directly and totally".
Evolution is an observed fact; the theory of evolution is our best current explanation of that observation.
We haven't established the fact that you have one.
More evidence that you don't have a functioning brain. "To do otherwise" in this context means to conclude that evolution is false on less than overwhelming evidence, which is exactly what "those we oppose" do. The dogma here, a remarkably foolish one, is your insistence that evolution isn't a fact just because it possibly could be shown not to be one. Such a radical epistemology is intellectually dishonest because it clearly is not consistent with how people use the word "fact". Virtually everything that we consider a fact could be false ... they could all be false if we're living in the Matrix ... wait, I think I see the "heavens" opening as I write ...
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 7:18 PM
Certain aspects of evolution are facts. They are confirmed observations that will never be contradicted.
For example:
The diversity of lifeforms is a fact.
The cladistic organization of this diversity into perfectly nested hierarchies is a fact.
The relative degrees if similarity between organisms in their genomes is a fact.
Mutations happen. That is fact.
Mutations may be beneficial. That is fact.
Natural selection occurs and changes gene allele frequencies in populations. That is fact.
The faunal and floral progressions seen in the fossil record is a fact.
Bushy adaptive radiations seen in the fossil record are fact.
The fossils most similar to existing organisms are the fossils closest to them in both time and place. That is fact.
That one species can split into two species over time is an observed fact.
Nothing will ever overthrow these facts. Not even the discovery that all reality is a matrix-style simulation (in which case these facts would just becone the established parameters of the matrix program)
The theory of evolution is an explanatory framework that explains these facts. It tells us why these facts are facts, rather than something else.
For example, universal common descent is the theory that explains the nested hierarchies and the genomic similarities.
Natural selection of random mutation is the theory that explains the faunal progression, the adaptive radiations, and the fact of speciation.
New observations may overthrow these theories by providing new facts that are exceptions that can't be explained by these theories, or by demonstrating new mechanisms that explain all the existing facts even better.
But the facts are facts. New observations cannot overthrow established facts, except by showing that the original observations that discovered those facts were made or interpreted in error.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 13, 2011 10:49 PM
(whispers) Kenny... Kenny...
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 13, 2011 11:17 PM
truth machine, your pretense at anonymity is like double-blind peer review in a tiny field like mine where authors and reviewers recognize each other from their styles and arguments and know each other personally: it simply doesn't work. If I were you, I'd stop bothering.
Shiloh... what are your dreams like? Are they all lucid? In other words, when you dream, do you always know you're dreaming???
That happens to me very rarely. Usually, when I dream, I believe it's all real. And when I do notice that I'm dreaming, it's not because something feels unreal; it's almost always because I've had that dream before, and the rest is because of some logical contradiction or something, I forgot, it was only once or twice.
Oh, sure, in hindsight, after I wake up, my dreams usually turn out to have been chaotic and/or to have ignored lots of elementary facts. But they never feel somehow unreal while I'm dreaming.
Sure, there are things like the fact that my dreams are almost purely visual experience. For instance, water usually doesn't have much of a temperature in my dreams, it feels like air. But, first, exceptions – very vivid exceptions where, say, water is painfully cold – do occur; second, while I'm dreaming, I don't notice that that's unusual. I only do in hindsight, after I wake up.
You are, and you don't even notice, because you have thought about so few things in your entire life yet.
11:34 ScienceBlogs time: I point out that, and how, we have already answered this "point" so often.
1:04 ScienceBlogs time: Yet once more, Shiloh completely ignores what I just wrote.
Asshole.
Have you no moral compass whatsofuckingever?
In other words, the transparent eye cannot see.
And indeed, of all the many, many otherwise transparent animals that can see, not one has a transparent retina, even when the retina is the only intransparent body part.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 14, 2011 12:29 AM
This pretense exists only in your imagination; not only have I never denied being tm, but I have identified myself as such more than once ... notably in the thread where PZ considered banning all yahoo and google messes.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 14, 2011 12:38 AM
For further exposition of this idea, see http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 14, 2011 1:19 AM
I wonder if Shiloh realizes just how common and banal and utterly unremarkable the above is. Just how often people report dreaming about, or daydreaming about, or being reminded about, in a deja-vu sort of way, of someone close to them only to find out that they had just died recently - something they didn't or couldn't have known, and have witnesses to that effect.
It seriously happens to a significant plurality, if not an outright majority, who have lived sufficiently long enough and have enough people close to them.
People are statistically predisposed to think/dream/recall about people close to them AND statistically predisposed to think/dream/recall important life changing circumstances, such as death and illness.
And of course the number of times people think/dream/recall/have NDEs about someone close to them, and then find out that Aunt Eleanor or Uncle Jimmy was just fine and hearty, thank you very much, all along is FAR, FAR greater.
But that doesn't make for a sensational story that captures the imagination, so those events never get recorded or remembered.
(ie Confirmation bias.)
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 17, 2011 5:13 PM
Comment 223
My dear Amphiox,
I must give credit when credit is due. That was an extremely good response.
You mention that the doctors should be able to see the soul. Trouble is, they are too busy working to bring the individual back to notice the soul up on the ceiling. Also, there are people who claim to have seen ghosts. Your argument that a soul has to have a physical means to be able to see and hear. On the surface this seems plausible, but there may be other ways that seeing and hearing are accomplished. No one said that a soul could feel or taste.
You mention that most people under anesthesia do not have NDEs and that if NDEs were fact then everyone should experience them. I disagree. There is no reason for a soul to leave a body under anesthesia. There is no clinical death by being under anesthesia as far as I know. Also, even if there is, that does not necessarily mean that one has to occur.
Occam's Razor is a great place to start, but it doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is always the best.
Science is no doubt a very useful tool, but there may be instances like the supernatural where it is out of its league. BTW, there are tools out there supposedly designed to detect ghosts, but I don't know enough about them to express an opinion.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 17, 2011 5:26 PM
Amphiox,
"This pattern is fully consistent with NDEs having a neurologic cause."
In what way? How does it explain patient seeing someone who they thought was alive but, unknown to them, had just suddenly died? How does an OBE in which the patient observed something in the other room which they could not have if they were wide awake? Also, why are NDEs so consistent? Whereas, drugs and other tests are not. Even though the effects of the centrifuge on some astronauts has some similarities to NDEs they really are not at all the same.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 17, 2011 5:56 PM
Sorry fuckwitted idjit,the allege souls can't seem to see anything not visible from the person on the table. Things on the top shelves, what the top of surgery lights, or the invisible gold mini-dragon lurking there. Your alleged data is long dead, explained away by science. You need new data. Go away, find it, an then, come back. This has been explained to you several times before. You still don't get it. Here's whats happening. The brain is shutting down in a given way, with certain things shutting down first. These are responsible for the visions and their consistency. When they come back up, and if they are remembered (and only a fraction are), the mind implants false memories in an attempt to integrate those memories into reality.You are repeating yourself ad nauseum. Trying futilely to plead a cold case without new evidence, which is absolutely required for this appeal. It just makes you like an illiterate, unscientific, unthinking, unintelligent loser. If the Foo Shits, wear it....
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 6:25 PM
Then the way forward for you is clear, Shiloh.
Get yourself a grant to set up some sensitive camera equipment, pointing upwards, in operating theaters.
Don't come back until you have a result.
A positive result could win you a Nobel Prize.
The current laws of physics are pretty clear that NO such ways can exist. Thus any and all such ways, if they exist, would violate these physical laws of causality. So IF such ways exist, and IF souls use them, then we are back to the parsimony thing of having to replace ALL of modern science with something new.
If this is so, then you must stop using, ever again, any more arguments about brains being "shut down" under anesthesia and having NDEs.
The argument is a two-way street.
The more complicated explanation REQUIRES POSITIVE EVIDENCE in its favor over the simpler explanation BEFORE it can validly be favored over the simpler one.
If they see anything at all that is not imaginary, then by definition, it MUST be physical, (and most likely neurological, as so far the ONLY known methods of seeing are ALL neurological - one should not rule out the possibility of seeing physically but not neurologically, but the a priori probability of this is low). Or else ALL the laws of physics as we know them are wrong, and you will need a new explanation for why water flows downhill, along with your new description of a soul.
Confirmation bias. There are actually far more examples of NDE-like experiences wherein the subject meets a relative they thought was alive, and turns out to still be alive, after all.
If they observed ANYTHING AT ALL that is not a lucky guess, then by definition, it MUST be physical, or else ALL the laws of physics are wrong, and you will need a new explanation for why the sun shines in addition to your new description of a soul.
in the other room which they could not have if they were wide awake?
Confirmation bias. There are actually far more NDE and OBE cases wherein the subject observes something in the other room which turns out to be, after all, wrong, or the initial description so vague as to be able to refer to anything.
They aren't. If they were, they'd happen ALL time when someone is "clinically dead", instead of just a tiny fraction of cases.
It's confirmation bias again. You only select one aspect of the phenomenon (reported NDEs), ignoring the rest of the phenomenon (cases of "clinical death" without NDEs, and all the NDE-like experiences where someone DOES NOT accurately identify something in the other room, and meets a relative who is STILL ALIVE). You are taking a spectrum, blocking out everything but the red light, and saying the phenomenon is consistent because you only see one color.
There may be. But so far no such examples have yet been found. And NDEs are not even close to being one of them.
"Supposedly" is the key word here.
Those tools ALL detect real, physical, natural phenomenon (common ones are magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation), and are predicated on the assumption (usually with very little evidence in support) that ghosts interact in some way with these physical, natural phenomenon - ie ghosts are, at least in part, natural.
IF (very unlikely) someone actually detects a ghost with one of these instruments, said detection would be instantaneous proof that the thing we call the "ghost" is a natural, non-supernatural, phenomenon.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 17, 2011 7:56 PM
Nightjar,
"David is talking about vivid dreams because he, like me, has had vivid dreams that felt so real it was as though he was awake."
So have I. I woke up to find I was lying under some bridge. I actually raised myself on my arm and said "What the Heck". Only to hear my wife tell me I was dreaming and to go back to sleep. Maybe that explains OBEs. Still, there are those who are able to see what is going on in another room and get confirmation that it did indeed occur. But I was not looking down on my body, nor did I meet dead relatives.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 17, 2011 8:04 PM
Fixed that for you. That was obvious to any thinker before you even posted your first NDE, if you actually researched the phenomena.Actually, sounds like most experiences that borderline the NDE. There is no soul. It is all false memories, just like those that are easily implanted by suggestion and delusion. You have no solid and conclusive physical evidence. Just evidence that suggests to you, but no to any real scientist like those whom you are arguing with, a soul. Still no "eternally burning bush" for your imaginary soul, just like your imaginary creator. Well past time to fade into the bandwidth. You need new, and real (not imaginufactured) evidence.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 8:26 PM
In the majority of cases where this is actually well documented, we usually find that the details of the other room are not in the very first report of the experience, and only get added in later.
That's classic false memory creation.
And in the majority of the rest, we don't have any such reliable early reports.
The rest is confirmation bias.
But of course all this has already been explained to Shiloh.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 17, 2011 11:01 PM
Amphiox,
"Amphiox,
"If this is so, then you must stop using, ever again, any more arguments about brains being "shut down" under anesthesia and having NDEs"
Not so. I not only said under anesthesia, but at the same time had the heart stop. Now you have both the brain shut down by anesthesia along with it shut down further due to stoppage of the heart with brain waves flat lined.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 17, 2011 11:08 PM
Amphiox,
"In the majority of cases where this is actually well documented, we usually find that the details of the other room are not in the very first report of the experience, and only get added in later."
The cases which were documented, their was confirmation that what the person saw in the other room was confirmed. How does this end up being a "false memory"?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 17, 2011 11:13 PM
Amphiox,
"The current laws of physics are pretty clear that NO such ways can exist. Thus any and all such ways, if they exist, would violate these physical laws of causality."
I believe that those communicating with dead love ones described it as not speaking but through some sort of mental telepathy. Not sure this overrides current laws of physics, but physics is still discovering new things. Heck, in the quantum world, you can walk through walls on occasions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 17, 2011 11:18 PM
Commonly known as false memories. We've told you that for ages now. You have no unrefuted evidence. All your evidence has been explained by science, and therefore refuted conclusively. Your whining won't resurrect the dead, and just makes you look stupid even attempting it. That is not how science is done, and you have never done science. Science is only refuted by more science, and you don't know how to do that. You have no science, just your wishful thinking. Long past time to fade into the bandwidth. You lost...Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 18, 2011 4:46 PM
Here's visible proof of two ghosts. See rectangles. :-)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/ghost-towns-of-the-world-_n_1017694.html#s418237&title=Real_Photo_Ghost
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 18, 2011 6:34 PM
No. We're not saying dreams explain NDEs or OBEs. We're saying that you cannot conclude something is real just because it feels real and vivid, and we're giving dreams as an example.
That's it.
Last paragraph of my post you quoted. Did you miss it?
I don't see why this is relevant for anything.
But as I've told you, I had an OBE once. I was not under anaesthesia, my brain was not "shut down" and my heart didn't stop beating. I really was just lying in bed relaxing and meditating when I felt like I was looking down on my body from above, and the whole thing felt weirdly real and eerie during the few seconds it lasted. So what?
Really? Your dreams never include people who have already died, relatives or not? Because mine do sometimes and, uh, I don't why that is relevant either.
Oh, and before you say anything else: last paragraph from my post you quoted. Stop ignoring it.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 18, 2011 6:53 PM
Yes it does. Or, specifically, any form of telepathy that cannot be intercepted, read, detected, or recorded while it is occurring, does. (Wireless internet counts as telepathy between computers, for example.)
And there ARE NDEs, many of them, where the subject specifically describes SPEAKING, not anything like telepathy.
You have to explain BOTH types of NDEs, not just the few NDEs that happen to be by sheer chance most consistent with your pigeon-holed hypothesis, while ignoring all the rest.
Sure it is. But one does not go about assembling hypotheses that are dependent on such discoveries, BEFORE they are made, particularly when existing mechanisms are fully adequate as explanations.
FIRST discover a non-material soul, or even a means by which a non-material soul can see without being seen. THEN you can hypothesize about non-material souls causing NDEs.
Until you make that discovery, you can't.
No, for all practical purposes, you can't.
Try to at least UNDERSTAND a little bit about something before trying to use it as an argument, next time, will you?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 18, 2011 6:56 PM
Here's visible proof of pareidolia.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 18, 2011 7:07 PM
As I have already explained to you, flatlined brain waves MEAN NOTHING. Your continued use of the flat-line argument is simple intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Heart stoppage, as I have already explained to you, MEANS NOTHING. The oxygen that's already in the blood that's already in the brain, and the oxygen that's already in the brain cells themselves, DOESN'T MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR once the heart stops beating.
Even with a fully metabolically active brain, with every single cell using oxygen at the regular rate, there is enough oxygen to maintain function for several minutes. In a state of reduced metabolic activity, function can be sustained for even longer.
And all it takes is LESS THAN A SECOND, for a brain to construct a complete NDE-like experience, even one that may subjectively seem to take hours.
And most the neurologic hypotheses of NDEs postulate oxygen starvation as one of the triggering mechanisms, so heart stoppage is fully consistent with the neurologic explanations.
Furthermore, in every many kinds of open heart surgery the patient's heart is deliberately stopped for a brief period, while also under general anesthesia.
If NDEs are caused by a non-material soul leaving the body with the cessation of heart beat and brain function, ALL of these patients should have NDEs. But in reality hardly any of them do.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 18, 2011 7:16 PM
Confirmation bias. Nothing more.
Or, to put in a different way, assuming such a scenario as above, which of the following explanations are the most likely, and which most unlikely?
1. The subject simply got lucky and guessed correctly what was in the other room. Consider that out of all the thousands of cases of NDEs, the vast majority of the time the subject is not able to accurately describe something in another room, and only a tiny minority can, and the things that are typically described are the usual sorts of things that are usually found in rooms.
2. The documentation of the confirmation was erroneous. (People make mistakes)
3. The person documenting/claiming the confirmation was lying. (People lie)
4. There really is a non-material soul causing the NDE, possessing multiple properties that each violate all the known and well-established laws of science?
You keep going round and round and round obliquely trying to argue that 1, 2, and 3 are just too unlikely to be believable. And perhaps in some cases they are rather unlikely. But no matter how unlikely they might be in any particular case, they are NOT more unlikely than scenario 4.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 18, 2011 7:21 PM
Oh, and the moment you resort to this argument in any debate about scientific hypotheses, YOU AUTOMATICALLY LOSE.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 18, 2011 7:55 PM
You shouldn't have any trouble then linking to the peer reviewed physics paper that posits your NDE souls, should you? Unless, of course, you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter who can't stand to lose a scientific argument when arguing with bad evidence, like you have to date, over at least a year....Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 23, 2011 11:05 PM
Amphiox,
Great rebuttals!!! Thank you.
I will try to make comments, but too many things going on right now.
What I meant by consistency in NDEs is that there usually is a pattern. Sudden rushing sound as the person leaves the body. Seeing doctors working frantically to revive them and their body lying on table. Going through a dark tunnel, which seems like some gateway to another dimension. Seeing a being of light which exudes an overpowering feeling of love. Seeing dead relatives. Being told that it isn't their time and that they must return to their bodies. Seeing a beautiful garden with vivid colors. Seeing their life flash before their eyes. This is too consistent to be mere dreams. Dreams are extremely varied in comparison. You mentioned that most don't have NDEs. I admit I don't know why, but perhaps we are not supposed to, but occasionally it slips through. Oh, one more thing. There are people who are dying who suddenly exclaim "there is so and so an so and so, all people who have died, I'm going with them" and then they die. A good friend of the family said that he was at the bedside of a dying relative and that this occurred.
Perhaps some sort of study should be performed if funds can be garnered. You state that a soul violates physics and take exception when I say that maybe its because physics hasn't discovered everything. You then suggest that makes me a loser. I must disagree because a theory for everything has not been found yet. Also, physics doesn't know everything yet.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 26, 2011 10:20 PM
Nightjar,
"Really? Your dreams never include people who have already died, relatives or not? Because mine do sometimes and, uh, I don't why that is relevant either."
The important thing you are ignoring is that you recognize these as dreams. Those having NDEs are more like being awake and they are recognized as not being dreams.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 26, 2011 10:30 PM
David Marjanovic
"Oh, sure, in hindsight, after I wake up, my dreams usually turn out to have been chaotic and/or to have ignored lots of elementary facts. But they never feel somehow unreal while I'm dreaming."
David, that may be the key. When you wake up, you realize that you were dreaming and that it was chaotic. Those who have had NDEs do not feel this way. They are completely certain that their experience was not a dream because it was so vivid, more so when they are awake.
As far as my dreaming. No, nothing vivid. The only actual dream I had was "waking up" to find my self under some bridge in the dark and sitting up on my are and exclaiming "what the heck" only to hear my wife say that I am dreaming. No, didn't meet anyone. I also had one where I saw someone standing above me ready to plunge a knife into me and diving to the other side of the bed ending up on the floor. But neither one of them made me feel I was having an OBE or NDE.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 26, 2011 10:43 PM
Same old, same old Shiloh. NO NEW EVIDENCE. You aren't even trying, just mentally masturbating using the same old idiocies that have be utterly and totally refuted. Fade into the bandwidth. And PZ, the banhammer should be considered at this point.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 26, 2011 11:50 PM
So?
This "consistent" (it really isn't) pattern is precisely what one would expect from a neurologic mechanism. It doesn't distinguish between the neurologic hypothesis and your soul hypothesis. Indeed ALL material mechanisms follow patterns, and if you cannot distinguish between two competing hypotheses, the more parsimonious explanation wins.
So "consistency" one way or another, is completely irrelevant.
So?
NDEs aren't dreams. But they share some of the same neurologic mechanisms as dreams, as well as others that are unique to NDEs.
And certain types of dreams are known to be VERY consistent. We are saying that NDEs are akin (not equal) to specific types of dreams, which follow repeatable overall patterns.
Your argument here is irrelevant.
So?
This isn't about physics that "we don't know yet". It wouldn't actually be so much of a problem if it was just about aspects of physics we don't know about.
It's about physics that WE ALREADY KNOW TO A HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY (we're talking the equivalent of several thousand significant digits here) that MUST BE WRONG if your soul hypothesis is true.
We already know how photons work. And our current theories concerning photons predicts their behavior to a mind-boggling degree of accuracy. Your soul theory violates what we ALREADY KNOW SHOULD BE TRUE. So if your soul theory is correct, you have to REPLACE our existing theory of photons with a new theory that EXPLAINS EVERYTHING ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF PHOTONS EQUALLY WELL, and includes your soul concept.
This is not a question of trying to fit a soul into a gap in current knowledge. THERE IS NO GAP. You are trying to hammer a soul-concept into an already existing edifice of theory and evidence already as dense as a neutron star.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 26, 2011 11:58 PM
False memories.
Take the known neurologic mechanisms behind vivid dreams, add the known neurologic mechanisms behind false memories, put the two together, then add in the known neurologic reaction to oxygen deprivation (a brain in the process of shutting down, NOT "shut down"), and you already have 95%+ of everything you need to explain NDEs entirely.
Confirmation bias does the rest.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 27, 2011 12:01 AM
So?
All fully consistent with the same neurologic mechanisms behind NDEs. The only difference is that the person doesn't manage to recover.
So still irrelevant.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 27, 2011 12:05 AM
See my comment #252.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 27, 2011 12:09 AM
See how this completely ignores Nightjar's comment #247.
So it is obtuseness, or deliberate dishonesty?
You tell us, Shiloh.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 27, 2011 5:51 PM
The important thing you are still ignoring is the last paragraph of my comment #226.
Yes, and people who have NDEs recognize them as NDEs. And when I had that OBE, I recognized it as an OBE. And your point is...?
Yes, they are recognized as not being dreams because they are not dreams. And your point is...?
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 27, 2011 6:18 PM
I see I completely missed Amphiox's well-deserved Mollification. Congratulations, Amphiox!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 27, 2011 7:09 PM
Wasn't that the thread where you explained you wanted people to evaluate your comments based on their own merits instead of based on your name? That is an attempt at anonymity, and it doesn't work (as I explained), so I don't understand why you keep it up. It has no effect other than being slightly annoying.
For example...?
Remember: seeing involves photons physically knocking a chemical bond apart, which changes the shape of a protein so that it triggers a chemical reaction which, several steps later, leads to the generation of an electric impulse; hearing involves physically opening and closing the physical lid on a physical hole through which physical ions can pass when it's open, the resulting change in the electric charge of the cell generating an electric impulse.
How is feeling or tasting different from seeing or hearing?
The only difference is that they don't feature as often in human dreams!
Then what else do you propose? Blind gullibility? Picking whichever idea you like best? Or what???
Don't you even notice that you are constantly making arguments from parsimony? They're bad, but they're still arguments from parsimony. For instance, you claim metaphysics is a simpler explanation for NDEs in which people meet their dead relatives than, say, coincidence is. (You're wrong about that, but the form of your argument is still an argument from parsimony.)
Could? Would.
(Provided, obviously, that the result could be upheld – could be shown not to be due to instrument malfunctions or whatever.)
Let me try another way to word this: The more complicated explanation requires additional evidence that changes the playing field so that the previously simplest explanation is no longer the simplest one – it requires facts that contradict the previously simplest explanation. After that happens, the previously more complicated explanation is now the simplest one that isn't falsified.
Don't some people who have never been clinically dead, who have only been under anesthesia, report experiences that are indistinguishable from NDEs?
Because... that's impossible if you are right and only clinically dead people have NDEs.
Nightjar's OBE is most definitely impossible if you're right. I conclude you're not right.
= imagination in the brain of the "listener" = dream.
My dreams, as those of most people (diurnal primates that we are), are very visual. Voices usually don't have a volume, and the other senses tend not to get used at all. And, importantly, I can only tell this in hindsight, after waking up; I have never noticed this during a non-lucid dream.
...so we can simply ignore all of physics?
Is that what you're trying to say?
However unreliable science is, whatever you say is even less reliable. So, if I were you, I would not go around downplaying the reliability of science.
Well, no. Your location can be so uncertain that it can then be narrowed down to the other side of the wall. Importantly, throughout this, you have never been in the wall.
Also, this has been known since 1927. As an example of "physicists totally change their minds all the time", it utterly fails. Failblog should simply post your name without any comment.
When you're joking, use this ;-) smiley.
Here's visible proof that Leninism is metaphysically true. ;-)
Really? Because that's apparently not how dreams work, even though it was thought for a long time.
How many more times do we need to repeat it: the most consistent parts have already been explained – they are caused by vertebrate physiology; they are for the most part inevitable.
You must show us that this particular thing which physics hasn't discovered really exists.
Put up or shut up. That's how science works. Don't like it? Tough luck, loser.
Have you ever had sleep paralysis? I had it once. It was more vivid than most, if any, dreams; for instance, it featured a loud voice at full volume.
1) Not all dreams are equally chaotic. In particular, dreams can be too short to tell. I had several of those last night.
2) By "chaotic", I mean changes of place or situation or topic or whatever that, in hindsight, aren't logical. The classic NDE features several such jumps: first tunnel + light, then deity, then relatives... don't you think so, too?
In other words, while you're suffocating or otherwise in trouble, you don't stop thinking.
Thinking with no or almost no input from the sense organs = dreaming.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 27, 2011 10:07 PM
Well, he might, unfortunately, pass away (have a permanent NDE) a few years after his discovery, but a few years before the decision to award to prize, in which case he won't get it due to the non-posthumous winner rule, but his co-author probably would.
Or his supervisor might get all the credit, and "steal" the prize from him.
You could be more up-to-date on this than me.
I have had a few instances of falling asleep at say 9:00, having a dream that seemed to take hours, and then waking up to find out it's only 9:15. These usually occur when I'm sick and feverish....
Which presents the possibility that for example, in a case of a person falling unconscious while drowning in a river, only to be rescued, taken to hospital with no hearbeat, flatlined brainwaves, the whole shebob, and then revived, reporting a vivid NDE of floating over the ceiling in the ER watching the medical staff revive him, seeing his heart tracing come back (standard scenes widely disseminated in popular culture), and identifying a teddy bear in the pediatric waiting room down the hall (a false memory added after the fact after seeing the teddy bear some time after being revived), the NDE could actually have happened, in its entirety, while the person was still in the water, slowly running out of oxygen, brain shutting down but not yet shut down.
I've had recursive vivid dreams (ala a certain Calvin and Hobbes comic), where I've had a vivid dream I was sure was real, only to wake up and realize it was a dream, only to wake up and realize that I was still dreaming, about waking up and getting out of bed and brushing my teeth, only to wake up back in bed and realize I was STILL dreaming. These are often associated with a brief period of sleep paralysis at the very end, just before waking up for good.
The point being that I only realized that these vivid dreams were dreams and not real, because I woke up, and rationalized them as dreams. If I had had an NDE instead, I would have woken up and rationalized the vivid experience as an NDE. And if I happened to have been predisposed or preconditioned to consider NDEs to be "real" experiences, then I would remain convinced the NDE was "real".
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 27, 2011 10:21 PM
have a permanent NDE
would that simply be a "DE"
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 27, 2011 11:28 PM
Full immersion, as they say.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 29, 2011 5:33 PM
Amphiox,
I agree that there may be some way of explaining NDEs through dreams or lack of oxygen to the brain, but it appears that they still do not quite match the experiences of those having NDEs. I once excepted the argument that astronauts going threw centrifuge training would pass out and have NDEs. However, I later read descriptions of these so called NDEs and found they were significantly different and nothing like the Vivid experiences of those having true NDEs.
As far as your saying dreams can be consistent, I have to grant you that since I remember when I was young having dreams of being in the halls of my school embarassingly with no clothes on. I hear that that is a common dream. The question is, can that be extended to NDEs? When I woke up in my bed, I knew that I was having a dream and that I wasn't actually romping naked through my school.
I agree that an invisible soul would violate what we know about photons, but there are other types of particles detectable only by special instruments. Has there been any real scientific studies of ghosts. Supposedly people coming to a haunted house see the same ghost that others have seen, even though they didn't know about this ghost. If so, why doesn't everyone see this ghost. Some argue that some are more sensitive than others. Yeah, maybe. Or it is just hallucination. Still, if someone sees the same ghost and didn't know about that ghost before, that might add some credence.
You and others keep mentioning false memories, but false memories don't answer how they came to meet someone who they thought was healthy and alive and when they mention it, they are told that the person suddenly died.
I believe you mentioned earlier that no one has ever come back from being under general anesthesia with any memory of it, yet, when I mention that there are those who were not only under general anesthesia but also had a heart attack and who came back with vivid memory of a NDE, you then said that the brain is not completely shut down. Which is it? Also, when the brain is flat lined, how the heck can a person have a vivid anything?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 29, 2011 10:47 PM
Still nothing new Shiloh, you are increasingly desperate, like somebody is going to shave your head or nether regions if you can't show us your idiocy is true. You failed that when I linked to the paper showing all NDE were explained by brain chemistry, lack of oxygen, and false memories. From that point on, you had no scientific argument, and we will not accept anything less than true science with a link to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Your futile, inane, and insane attempts to resurrect you dead data are met with the derision they deserve. You lost. Why can't you admit the other side bid and made 7 NT, a lay down against any lead you could muster. You have nothing. They only thing you gain with further posts is looking to the lurkers like the abject loser you are. Time to cut your loses and just fade into the bandwidth. But, that won't happen since it requires honest and integrity, and you lack both...
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 29, 2011 11:49 PM
Nightjar, tell me more about your OBE. Do you still recognize it as being a genuine OBE?
David Marjanovic,
"Remember: seeing involves photons physically knocking a chemical bond apart, which changes the shape of a protein so that it triggers a chemical reaction which, several steps later, leads to the generation of an electric impulse; hearing involves physically opening and closing the physical lid on a physical hole through which physical ions can pass when it's open, the resulting change in the electric charge of the cell generating an electric impulse."
I agree what you are saying makes sense, so, if we are to assume NDEs are genuine, then there would have to be some other sort of explanation how speech and sight is accomplished. As far as taste and feel is involved, don't know if it would be required for a soul or not.
"Then what else do you propose? Blind gullibility?"
Of course not. I am merely stating that in spite of attempts to find natural explanations for NDEs, they, unfortunately fall short. None of the tests by scientists like magnetic stimulation of the brain stem or drugs actually produce what NDEs experience. There may be some similarities, but not enough to be entirely conclusive.
I repeat that the simplest answer is a good place to start, but you cannot get lazy and sit back with a satisfied mind that that is the only answer. It's not.
I'm not saying to ignore all physics, only that if there really is a soul, physics may not yet have the answers for why it can see and hear and communicate. And I am not downplaying the reliability of science. Science definitely has its place, it just may not be able to explain or study the supernatural because it differs from the material world which is where science shines.
As far as occasionally walking through walls at the quantum level, this was stated on a Nova production of PBS a few years back.
I'm joking about those photos of ghosts, there are supposedly haunted colonial houses in which the same ghost has been observed. What doesn't make sense is that some who have seen it didn't know about it, so that may take out the argument for imagination due to being told that a particular ghost was haunting the house.
"How many more times do we need to repeat it: the most consistent parts have already been explained – they are caused by vertebrate physiology; they are for the most part inevitable."
If this is so, then why is it that NDEs have not been effectively duplicated by science test. There may be some similarities, but not close enough to what a person having a genuine NDES experiences.
No matter how vivid your dreams have been, they still do not match the NDE experience, as far as I can see.
"In other words, while you're suffocating or otherwise in trouble, you don't stop thinking."
But when your brain is shut down, I find it doubtful that that person is able to think.
"The point being that I only realized that these vivid dreams were dreams and not real, because I woke up, and rationalized them as dreams. If I had had an NDE instead, I would have woken up and rationalized the vivid experience as an NDE. And if I happened to have been predisposed or preconditioned to consider NDEs to be "real" experiences, then I would remain convinced the NDE was "real"."
And if you had awakened convinced that you had an NDE and were surprised to find a relative who you had just talked to and was a picture of health, and upon checking find out that this relative died suddenly in a car accident, then would you be convinced that this NDE could be genuine? That is the situation of some who have had NDEs, but they usually have actually had a heart attack or something else which they had to be brought back to life.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 30, 2011 6:54 AM
No. That was easy.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 30, 2011 7:11 AM
The problem with NDEs is there's so much mythology, so much cherry picking, and so many lies told by the true believers that it's much easier to dismiss the whole nonsense as nonsense promulgated by people trying to push a woo agenda.
Do I think NDEs happen? Yes, in a limited sense. Peoples' brains are affected by all sorts of things, some of which are understood and others not. If 200 micrograms of LSD can cause hallucinations, then it doesn't take much stimulus for the mind to throw up all sorts of things which have little or no relationship to reality.
Do I think NDEs mean anything? No, not at all. I certainly don't think NDEs mean there's a "soul" or anything like that. You're trying to use NDEs to support superstitious nonsense and, quite frankly, you're failing miserably.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 30, 2011 8:04 AM
Shiloh, you failed to provide conclusive physical evidence for your inane claims. They are rejected. There is no soul. There is no creator. You failed. Time and time again, you failed to provide that conclusive physical evidence. Your failure to admit you failed tells the world the truth about your lack of honor and integrity. Your repeated bleatings and special pleadings for your utterly and scientifically refuted evidence shows what pathetic loser you are to the world. We aren't the ones being stupidly stubborn, you are. You lost, and scientifically, you were never in the game. Deal with that elsewhere. Further posts won't change our conclusions, unless you can provide new evidence. And you can't, as there isn't any.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 30, 2011 12:28 PM
No. Just about the most common thing that people dream about are their relatives. My relatives feature in my dreams at least 3 or 4 times a week. The odds that at some point in my life I'm going to have a dream about a relative, and then find out later than my relative died, is pretty close to 100%.
And that is true for every human being on this planet.
This has already been explained to you many times, and yet you continue to ignore it. This is intellectual dishonesty.
Research ethics. No ethics board on this side of the cold center of hell is going to approve of a protocol that involves deliberately stopping the hearts of healthy volunteers, or subjecting them to cerebral anoxia. Even a plain old general anesthetic requires quite a number of stringent hurdles to jump before you'd get approved.
So? The next-simplest answer is also fully material. As is the next-simplest one after that, and after that, and after that. There are literally hundreds of natural explanations that are more parsimonious than a non-material soul. We would have to get through testing all of them before we could even legitimately begin to consider the non-material explanations.
This has already been explained to you, many times, but you just ignore it. More intellectual dishonesty.
The non-natural explanation for NDEs falls even shorter. By a lot.
And this is one way in which it does. The natural explanation already explains how speech and sight is accomplished. This is one very big hole that the non-material explanation does not fill, but the material one fills easily. And it is a much, much bigger hole than any random coincidences about dead relatives of mundane objects in other rooms.
Here's another: an NDE-capable soul must be capable of consciousness, which means information processing. But information processing requires energy - a lot of it. And energy is material (Einstein). Where does your non-material soul get its energy then? And what happens to that energy after (First Law of Thermodynamics)? Your non-material soul violates conservation of energy.
The brain is not necessarily shut down. This has already been explained to you, but you just ignore it.
Your intellectual dishonesty is getting pathetic.
Even if the brain is completely shut down, it wouldn't matter, you know. Because brains aren't light bulbs, with off switches. Every brain that is shut down first goes through an extended period of shutting down. An instant before a brain is completely shut down, it is 99% shut down, or operating at 1%, and before that, 98%/2%, and before that 97%/3%. And the NDE can be generated during this shutting down period.
Yes you are.
Because, as has already been explained to you, we are NOT talking about some edge-of-understanding area where physics does not have good explanations, we are talking about very mundane, every-day, well-known phenomenon. A soul that can see and hear and communicate CONTRADICTS all of that known physics. Physics ALREADY HAS AN ANSWER to souls seeing, hearing and communicating, and that answer is NO. To postulate a non-material soul, you have to IGNORE THAT ANSWER. And so, to make it a viable scientific hypothesis, you have to REPLACE that answer which you ignore, with a new one of your own, a new one that must be JUST AS GOOD OR BETTER than the old answer it replaces.
This has already been explained to you.
Your intellectual dishonesty is getting pitiful.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 30, 2011 12:40 PM
Find that other sort of explanation first. Then come back here and talk about non-material souls as a viable hypothesis for explaining NDEs.
And you take a super-simplified-for-the-lay-person description on a tv-program-designed-for-public-consumption to be accurate and definitive?
Telling.
Similarities are sufficient evidence to show us that we are heading in the right direction. That is how science works.
On the other hand, tests of the non-material explanation haven't produced any similarities at all, because you can't even describe how the non-material explanation can even be tested.
You do not see very far.
As has already been explained to you, NDEs are not vivid dreams, and so obviously would not match them exactly. But they share some of the same mechanisms. So we see in vivid dreams some of the aspects of NDEs. We see the other aspects of NDEs in other phenomenon.
Every individual aspect of the NDE has a good material explanation. The NDE is simply the putting together of those components in a specific way, that occurs due to the unique circumstances that trigger NDEs.
What is that such a difficult intellectual leap for you?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 30, 2011 12:47 PM
They meet someone in their NDE, someone they think is familiar. They have the sense that this is someone they should know. They wake up, mention it, and then they are told that Uncle Bob just died. Bang. Uncle Bob is now associated with that vaguely familiar someone. False memory created. In all future re-tellings, it's Uncle Bob from the start, and the memory itself is rewired to put Uncle Bob there from the start. What was initially just a voice, or a light, is now a face, with Uncle Bob's favorite corn-cob cigar.
That was easy.
Other instances are just coincidence and confirmation bias.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 30, 2011 12:49 PM
I prefer Shiloh wanking over the Weak Anthropic Principle. Explaining why NDEs tell us nothing about Soul™ (or even Rhythm & Blues) is getting so boring.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 30, 2011 12:51 PM
None of these other particles are capable of producing vision, as far as we currently know.
But you can go and get a grant for these special instruments, detect them, and then come back to us.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 30, 2011 1:07 PM
No I didn't, you pathetic liar. I was the one who first brought up Awareness Under Anesthesia, you pitiful liar. I said that MOST (what's with this absolutist thinking with people like you?) people who go under general anesthesia have no memory of it, while the non-material soul hypothesis should strongly predict that at least most, if not all, people should have awareness under anesthesia.
It's fucking both, you dishonest git. No memory =/= completely shut down, as anyone with even an ounce of intellectual honesty would concede. Indeed general anesthetic medications have, as one of their functions, the specific, targeted disruption of the formation of short term memory and the transfer of information from short term memory to long term memory. At lower doses, you can do this to a person, ie prevent them from remembering the period of administration without them losing consciousness. But, like with all material things interacting with a complex and variable system like a human brain, it doesn't work all the time in everyone.
I've already explained this to you multiple times, you pitiful fabulist. If you're trying to measure a wave, of anything, and the maximum crest of the wave is shorter than the detection limit your most sensitive measurement device, you will measure a flatline. But there will still be a wave. There could still be lots of waves.
The level of brain activity needed to produce vivid experiences is several orders of magnitude less than that detection threshold of our most sensitive current equipment.
In science a flat line NEVER means zero. It means "no activity above the detection threshold" and "we need a more sensitive instrument".
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 30, 2011 1:10 PM
Or they start to wake up, but aren't fully conscious yet. Groggily they overhear someone saying, "this is so terrible, first Uncle Bob, and now Steve", or something similar. Bang. False memory produced. Now on the very first re-telling upon fully waking up, it's going to be Uncle Bob in that memory.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 30, 2011 9:23 PM
Amphiox,
"No. Just about the most common thing that people dream about are their relatives. My relatives feature in my dreams at least 3 or 4 times a week. The odds that at some point in my life I'm going to have a dream about a relative, and then find out later than my relative died, is pretty close to 100%."
Why do I find that amusing? Answer: Because you are talking about repeated dreams about relatives. Dreams, not an NDE. Because you have repeated dreams and one of them is about a relative who has suddenly died is not the same as some one having a one time NDE in which he meets up with known dead relatives but is surprised to find one that he just talked to who had no health issues. When he finds himself back in his body and then talks tells his wife of his experience, he finds his wife completely surprised because that person had just died and there was no way of her husband knowing that.
You mention LSD, but again I must repeat that it does not match a NDE.
"Research ethics. No ethics board on this side of the cold center of hell is going to approve of a protocol that involves deliberately stopping the hearts of healthy volunteers, or subjecting them to cerebral anoxia. Even a plain old general anesthetic requires quite a number of stringent hurdles to jump before you'd get approved"
Exactly. Your mentioning that causes me amusement since you have suggested that I get a grant and do just that. Unfortunately, there is no real way to do this ethically under completely controlled conditions, which means no one can really say whether or not a NDE is genuine or produced by the brain. Yet you seem confident that it is the brain even when it is pretty much shut down. You mentioned Occam's razor. Let me submit to you that Occam's razor could very well be used here. It makes sense that when a brain is flat lined that the likelihood of a vivid NDE caused by the brain alone is unlikely. Any awareness is most likely to be very blurred, if at all. That would certainly hold true if only 1% of your brain is functioning. For you to say otherwise would be dishonest, IMHO. Either that or you are simply grasping at straws.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 30, 2011 9:31 PM
Amphiox,
"And you take a super-simplified-for-the-lay-person description on a tv-program-designed-for-public-consumption to be accurate and definitive?"
Simplified does not equal incorrect. This is PBS, not general broadcasting.
"Similarities are sufficient evidence to show us that we are heading in the right direction. That is how science works."
Similarities might indicate there is a physical cause, but so long as you cannot produce what a NDEer experienced, you cannot make any conclusions that they are not genuine.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 30, 2011 9:37 PM
Shiloh, you can't talk your way out of refutation, you must evidence your way out of refutation with new evidence, that contradicts that which refuted your alleged evidence. You haven't presented any new evidence, but are simply juggling lies to keep your old and solidly refuted evidence in play. A last ditch effort by an already lost player, making you look bad in the process. You should be able to lose with dignity, which requires you simply to shut the fuck up. Can you do that simple thing? Or are you nothing but an idjit troll deserving the banhammer because you can't stop talking about your refuted evidence? Show you are a mature adult, not an adolescent, or worse yet, a two-year-old throwing a tantrum for not getting their way. That is where you are at the moment...
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 30, 2011 10:22 PM
Amphiox,
"As has already been explained to you, NDEs are not vivid dreams, and so obviously would not match them exactly. But they share some of the same mechanisms. So we see in vivid dreams some of the aspects of NDEs. We see the other aspects of NDEs in other phenomenon.
Every individual aspect of the NDE has a good material explanation. The NDE is simply the putting together of those components in a specific way, that occurs due to the unique circumstances that trigger NDEs."
I quite understand what you are saying, but the key here is what you said in the beginning and that is "NDEs are not vivid dreams". This has been my argument exactly. Dreams are a different animal than NDEs and therefore their cause cannot not necessarily be extrapolated to explain NDEs.
"They meet someone in their NDE, someone they think is familiar. They have the sense that this is someone they should know. They wake up, mention it, and then they are told that Uncle Bob just died. Bang. Uncle Bob is now associated with that vaguely familiar someone. False memory created."
On the surface, your argument seems valid until you realize that the actual occurrence is that the person they saw, they knew not as someone familiar, but as Uncle Bob and when they mention it, the person they mention it to is stunned that they could know that, since there was no way of him knowing Uncle Bob had just died from an auto crash since it happened while he was unconscious and brain dead.
"None of these other particles are capable of producing vision, as far as we currently know.
But you can go and get a grant for these special instruments, detect them, and then come back to us."
The key is no 'known' particles. There may be some sort of particle not yet known to science.
But why don't you get the grant and find out, after all, you are the neurologist.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
October 30, 2011 10:47 PM
" I believe you mentioned earlier that no one has ever come back from being under general anesthesia with any memory of it,
No I didn't, you pathetic liar. I was the one who first brought up Awareness Under Anesthesia, you pitiful liar. "
Oh Really!!!!! Then try explaining your way out of what you said in your post #224"
From your post #224 "It is a FACT that the vast majority of patients coming out of anesthesia remember nothing."
You know, the Bull shit you and others are handing me is wearing a bit thin. You try to paint me as being a liar, but in the end it is you who is the one being dishonest, i.e., the real pitiful liar. Pathetic!
I submit to you that the only ones who have any awareness under general anesthesia are those who have not gotten enough of it to put them under, or for some reason it wears off. But these people are not having NDEs, they are feeling pain.
In your post 224, you go on to say "It is a FACT that a tiny minority of patients coming out of anesthesia have vivid NDEs." This is fine, but it still does not prove that the general anesthesia is the cause. Again, you have to go by the evidence where there have been those having these NDEs who have seen a relative which they thought was alive but who had just suddenly died while they were brain dead only to find this out when they give their story to a loved one who is stunned because she knows that this relative had just died suddenly. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Whether or not you want to believe it, it leaves open the possibility that these NDEs are genuine and not due to some vivid hallucination while the brain is flat lined.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 31, 2011 12:28 AM
Oh yeah. I've never had associated sleep paralysis, but dreaming of waking up sucks.
Bingo!
Why can't you recognize your cultural expectations for what they are?
How do people identify their NDEs as NDEs? By finding themselves alive and awake in a bed and not in heaven or wherever.
How do people identify their vivid dreams as dreams? By finding themselves alive and awake in a bed and not in heaven or wherever.
You come from a culture that considers dreams "not real" but is inclined to consider NDEs "real" because it already assumes an immaterial, immortal soul. However, there are cultures that assume every dream is like that – that dreams are when the soul really leaves the body, wanders around, experiences weird shit that really happens (or has happened or will happen), and then comes back.
Being a scientist, I am forced to conclude that the simplest explanation is the one we need to hold till we can disprove it: that NDEs and dreams are all equally unreal.
And if you try once more to emphasize a word by capitalizing it, I will reach through the tubes of the Internet and strangle you where you sit.
For what value of "know"?
The idea that your soul went to school naked (perhaps in a parallel universe, who knows what souls are capable of) and then came back is not any crazier than the idea that NDEs should be interpreted as a soul that goes to heaven (or wherever) and then comes back.
You start from the assumption that NDEs are special; you shouldn't.
At this point I give up and declare you an asshole. We've explained this and the other points you bring up so many times that it's extremely hard to believe you still haven't understood them. I am led to conclude that you're lying, which further means you're a troll. Trolling is a bannable offense, asshole.
None of these factors alone can replicate the entire causation of an NDE. That should be obvious. In fact, it is obvious to everyone with an IQ above room temperature in °C... so I'm again led to conclude that you're just trolling. It's hard to imagine you're really that stupid.
Fuck you. I don't take my science from an extreme oversimplification, let alone from a condescending "lie for children" for an extremely general audience.
No. See comment 275.
Actually, you're oversimplifying just like Nova did with explaining uncertainty of position as "walking through walls". There is no such thing as a flat line! What there is is "no signal that is at least three times as strong as the average of the background noise". Due to quantum uncertainty, there cannot even be such a thing as an instrument that has no background noise at all.
Maybe I need to take everything back about you being a liar. Maybe you're an asshole "only" because you refuse to recognize your inability to read for context.
You strand of hagfish slime just equated "the vast majority" with "100 %" and angrily defended your lack of vocabulary. I can hardly believe my eyes at the sight of this arrogance.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 31, 2011 7:21 AM
Shiloh, you failed the burden of proof over a month ago, and your constant attempts to try to explain your inane data keep failing too. Your data has been solidly and scientifically refuted. Nothing but brain chemistry, lack of oxygen, and false memories. You haven't shown anything otherwise, and keep pleading for special interpretation to explain your presupposition of your imaginary soul. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By that, it means that the evidence must be solid and conclusive. Your evidence is tissue paper if you must plead for it. If it was as solid as it must be, all you would have to do is point to the article in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and stand back, as it wouldn't need you to interpret anything.
You failed again, but you are too stupid or stubborn to acknowledge failure. That makes you nothing but a troll at this point. Your failure to fade into the bandwidth shows you can't accept the answer that you are WRONG. Deal with that elsewhere.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 2:09 PM
From my post, #280:
MOST = vast majority, for those of us who actually use the english language honestly.
From your post, #269;
In what version of the english language is "most" and "vast majority" the same as "no one has ever"???
There are millions of people who undergo general anesthesia EVERY DAY. The number who report any memory or awareness under anesthesia are just a handful. The number who report an actual NDE-like experience an even smaller handful.
How is that NOT, in any version of the english language that honest people use, "a vast majority"?
Thank you Shiloh, for admitting that you lied about me.
A more formal apology would be appreciated.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 2:14 PM
It was YOU who introduced the wording "not genuine". I went with it in my response only because I was not interested in rehashing that point.
Much earlier I explicitly stated that NDEs are real (real=genuine in any version of the english language that honest people use), but that they have a physical cause.
That has been my point from the beginning, NDEs have a physical cause.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 2:19 PM
I watched that PBS program you refer to, you know. That segment was a "what-if" thought experiment, as in "what if things that can happen on the quantum scale could happen on the macro scale?" ie, it is EXPLICITLY stated in the program that this sort of thing does NOT happen to any significant degree in the macro scale world.
Or to put it another way, the probability of such a thing happening, on the quantum level, can be calculated. Scale that up to the macro-scale gives you a probability of 1 in several hundred trillion. Which means that if you (and the universe) lasted several hundred trillion years, it would happen ONCE.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 2:22 PM
Why should I? I am not the one with a hypothesis about NDEs that requires such unknown particles. My hypothesis about NDEs works perfectly well with KNOWN particles, ions, molecules, and electrons.
YOU are the one who is proposing a hypothesis that absolutely REQUIRES these unknown particles.
The burden of demonstration is on YOU.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 2:28 PM
The POSSIBILITY that NDEs are caused by a non-material soul is several quadrillion times (at least) LOWER than the POSSIBILITY that they are vivid hallucinations that occur while a brain is under distress and starting to shut down.
The POSSIBILITY that your encounter with a dead relative in your NDE is because your two non-material souls are meeting in some hitherto undetectable non-material plane of existence is several quadrillion times (at least) LOWER than the POSSIBILITY that your vision of meeting your dead relative was a combination of coincidence, false memory, and confirmation bias.
That is why I prefer the latter explanation.
Hallucinations are perfectly genuine phenomenon, by the way.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 2:40 PM
How do you know what the "actual occurrence" is, except by the report of the person who had it, after the fact. How can you rule out that it was a false memory created some time before that person made the report?
How can you rule out that even if it wasn't a false memory, it was just a lucky coincidence?
The POSSIBILITY that it could be any of these is much, much higher than the POSSIBILITY that the whole thing was the result of a non-material soul that violates all the known laws of science.
How do you know that this person was "stunned", except by that person's own self-report, after the fact. How can you rule out it this too was a false memory, produced in that other person, after the fact?
How do you know for certain that there is "no way" of him knowing? How do you rule out the possibility that, even while unconscious, he was receiving some sensory input and processing it subconsciously? How do you know for certain that someone didn't whisper something about Uncle Bob's auto crash near enough to the unconscious person's bedside to be heard, only to forget they had later, thanks to the false memory phenomenon?
Your entire argument on this point has been a tiresome repetition of an unfounded assertion that such circumstances are impossible.
And yes, they are not likely things. Maybe it's a one in a million chance, or a one in a billion chance.
It doesn't matter, because that is still ORDERS of magnitude MORE likely than the POSSIBILITY of a non-material soul existing, because, as has already been explained to you, such a non-material soul's existence violates known laws of physics whose accuracy has been repeatedly confirmed to a certainty beyond several parts per trillion. Which means that the likelihood they are wrong is less than several in a trillion. And since of all the possible was in which they might be wrong, only a few of these would also allow for the existence of a non-material soul, the POSSIBILITY that a non-material soul exists in a way that is capable for it to cause NDEs is even lower.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 2:49 PM
You are talking to a neurosurgeon who deals with anesthesia every day of his working life.
Sometimes it is indeed because there has not been enough general anesthesia. However, what is enough for one person may not be enough for another, and there is no reliable way to predict before hand, due to variation in individual responses.
And sometimes it is because of a genetic quirk wherein that TYPE of anesthesia actually doesn't work in that particular patient.
And anesthesia doesn't "wear off". What happens is the patient's body breaks it down or excretes it, so the effective dose inside the patient's body is too low to have the desired effect. And the rates at which individuals do this are highly variable.
Not all of these people have pain. Some have vivid awareness of everything happening in the OR, right down to remember the medical staff's conversations, sometimes coupled with a OBE-like experience, with no pain at all.
And don't give us any more of that "but that's not EXACTLY like an NDE" crap argument again. That is a dishonest argument from beginning to end. NDEs are a unique phenomenon, so of course these other related phenomenon will not be EXACTLY the same. But they are RELATED phenomenon that share similarities and physical mechanisms.
It's like trying to argue that because you are not EXACTLY like your flesh and blood brother, you cannot POSSIBLY be made of flesh and blood.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 3:01 PM
When you do not or cannot have complete information, the most parsimonious explanation is preferred.
QUANTIFY "pretty much shut down".
Yes.
No need to submit anything. We've all known that you've been using Occam's razor from the very beginning, Shiloh.
It's just that you are using it incorrectly, by deliberately distorting the actual probabilities with your own confirmation bias.
Yes, unlikely. That is precisely why only a tiny minority of people who have flat lined brains actually have NDEs, while the rest do not.
But unlikely as it is, is it still MUCH MORE likely than NDEs being caused by non-material souls.
And that is why in the majority of instances where people do have some awareness, that awareness IS blurred, and NOT a vivid NDE. That is why vivid NDEs only occur in a tiny minority of cases. Because it is indeed a low probability event.
But however low it is, it is still MUCH HIGHER than the possibility that NDEs are caused by non-material souls.
No it wouldn't. We DON'T KNOW how much brain activity is required to produce vivid experience. It could be higher or lower than 1%.
And we CAN'T MEASURE what percent of the brain is functioning anyways. Our instruments aren't sensitive enough. And in most cases they aren't even capable of measuring the right thing.
And even if it were true, as low as the likelihood that a 1% functioning brain could produce a vivid NDE, that is STILL MUCH HIGHER than the possibility that NDEs are caused by non-material souls.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 7:00 PM
Here's a very interesting (and rather heartwarming) link:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/31/man-with-schizophrenia-has-out-of-body-experience-in-lab-gains-knowledge-controls-his-psychosis/
And Shiloh, if you're planning a "but that's not exactly like an NDE" reply, don't bother. We're talking about related phenomenona sharing some similar neurological mechanisms.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 31, 2011 7:23 PM
Here, Shiloh, are some NDEs that would be much more interesting than any of this "I met Uncle Joe and then found out Uncle Joe was dead" banality (and I hope you realize that a non-material soul capable of meeting and communicating with another non-material soul in a non-material plane of existence violates EVEN MORE of the known laws of science than a non-material soul capable of just hovering over the operating room and seeing the surgeons working, or drifting into the next room and noticing a broken chair or something).
NDE subject sees his relative, but it's not Uncle Joe. It's Great-great-uncle Pierre. As in Pierre Fermat. And Great-great-uncle Pierre says to him "here's my proof to my last theorem." Our subject, who has only a high school level math ability, wakes up and writes that solution down. The solution is at least 100 pages long, is DIFFERENT from Andrew Wiles' (which nearly all mathematicians agree could not possibly be the same as the solution Fermat himself had referred to in his writings, as it depended on discoveries in mathematics made after Fermat died), and IS CORRECT. And it also turns out that Pierre Fermat really IS our subject's great-great-uncle, which our subject, his parents, and his grandparents, did not know.
Here's another one: it's great-great-great grandfather Christian, as in Christian Goldbach, who tells our subject "I couldn't solve this while I was alive, but now that I've had several centuries in the afterlife thinking about it and talking with the souls of other great mathematicians, I have the answer now", and gives him the solution to Goldbach's conjecture. And our subject writes it down upon waking up, and it turns out to be correct.
Or it's Aunt Eleanor the physicist who tells our subject "I just got back from tea with the souls of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and we figured out a solution to the n-body problem". And again, the solution is given to our NDE'er, and IT IS CORRECT.
Or it's Uncle Clyde Tombaugh, who tells our NDE'er that if he points his telescope at a particular patch of sky at a particular time on a particular day three months from now, he will discover a previously unknown KBO, with an albedo of 0.57 and a diameter of 2325km. And our NDE'er records the date, time, and coordinates, and, at the appointed hour, an unknown KBO is discovered, and it has exactly an albedo of 0.57 and a diameter of 2325km.
Now those would be the kind of details that would drop the probability of coincidence, false memory and confirmation bias so low that one might, just might, be able to legitimately entertain the possibility of a non-neurological cause. (It wouldn't be enough to allow for a non-material soul, though. Only enough to consider a non-neurologic, MATERIAL soul-like entity).
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 1, 2011 12:08 AM
That is... mine. Surely, this amazing double blockquote failure (failure to close before "emphasis mine", failure to reopen after it) cannot be due to coincidence and the fact that I was very tired when I wrote that, no, it must be due to an immortal soul!!!1!
Oh. So Shiloh not only can't read for understanding, he can't even listen for understanding.
Can this be explained as ADHD? Genuine question.
On average. :-)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 1, 2011 12:28 AM
It's basically homeopathic reality....
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 1, 2011 12:57 AM
The PBS show in question is, incidentally, PBS NOVA, The Elegant Universe, Part 1: Einstein's Dream.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 1, 2011 5:13 AM
David, your idiotic sophistry and intellectual dishonesty is what's annoying. I am not keeping anything up, I am simply using the simplest login method I have and making no further effort to appease you, you self-centered git.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 1, 2011 6:21 AM
Look who's talking about self-centered gits.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 1, 2011 7:54 AM
I am, you ad hominem/tu quoque wielding jackass.
Now put me back in your killfile, you stupid wanker.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 1, 2011 12:52 PM
*sigh* Movable Type is so simple, the difference to Yahoo! cannot be great... whatever, thanks for the explanation. I'm left to wonder why you didn't clear up the misunderstanding much earlier, and I have no idea what I've done that's intellectually dishonest. I do think my autistic phobia of misunderstandings is unusual.
I'd ask why you're so angry, but... whatever. *headshake*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 1, 2011 3:50 PM
That's our Truth Machine, determined to prove to the world he's a self-centered asshole and proud of it.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 1, 2011 8:41 PM
David Marjanovic,
You mentioned cultural influences on dreams. However, there has been research to see if NDEs were different in different cultures. Turns out that they weren't.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 1, 2011 9:12 PM
Amphiox,
"The POSSIBILITY that NDEs are caused by a non-material soul is several quadrillion times (at least) LOWER than the POSSIBILITY that they are vivid hallucinations that occur while a brain is under distress and starting to shut down.
The POSSIBILITY that your encounter with a dead relative in your NDE is because your two non-material souls are meeting in some hitherto undetectable non-material plane of existence is several quadrillion times (at least) LOWER than the POSSIBILITY that your vision of meeting your dead relative was a combination of coincidence, false memory, and confirmation bias."
You throw around probability as though it is fact. You need to show how you came up with these calculations. Otherwise, they are merely subjective on your part.
"How do you know that this person was "stunned", except by that person's own self-report, after the fact. How can you rule out it this too was a false memory, produced in that other person, after the fact?"
Because this would be too convenient. Both persons having the same false memory. I'm afraid you are grasping at straws here. Remember there has been investigations. This has happen in more than one instance.
"How do you know for certain that there is "no way" of him knowing? How do you rule out the possibility that, even while unconscious, he was receiving some sensory input and processing it subconsciously? How do you know for certain that someone didn't whisper something about Uncle Bob's auto crash near enough to the unconscious person's bedside to be heard, only to forget they had later, thanks to the false memory phenomenon?"
First of all you have one person, son or spouse, so no one to be whispering to. Also, you know as well as me that after such an operation where the individual dies and is brought back, they don't bring the individual back to their hospital bed right away, but are first taken to a recovery room.
You mentioned not going to heaven. Many NDEers have stated that a relative or parent they met has informed them that it is not their time and that they must go back.
"because, as has already been explained to you, such a non-material soul's existence violates known laws of physics whose accuracy has been repeatedly confirmed to a certainty beyond several parts per trillion. Which means that the likelihood they are wrong is less than several in a trillion."
OK, first of all, what you say makes sense. I cannot deny it. However, evidence is showing that the NDE may be something more than hallucination. If so, and it is showing there is a soul, then there must be something that physics has not been able to observe.
"And don't give us any more of that "but that's not EXACTLY like an NDE" crap argument again. That is a dishonest argument from beginning to end. NDEs are a unique phenomenon, so of course these other related phenomenon will not be EXACTLY the same. But they are RELATED phenomenon that share similarities and physical mechanisms."
I hear you, but why is it that NDEs have specific patterns which no drug, magnetic stimulation, lack of oxygen to the brain, etc., truly duplicates?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 1, 2011 9:25 PM
Amphiox,
"Any awareness is most likely to be very blurred, if at all.
And that is why in the majority of instances where people do have some awareness, that awareness IS blurred, and NOT a vivid NDE. That is why vivid NDEs only occur in a tiny minority of cases. Because it is indeed a low probability event."
I guess I need to go one step further and state that what I mean by unlikely, is that a person in that state would not at all be able to have a vivid experience like that experienced by a NDEer, which makes it most likely that the experience is due to consciousness being separated from the physical brain.
"No it wouldn't. We DON'T KNOW how much brain activity is required to produce vivid experience. It could be higher or lower than 1%."
But you do know that, in most cases, when a person is under general anesthesia, they remember nothing. Seems to me that someone who is both under general anesthesia and who has suffered a heart attack and there is no detectable brain function is even more likely to have no memory of it, unless of course there is something to there being a soul.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 1, 2011 10:35 PM
Shiloh, still pleading like a delusional fool for you utterly and totally refuted evidence to be taken into account. That isn't the way science works. You need new evidence. Go away, find it, and then come back when you can totally refute with scientific evidence: brain chemistry, anoxia, and false memories. Until then, you have nothing but bullshit, and you know it. And everybody who is lurking and seeing your special and futile pleading knows it too. You failed. You can't resurrect the dead evidence, no matter how hard you try. You are just making an utter and total fool of yourself. You give us all a good laugh at your expense. Your losership is top notch, it doesn't come any better. To not be loser you need solid and conclusive scientific evidence, and here you can't even cite the scientific literature....
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 1, 2011 11:37 PM
I've already explained this to you. The probability is the degree of certainty with which we know the current laws of physics are correct, as confirmed by all the experiments we have ever done, and all the observations we have ever made.
Because your non-material soul violates these laws, it's likelihood is at the very best equal to, and most probably less (because there are more than one way in which these laws can be incorrect, and not all these ways are compatible with your soul concept) than the likelihood that these laws are incorrect. And some of these laws we know are correct to a certainty in the parts per quadrillions.
On the other hand, all that is required to explain the phenomenon using the neurological hypothesis is coincidence and confirmation bias. And these odds can also be calculated. For example, the odds that in a group of about 30 random strangers picked off the street, at least 2 will have the exact same birthday, is 80%. The concurrence of one relative having a NDE and another relative actually dying or being dead is the exact same type of coincidence of date. Now it is less likely than 80%, because you have to add other factors into it, but at the very worst it comes out to odds of one in a few millions or tens of millions.
Even if the odds were one in billions, that still makes the neurologic hypothesis more likely.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 1, 2011 11:41 PM
No it would not be "too" convenient. This sort of shared false memory is well known and very common.
Even if it were not common, the likelihood of it happening is still much greater than the likelihood that some of our most fundamental and most well supported laws of physics (accuracy and certainty in the parts per quadrillions, and getting better every year) are actually wrong.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 1, 2011 11:44 PM
And this is where, as we have already explained to you many, many, many times, you are simply WRONG.
It is simply NOT TRUE that a person in such a state would "not at all be able" to have a vivid experience like an NDE.
And we have already explained to you multiple reasons why.
I am not interested in repeating these arguments which you are clearly dishonestly ignoring.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 1, 2011 11:47 PM
I have never said anything about heaven.
You still haven't apologized for lying about me the last time.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 2, 2011 12:01 AM
Amphiox,
"Here's a very interesting (and rather heartwarming) link:"
Thank you. That was quite interesting and may explain some OBEs, except the ones where the person observes something unique in another room and gets confirmation.
Here is a site where people report their NDEs. If you click on English expanded version, you will see the account answering a detailed questionaire.
Note that one person stated that they saw details more clearly and without glasses although this person is very short-sighted.
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF_NDEs.htm
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:03 AM
Because these other things aren't NDEs, of course, just related phenomenon. The NDE is a unique phenomenon produced by a rare combination of mechnanisms that only happens occasionally.
And that is why the proportion of people both under general anesthesia and who have suffered a heart attack who have no memories during the period is greater than the number of people who have no memory with just general anesthesia.
That is why NDEs are a rare phenomenon.
But the likelihood that there is a non-material soul causing NDEs is MUCH MUCH LOWER, again because it would violate laws of physics we already know with a high degree of certainty, so the likelihood that a non-material soul can exist is equal to or less than the likelihood those laws are wrong.
This is getting tiresome.
STOP USING THIS RIDICULOUS "no detectable brain function" ARGUMENT.
IT IS NOT VALID.
OUR ABILITY TO DETECT BRAIN FUNCTION IS TOO CRUDE.
THE ABSENCE OF DETECTABLE BRAIN FUNCTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PHENOMENON OF NDEs, AND WILL REMAIN SO UNTIL WE IMPROVE OUR DETECTION ABILITY BY AT LEAST SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
FOR CONTINUED USE OF THIS ARGUMENT IS SIMPLE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 2, 2011 12:06 AM
Amphiox,
"It is simply NOT TRUE that a person in such a state would "not at all be able" to have a vivid experience like an NDE."
You already stated that instruments that are sensitive enough are not available to sense brain function when it is flat lined, yet now you are indicating that it is possible for someone to have a vivid NDE. Where's your proof?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 2, 2011 12:26 AM
Amphiox,
"The solution is at least 100 pages long,"
Ah, if only there was enough time for Fermat to provide this info and that the person could remember it as well. I remember working on forecasting methods when one of our members mentioned that Fermat's therom was solved.
Unfortunately, the NDEs usually are much simpler, like meeting loved ones or a being of light which embodies a strong feeling of love. also being told they cannot cross over into the light or they cannot return to their bodies and that it won't be permitted since there time is not finished. Also, there are cases of life reviews where the person sees their life like a video flashing by.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:38 AM
That is IRRELEVANT, because this is NOT A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING PHYSICS DOES NOT YET KNOW OR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE.
This is about things that physics HAS ALREADY OBSERVED, AND OBSERVED REPEATEDLY AND RELIABLY SUDDENLY TURNING OUT TO BE WRONG.
When Einstein superceded Newton it transformed our understanding of gravity, BUT NEWTON'S EQUATIONS STILL WORKED. Apples still fell from trees. The moon still orbits the earth. NASA still used Newton to put Spirit and Opportunity on Mars, and send Cassini to Saturn, and those missions WORKED.
What your non-material soul explanation requires, with respect to the laws governing energy and matter and information, is the equivalent of the observation that apples fall from trees somehow being WRONG, that apples actually DON'T fall from trees, and instead rocket up into space, but due to some amazing illusion that we've missed all these years, we've been fooled into thinking that the apples were falling from the trees.
THAT is the level of unlikelihood you have to overcome in order to make your non-material soul hypothesis plausible. That EVERYTHING we have already observed about how energy, matter, time and information works in this universe is actually WRONG. That there are some, hitherto undetected, particles and forces, that, acting in concert, BOTH allow for the existence of non-material souls with the SPECIFIC PROPERTIES THAT ALLOW THEM TO BE THE CAUSE OF NDEs (they have to have ALL the properties of brains in addition to being undetectable, invulnerable, immortal, and non-material), AND produce an elaborate mass illusion, or mass hallucination, that has made ALL our observations and experiments done to date, SEEM to show energy, matter, time and information behaving in the way we observe them to, when actually they were doing something completely different.
That is the ONLY WAY that a non-material soul capable of producing NDEs can possibly exist. And it doesn't matter how many weird coincidences of circumstance and detail you bring up, they don't offer one iota of additional support for your non-material soul hypothesis unless you can demonstrate that the likelihood of coincidence is actually less than the likelihood of the above.
But I have already explained this to you multiple times.
Enough Shiloh. I am done with you. I have already been far more patient with you than most. You have done NOTHING but dishonestly recycle the same discredited arguments over and over and over again, outright ignoring or misrepresenting or blatantly lying about every argument and explanation I have given you. No more.
From here on in, unless you provide a new argument with new, real, credible evidence, all further replies from me will be:
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSOOOOOUUUUULLLLSSSS....."
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:41 AM
This fallacy of proving the negative and burden of evidence has already been discussed with you many times before. I am not interested in repeating it to someone who is clearly not interested in having an honest discussion.
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSOOOOOOOUUUUUULLLLLSSSSSS....."
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 2, 2011 12:44 AM
Amphiox,
"OUR ABILITY TO DETECT BRAIN FUNCTION IS TOO CRUDE."
It doesn't take a rocket scientists to determine that someone under these circumstances, where there is no detectable brain wav, have a nil chance of having a vivid NDE without some other explanation like consciousness being separate from the physical brain. Having more sensitive instruments will not prove that this isn't true. And just because not everyone has one doesn't necessarily prove that they are due to natural causes.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:46 AM
Yes, by Andrew Wiles, which I specifically referenced in that very post, but which you seem to have lacked the honesty to acknowledge.
And therefore not so unlikely that a neurologic explanation combined with coincidence and confirmation bias cannot account for them. And not so unlikely that they require resorting to the hyper-unlikely explanation of a non-material soul.
But this has already been explained to you many, many, many times, and I am not interested in repeating it with someone who clearly is not interested in continuing an honest discussion.
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUULLLLLLSSSSSSSSS......"
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 2, 2011 12:47 AM
Amphiox,
Funny you should mention zombie. I submit to you that someone with their brains shut down under general anesthesia and having had a heart attack as well, is a trillion times more likely to be a zombie than to have a vivid NDE.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:53 AM
Again with the dishonest, irrelevant and plain WRONG "brain shut down" argument.
Seeing as vivid NDEs actually do exist, and zombies do not, your probability is observably wrong.
But even if it were a trillion times more likely, that's still several orders of magnitudes less unlikely than the level of unlikelihood you would need to make a non-material soul explanation plausible.
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSS..........."
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:56 AM
Wrong. But I am not interested in repeating something I have already explained in detail to someone clearly not intending to listen or respond in an honest fashion.
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSS...."
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:59 AM
It makes the natural cause more likely than the non-material cause, because the natural hypothesis explains WHY it doesn't happen to everyone, while the non-material hypothesis does not.
But this has already been explained to you, and I am not interested in repeating something I've already said to someone clearly not approaching the discussion in honest good faith.
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS..........."
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
November 2, 2011 2:37 AM
lol, Shiloh is back. Still having trouble working out the pole/shadow problem?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 2, 2011 6:43 AM
Sigh indeed. Cognitive dissonance can make even a bright fellow like you quite stupid. I've had a Yahoo! account practically since the day it opened; I have no MT account. Thus, logging in via Yahoo! is simpler, and I will not expend any extra effort just to negate your own self-centered fantasies about my motives. ('Tis itsretardedself is too fucking dumb to understand why I called you self-centered and thus why any reference to alleged self-centeredness on my behalf is tu quoque irrelevant/fallacious. Dumbfucks like itself think that it's enough that it has animus toward me to justify inserting it into this context.)
Because, you dimwit, I do not spend my life at Pharyngula (any more) and so I didn't see your post until moments before I responded to it. And I generally have no motivation to clear up your misunderstandings, but when I read false statements about me or other attacks on me, I do prefer to not let them go unanswered. OTOH, I hope that I don't see your response because I would prefer not to waste any more time on your pathetically idiotic and petty concerns about my handle.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 2, 2011 6:47 AM
I'm certainly proud of what I am and would despise myself if I were anything like you. Since you don't like what I write, put me back in your killfile, you morally bankrupt degenerate.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 2, 2011 7:18 AM
P.S. This whole notion that there's a "misunderstanding" is intellectually dishonest bullshit on your part, David. You asserted without (and in fact against) evidence that I was maintaining a pretense of anonymity and then patronizingly advised me that this was a waste of time because everyone can see through it -- as if I were not only an imbecile who hadn't thought of this despite my having identified myself on multiple occasions but was also blind to both explicit recognition of my identity and implicit recognition, such as John Morales calling me his sifu. And on top of that you called upon me to "stop bothering", when in fact it is no bother on my part (thus your self-centeredness) but it would be a bother to register with Moving Type or to recall or retrieve any of my other IDs when it takes me just two clicks to deal with the annoying login requirement here -- so I just punch the Yahoo! button because it's familiar and it works. And I don't give a fuck whether it says "truth machine" at the top of my posts (especially because, like, that ain't my actual name) ... some people can tell it's "me" by the tone, some by recognizing my unique "mess", some don't ... I don't give a flying fuck.
[And I realize that I've contradicted what I wrote at the end of #328, but the psychology of human preferences -- especially my preferences -- is complex.]
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 2, 2011 7:32 AM
Shiloh, since you are an imbecile, an ignoramus, and a godbot (i.e., you have an a priori commitment to belief in God and other myths), your submissions are utterly worthless within the sphere of rational truth seeking dialogue.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 2, 2011 9:47 AM
Shiloh's "arguments" now remind me of the case for the "watch gremlin," in that, the owner of a watch claims that a gremlin living in his watch, and not the kinetics of the watch springs, or batteries, is what makes his watch work. But, said gremlin is invisible to visible, ultraviolet and infrared spectrums, won't show up in x-rays, and, if it feels it's being observed, can deliberately slow its heartbeats to imperceptible levels.
But, it exists because the watch owner says so.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 2, 2011 10:47 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/02/face-in-tumour-testicular_n_1071037.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C109396#s291689&title=Jesus_in_Wax
OK, you have to scroll down to see images of Jesus. See? He really exists and may show up on your morning toast. Erf, erf, erf. ;-)
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 2, 2011 11:16 AM
Why don't you just go away, Shiloh?
No one is impressed by this, and no one is impressed by your argument style of assertion without evidence or proof.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:02 PM
Yawn, Shiloh still here? He should have faded into the bandwidth several months ago. He hasn't said anything new since then. But then, the soul doesn't exist, nor does his imaginary deity. That is a problem on an evidence based blog. Evidence is required, and Shiloh can only imagufacture some. But his lies are obvious.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 2, 2011 12:19 PM
And yet the Shiloh doesn't seem to realize that the EXACT SAME mechanisms of confirmation bias, recall bias, and perception bias from evolutionarily conserved and shared neurology that produces pareidolia ALSO accounts for all of those coincidental features of NDEs he's so impressed by.
Erk erk erk indeed.
Zombie Shiloh: "SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOO
UUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSS
SSS................"
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
November 3, 2011 3:53 AM
Shiloh, in a way, is to be commended for at least trying to put his beliefs through some sort of scrutiny. It's just a shame he doesn't have the requisite scientific and philosophical knowledge to be able to do so effectively, and the end product is going around in circles with what is really weak evidence and reason for those beliefs.
If he just took the time to spend thinking about thinking and looking into critical thinking, these discussions might be more fruitful. As it stands, Shiloh and the rest of us have two different standards of evidence, so it's just Shiloh talking down to us for ignoring what is plain truth, and us talking past Shiloh trying to make a case he can't even begin to comprehend.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 8, 2011 10:47 PM
Amphiox,
"Because your non-material soul violates these laws"
Let me be clear here. You make a good argument here. You could very well be right. I must say I appreciate your taking the time to make your rebuttals. I think your presentation are maybe the best I've seen. Thank you!
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 9, 2011 7:50 PM
Amphiox,
"OUR ABILITY TO DETECT BRAIN FUNCTION IS TOO CRUDE.
THE ABSENCE OF DETECTABLE BRAIN FUNCTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PHENOMENON OF NDEs,"
Sorry. I can't let this one go. No matter how much you SHOUT, it doesn't take a neurologist or rocket scientist to determine that having the vivid experience that NDEers have described is most unlikely when under anesthesia and a heart attack at the same time with no brain waves detected with existing instruments. We are talking about something more vivid than that experienced by someone awake and conscious. This still indicates that the NDE experience could very well be due to consciousness being separate from the brain.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 9, 2011 8:08 PM
Sorry fuckwit, since there is a SCIENTIFIC explanation for NDEs that involve brain chemistry, lack of oxygen, and false memories, and you haven't prevent otherwise with solid and conclusive scientific evidence, all you have is your inability to acknowledge you failed. You failed each and every time you tried to resurrect your old data. You still fail, as you present no new data/evidence. Just rehash your old well-refuted and destroyed nonsense.No, it doesn't. You failed again loser. Why can't you acknowledge your defeat by science and just fade into the bandwidth like a person of honor, honesty, and integrity would do. Oh, that's right, you have no honor, honesty, and integrity. You are nothing but a liar and bullshitter for your imaginary deity.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 9, 2011 8:31 PM
This still indicates that the NDE experience could
very wellpossibly, perhaps, if the wind's blowing in the right direction, by some chance, not too likely but there is a faint glimmering of a hope that maybe perchance it could almost be due to consciousness being separate from the brain, but almost certainly not.Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 9, 2011 11:54 PM
And no matter how many times you repeat this same tired, discredited argument, it does not change the simple fact that this argument is WRONG.
Frankly, since brain wave recordings are NOT standard of care for resuscitation, the number of NDEs where there even is any EEG at all is only a tiny minority.
Indeed, the unlikelihood is EXACTLY CONSISTENT with the observed fact that NDEs are rare instances, occurring only very rarely out of all the recorded instances of human beings subject to near death situations.
The OBSERVED INCIDENCE of NDEs out of all near death clinical situations is EXACTLY CONSISTENT with the expected RANGE OF UNLIKELIHOOD from the neurologic explanation.
And it is INCONSISTENT by several THOUSANDS OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE with any non-material explanation.
Sure it "could" very well be so, but it could very well MUCH MORE LIKELY be from neurologic causes.
AND I WILL CONTINUE TO SHOUT SO LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO HEAR, SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A NORMAL TONE OF VOICE IS NOT GETTING THROUGH THE THICKNESS OF YOUR CRANIUM.
ZOMBIE SHILOH: "SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS....................................."
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 10, 2011 12:34 AM
Amphiox,
"And no matter how many times you repeat this same tired, discredited argument, it does not change the simple fact that this argument is WRONG."
Really? Without any scientific testing, there is no way you can say that it is definitely a discredited argument. Remember too that you said there are no sensitive enough instruments to determine whether or not there is no brain functions. Yet you are assuming that there is brain function. That is just plain bad science.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 10, 2011 12:51 AM
Yes. Really.
But this has already been explained to you countless times, and I have no interest repeating arguments to someone who clearly has no intention of debating in an intellectually honest fashion.
Or even listening.
There has been plenty of scientific testing. Every experiment ever done with photons, for example. Among many others.
But this has already been explained to you in exquisite detail, and I have no interest in repeating an explanation to a intellectually dishonest and bankrupt fool who clearly has no interest in listening or learning.
Oh yes I can. But this too, and why it is so, has already been explained to you in exquisite detail many times, and I am not interested in repeating arguments that anyone can obtain just be searching this thread to a demonstrably dishonest liar.
The simple fact that these patients recover and wake up suggests with high likelihood that there IS brain function. Because in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, the loss of brain function is irreversible and results in DEATH.
So it is POSSIBLE for the complete loss of brain function to, in rare cases, be reversible, despite the majority observation? Sure. But, given the weight of existing evidence, it is far more likely not.
Therefore, to break this parsimony it is YOU who must DEMONSTRATE that there is NO brain function. To PROVIDE POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO OVERRULE THE ARGUMENT OF PARSIMONY. And since existing instruments are NOT SENSITIVE ENOUGH TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, the onus is on YOU TO PRODUCE SUCH AN INSTRUMENT AND USE IT TO MAKE YOUR CASE.
But of course all this has already been explained to you, dishonest and pathetic liar that you are, and I have no interest in repeating myself yet again to someone clearly not interested in discussing in good faith.
Parsimony.
You, dishonest idiot that you are, wouldn't recognize good science, or any science, if it whacked you over the head, gave you a seizure, flatlined your EEG, stopped your heart, and gave you an NDE.
ZOMBIE SHILOH: "SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
......................................................................................................................................................"
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 10, 2011 1:00 AM
I wonder what Zombie Shiloh thinks about alien abductions? Are they vivid hallucinations, or is the earth really being visited by little grey men?
Or spontaneous human combustion? Is it due to the human wick effect, or is there really a hither-to as yet undiscovered subatomic particle known as a "pyrotron" that causes them?
Or Sasquatch? Is it a combination of mistaken identity and bear sightings, or is there really a large, bipedal, non-human primate roaming the wildernesses of North America?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 10, 2011 6:01 AM
Yeah, it could very well be that the infinitely tight coupling between brain states and mental states, as seen in fMRI's and a host of other neurological evidences, is just a massive coincidence. That's far more likely than that you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the facts about NDEs, I'm sure.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 10, 2011 10:57 PM
Amphiox,
Ah, Big Foot or Sasquatch. The 'famous video of Sasquatch was actually from a discarded insurance commercial. The 8 foot guy was later videoed and had the same gate as the so called Sasquatch which was just this man in a suit. Elementary my dear Amphiox.
BTW, I love the way you and others here try to skirt the issue by claiming that it is on me to prove my position while you can sit back fat dumb and happy and say you don't need to. Guess again Bunky. Even you admitted the possibility of a brain function ceasing entirely and still managing to restart. Rare, but just like NDEs. Also, you keep ignoring the point I have been trying to make that, even though there may be some tiny bit of brain function left, it is pretty obvious that, under these conditions, it is pretty much impossible to have "VIVID" experience like that of the NDEer which, I will repeat, leaves open the possibility that consciousness is separate from the brain. I further get a kick out you claiming I am being dishonest. Try looking in the mirror for the real dishonest individual. Also, I am the only one here smart enough to know that you could be right and I wrong, but that that is not necessarily the case. I have made my case. Enough said.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 10, 2011 11:03 PM
Amphiox,
Sorry, but good science doesn't suggest parsimony with no proof as being valid. That is essentially what you have said. You cannot show that there is any brain function let alone the ability for a more vivid experience than when you are awake and conscious. Stand by my statement that you are practicing bad science.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 11, 2011 12:17 AM
Shiloh, it is hypocritical of you to accuse Amphiox of "practicing bad science," when you, time after time after time, refuse to provide even a single reference to support your own inane and silly claims.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 12:51 AM
Talking to the Zombie Shiloh (SSSSOOOOUUUULLLLLSSS....) is like talking to a brick wall. NO I HAVE NOT BEEN IGNORING THAT POINT. I HAVE BEEN ANSWERING THAT POINT IN PRETTY MUCH ALL MY POSTS.
But the Zombie Shiloh (SSSSOOOOUUUULLLLSSSS....) is simply a dishonest liar to continue to make claims like this. It still hasn't apologized for the last time it lied about me.
NO IT IS NOT "PRETTY OBVIOUS". NOT AT ALL. IT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED WITH EVIDENCE. THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
NO IT IS NOT "PRETTY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE". NOT AT ALL. THAT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED WITH EVIDENCE. THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
A possibility far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far lower than the alternative possibility that consciousness is NOT separate from the brain.
But that has already been explained to the pitiful liar that is the Zombie Shiloh (SSSSOOOOOUUUUULLLLSSSSSS.....) which it consistently deliberately ignores, intellectually dishonest git that it is.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 1:00 AM
As has been already explained to the Zombie Shiloh (SSSSSSOOOOUUUULLLLSSS.....) but which it, dishonest liar that it is, continues to deliberately ignore, our positive already has substantial evidence in its favor, EVIDENCE WHICH MANY OF US HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR THIS ASININE ZOMBIE TROLL (SSSOOOOOUUUUULLLLSSS.....) IN PRIOR THREADS. The fact that this evidence does not (yet) completely explain everything about NDEs is irrelevant, because we are discussing a comparison between this hypothesis, and the hypothesis of the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS....) which, on the other hand, has NO EVIDENCE in its support, AND ALSO VIOLATES KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS, AND ALSO REQUIRES THE POSTULATION OF NEW AND ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL ENTITIES/PARTICLES/PHENOMENON. When comparing these two competing hypothesis, our hypothesis is, because of the weight of existing evidence the NULL HYPOTHESIS, and ABSOLUTELY THE ONUS IS ON THE ZOMBIE TROLL (SSSSOOOOOUUUULLLLSSSSS.....) TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 1:08 AM
That's highly implausible.
Talk about dishonest! Everyone here accepts that it is logically possible that they are wrong and that you are right -- your claim is an extreme flat-out lie.
Fine, then you should shut up and go away.
Here's the reality: you are a stupid, ignorant, and immensely dishonest troll who can proclaim that you have made your case until you are blue in the face but you will never convince anyone here that it is at all plausible that consciousness is separate from the brain because a) there is massive evidence that it is not and b) even if it were, you lack the intelligence and the willingness to do the hard work that it would take to present a convincing argument.
Either that or you're right and you're so much smarter than everyone here ... we just cannot comprehend your arguments and that's why you can't get through to us. Either way, you should stick that flounce.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 1:31 AM
Yet another example of the zombie liar (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS.....) putting words into my mouth and trying to twist my meaning, without even bothering with the curtesy of actually quoting what I said.
It still hasn't apologized for the last time it lied about me.
Pitiful.
And this is not for the zombie (SSSSOOOUUULLLSSS...) who we all already know is too dishonest to engage in discussing this point in an even the remotest hint of intellectual integrity, but the question of a brain "shutting down" completely is itself a claim subject to parsimony in the same manner as the broader claim of non-material causes of NDEs.
Because the plain fact is that the idea of a brain shutting down "completely" ALSO violates known scientific laws, in this case very well characterized laws concerning cell biology.
Cells must remain continuously metabolically active to maintain themselves. The cessation of metabolic activity = the loss of dynamic disequilibrium = irreversible DEATH.
The only exceptions are certain single-celled organisms that produce spores, and even here it is not clear if those spores have ZERO metabolic activity, or just very very low activity. AND the creation of these spores requires a very specific and organized metabolic response that takes time to set up.
Neurons and glia, most certainly, have never been observed to have such protective mechanisms.
So when we see a situation where it appears that an entire brain and completely shut down, only to recover and revive again, then there are two possibilities to consider.
The first is that the brain was never actually completely shut down, it's metabolic activity was only reduced to a level below what our instruments (which we KNOW are very crude) could detect, and then it recovered back to a level which we could detect.
The second is that the brain really did completely metabolically shut down, all it's cells to zero metabolism, which in all other situations that we know of should result in irreversible death, but due to some as yet unknown and undetectable mechanism, managed to restart, and reboot.
The second REQUIRES the postulation of an additional mechanism, and additional feature of neuronal (and glial, and microglial) cell biology that not only is able to restart neurons that had lost all metabolic function, but also preserves the structural integrity of the neuron during the period of total shut-down (as, without said structure being maintained, the rebooted brain would not retain it's old personality or memories).
In the absence of any evidence for this additional mechanism, parsimony prefers the first.
And that is why we say that without actual reliable EVIDENCE that the brain really is completely shut down to the last neuron, we should assume that it isn't, for any and every instance where an individual actually wakes up and recovers, as opposed to just dying. That is why the onus is on the Zombie (SSSSOOOOOUUUULLLLSSSS....) to DEMONSTRATE, using an instrument of sufficient sensitivity, that such brains really are completely shut down.
Without such evidence from such an instrument, the very fact that people with NDEs wake up and recover, and don't die, is powerful evidence that their brains were never "entirely" shut down.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 1:35 AM
Shiloh, you are a fucking retard. If there were proof, then considerations of parsimony would be irrelevant.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 1:38 AM
More dishonesty from the Zombie Liar (SSSSOOOUUUUULLLSSSS.......). I have stated from the very beginning that my arguments are based on parsimony and probability. That the likelihood that I am right is much, much, much higher than the likelihood that the Zombie (SSSSOOOOUUUUULLLSSS...) is right.
Which of course means that it is possible that the Zombie is right. But that possibility is infinitesimally small.
I suppose the Zombie (SSSOOOUUUULLSSS...) could just be numerically illiterate. Seeing how it has spent an entire thread (which it derailed), and multiple prior threads, trying to make probability and likelihood arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING A SINGLE NUMBER.
If the Zombie (SSSOOOOUUULLLSSS....) believes this, then why is it still posting here?
Yes indeed. Perhaps it will presumably go away now. It won't be missed.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 1:44 AM
Good science deals in EVIDENCE, not proof.
But the Zombie (SSSSOOOOUUULLLSSSS....) wouldn't recognize honest science (good or bad) if it tackled it from behind, crushed it's skull with a two-by-four, shut down its brain with an epidural hematoma, stopped its heart, flatlined its EEG (hard to say if the Zombie (SSSSOOOOUUULLSSS...) would even have a recordable tracing at the best of times....) produced a vivid NDE, let it wake up and brain it AGAIN with a lead pipe and produce ANOTHER NDE.
Pitiful.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 1:55 AM
Strictly speaking, not infinitesimally, just veryveryvery.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 8:24 AM
Amphiox,
"NO I HAVE NOT BEEN IGNORING THAT POINT. I HAVE BEEN ANSWERING THAT POINT IN PRETTY MUCH ALL MY POSTS."
BULL!!!!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 8:34 AM
Shiloh, everyone here thinks that you're a stupid lying sack of garbage, and the more you post stronger that belief.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 8:35 AM
That is what have been presenting Shiloh, ever since Science refuted your inane NDE bullcrap with brain chemistry, hypoxia, and false memories. You haven't refuted the scientific refutation, and you, making an extraordinary claim, need extraordinary evidence. Not just a ppm suggestive, but solid and conclusive. Your alleged evidence is in the parts per trillion range. Essentially, nonexistent except to delusional presuppositional fools like yourself. Well past time to fade into the bandwidth.Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 8:37 AM
Amphiox,
"NO IT IS NOT "PRETTY OBVIOUS". NOT AT ALL. IT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED WITH EVIDENCE. THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. "
Exactly!!! Show me your evidence that someone with a flat lined brain and who had a NDE was attributed to the brain and not a true NDE. I stand by my statement that ooooh, PARSIMONY states that it is more likely due to separation of consciousness from the brain than a pretty much shut down brain.
"NO EVIDENCE in its support, AND ALSO VIOLATES KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS, AND ALSO REQUIRES THE POSTULATION OF NEW AND ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL ENTITIES/PARTICLES/PHENOMENON. "
OK, I buy this as a decent argument, but I believe key phrase here is "KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS".
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 8:44 AM
"Everyone here accepts that it is logically possible that they are wrong and that you are right"
FINALLY!!! Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 8:54 AM
Sorry fuckwit, it doesn't mean what you think. It is not an admission that you ARE right, but that, with the proper and conclusive physical and scientific evidence, you could be right. But, with your anemic and unscientific evidence, you are WRONG. You have no such unrefuted evidence. Yours went away with brain chemisty, hypoxia, and false memories. You can't admit that fool.Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 9:11 AM
Amphiox,
"continues to deliberately ignore, our positive already has substantial evidence in its favor"
I don't consider your parsimony and speculation as evidence. Nor do I accept your argument that it violates "known physics" since we still don't know everything though physics is still searching for the "theory of everything". LOL! BTW, The Theory of Everything is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Did you notice the key phrase "known PHYSICAL phenomena? Obviously, if there is a soul, it is not a PHYSICAL phenomena, i.e., physics is not equipped to determine its validity. If you refuse to open your mind to this, then there is little more I can say to convince you.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 9:31 AM
Amphiox,
"Without such evidence from such an instrument, the very fact that people with NDEs wake up and recover, and don't die, is powerful evidence that their brains were never "entirely" shut down. "
OK, I can buy this and the very thorough explanation you gave with it. My question then is, if suppose that the brain still wasn't completely shut down, how did it produce a more vivid experience, i.e., NDE, then what we experience when we are awake and conscious when existing instruments show it as flat lined?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 9:35 AM
But fuckwit, if the soul interacts with the real world by being able to see a room, it is detectable by physics as it does interact with the real world. You keep missing that every important point. Your soul has to not interact at all in order to be undetectable by physics.There is no soul, as you haven't proven the stupornatural exists. You need to open your closed and nailed shut mind to the concept that your deity doesn't exist, there is no soul, nor does the stupornatural exist. You are the one who presupposes everything. We ask for evidence and you provide nothing but bullshit like the above.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 11:44 AM
It has already been explained to the pathetic lying zombie (SSSOOOOUUULLLLSSS....) why this argument is flat invalid without actually presenting EVIDENCE that there is something beyond the known laws.
But the pitiful liar continues to deliberately ignore it.
As stated IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE, which the quote-mining cherry picking lying git conveniently chooses to ignore, I was referring to evidence GIVEN TO IT IN PRIOR THREADS. WITH LINKS. All of which it has consistently ignored. It seems to be like that other odious worm texpip in thinking that its behavior in prior threads, and the things discussed therein, can be ignored or forgotten in newer threads.
Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com
|
November 11, 2011 11:44 AM
Wait, what? Parsimony is not a synonym for "what Shiloh would like to be true".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 11:59 AM
Let's see, a non-stuporsticious explanation is less parsimonious than a non-evidenced stupornatural piece of bullshit? I'm not seeing it. The simplest non-presuppositional and evidenced explanation is that it is a natural process, not a stupornatural process. Your idiotic use of parimony comes into play only if the unevidenced presupposition of a deity/soul/stuporantural overides all logic. Which always happens with you Shiloh. You presuppositions are not evidence. They are your delusions. You are living proof that the easiest person to fool is oneself. And you have done so.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 12:01 PM
Using much the same mechanisms that normal experience is produced, with the specific pathways involved working at below the detection threshold. We don't even have to postulate as to whether or not those specific pathways have decreased activity. The localized nature of the activity within those specific pathways could easily still be at 100%, with the surrounding brain impaired, and our existing instruments could still show a flat line.
But this has already been explained to the zombie troll (SSSOOOUUULLLSSSS....) and it was ignored, so I have no expectation that it will not just ignore this again.
Indeed the very fact that it is MORE vivid is very suggestive that the phenomenon is neurological in origin. If it were a real non-material soul experiencing a real experience, one would expect it to be exactly as vivid as real experience, since after all, it IS a real experience.
An INCREASED level of vividness strongly suggests impairment in the neural pathways that modulate our sense of vividness.
And an INCREASE as opposed to a decrease is quite understandable to anyone to knows anything at all about how vertebrate neurons actually work.
A huge number of neural circuits in vertebrates work by inhibition-release. This means that decreased activity is actually the ON switch, and increased activity is actually the OFF switch, with normal activity being the stable usual baseline. So an impaired brain with decreased activity producing experiences that seem, subjectively more vivid? Completely consistent with the known biology of neurons and how they work.
(One example is the retina. As retinal activity shuts down, vertebrates experience INCREASING brightness).
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 12:05 PM
And obviously postulating something whose validity physics is not equipped to determine to explain a phenomenon which is already adequately explainable using PHYSICAL mechanisms for which physics has ALREADY determined validity, fails the parsimony test in at least nine dimensions simultaneously.
But this has already been explained to the Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOOUUUULLLSSSS....) and has been ignored, so I have no expectation that the dishonest fool won't ignore this as well.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 12:14 PM
Indeed, NDEs could even be produced AFTER the period of recorded "flat lining", AFTER the patient starts to recover, AFTER the brain function rising back to almost normal levels, just before the patient fully wakes up, when the brain is at 99% or even 100% functioning.
All NDEs are recorded after the fact, when the patient is fully awake and conscious again, to report it. There's no telling exactly when it is actually produced. It could even (perhaps likely) be produced in steps. Fuzzy, vague, incomplete memories could be generated during the period of impairment, with the recovering brain filling in vivid details from older memories and imagination (a known neurological phenomenon, incidentally) into the vague blanks and holes, as high-level functions are restored.
But then this has all already been explained to the Zombie fool (SSSSOOOOUUULLLLSSSS...) on this and many other earlier threads, and the pitiful liar just ignores it all.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Athyco
|
November 11, 2011 1:52 PM
Shiloh, you won't remember me (one comment back on September 16), but I have to thank you for the number and quality of people you have assembled here in your NDE presentation.
Setup: During a "Halloween is satanic" argument between my NDE uncle and his granddaughter, I was outed as an atheist. I'm perfectly fine with that since it took the heat off a 16-year-old who bravely stated her own atheism outright rather than hint at it from the edges as I have done.
Uncle Jack immediately began an email crusade. Unlike you, however, he had only one person replying to him, which made it inescapable even to him when he misrepresented what I'd said, ignored an argument, or presented again as evidence something he'd previously acknowledged as false or irrelevant. That state of affairs led him to agree to read this thread since our personalities wouldn't get in the way.
So, Shiloh, you've caused the arrangement of evidence and argument in one place that has ended my uncle's insistence that he had a soul-proving NDE involving his mother. It's hard to describe how sweet the relationship with his wife has become now that he realizes he'd tossed aside her role in fighting for his life (considerable, since the hospital was in "no insurance, go less expensively palliative" mode) in order to magnify his importance because he got the "it wasn't his time to go" message.
Thanksgiving will be a far happier family occasion this year.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 2:51 PM
Stories such as yours, Athyco, are the primary reason I still bother to participate in threads involving Zombies (SSSSOOOOUUULLLSSS....) like the Shiloh, despite the aggravation.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 11, 2011 3:39 PM
Have a happy Thanksgiving, Athyco.
Posted by: Athyco
|
November 11, 2011 3:42 PM
For the past week, I was firmly convinced that I'd have no satisfying result, Amphiox, but after lurking on Pharyngula for 99% of the time I've read here, I was 100% positive that I wasn't arguing for myself or really against Uncle Jack. You see, he has this little habit of sending anti-Democrat, anti-feminist, anti-atheist, anti-liberal forwards to his entire address book. Most of the time I send him a Snopes link and call it a day. When three anti-atheist ones came in one day, I asked my son to check his granddaughter's Fb to see what was up. At that point, I knew I needed to wage my campaign for the lurkers.
He was rather surprised to realize that I'd hit "Reply all." After a couple of exchanges, I was not surprised to get email from other relatives saying that they agreed with me...but maybe I could be more careful about my tone. Those made me laugh because the only wordy dird was from attributing Harry Frankfurt's "Bullshit."
Ahhh, this is a long-winded way of saying that I have benefited from the Pharyngula view regarding the value of arguing against the BS. Thank you, Amphiox, et al. May your fangs be always sharp and your coats magnificently sniny.
Posted by: Athyco
|
November 11, 2011 3:45 PM
And you as well, Tis!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 6:00 PM
You just admitted that you LIED, ASSHOLE, since it was your claim to the contrary.
Obviously this is incoherent. What you are positing is something with no physical consequences .. yet you are positing it to explain physical observations.
You are a fuckwit, Shiloh, and your every post adds further confirmation.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 6:07 PM
SoSoso fuckingfuckingfucking stupidstupidstupid.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 6:13 PM
An interesting question when the posited alternative is that this "more vivid experience" was produced without a brain at all. Apparently Shiloh considers the presence of a brain to be a damper on consciousness ... not entirely surprising considering how poorly his performs.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 8:02 PM
Amphiox,
" I believe key phrase here is "KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS
It has already been explained to the pathetic lying zombie "
NO IT HAS NOT! You are talking about known laws of physics. What I am saying here is that not all laws of physics have been discovered that could explain why they can't explain NDEs. Further, physics is designed to explain the physical world, not a supernatural world, if it exists.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 8:42 PM
Once again Shiloh demonstrates what a dishonest asshole he is by ignoring previous rebuttals of the same point. Are NDEs physical phenomena, Shiloh, or not?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 9:19 PM
Sorry fuckwit, physics and medical science do explain NDEs to anyone with a brain that thinks. Brain chemistry, hypoxia, and false memories. You can't accept that due to your presuppositional belief that a soul exists. You must imagufacture evidence for that since none exists, hence your inability to acknowledge science has the answers.Science has the answers in this case, so there is no need for the supernatural, which you presuppositionally believe in. There is no evidence for it, and you haven't presented any. Just keep repeating your presuppositions, like if you repeat them enough we will become a delusional fool like you. Science is great protection from presuppositionalism.Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 10:24 PM
Amphiox,
"Indeed the very fact that it is MORE vivid is very suggestive that the phenomenon is neurological in origin. If it were a real non-material soul experiencing a real experience, one would expect it to be exactly as vivid as real experience, since after all, it IS a real experience."
But how can you conclude that an experience by a non-material soul would be as vivid as a real experience. If the consciousness is indeed separate from the brain, couldn't we also conclude that the brain is filtering out what the consciousness is actually experiencing? For instance, the soul may actually see things more vividly when it separates from our body. Some have experienced perfect sight even though they were either blind or had very poor sight and being blind never had visual dreams. Also, colors were brighter and more extreme. Further, there were descriptions of being able to see in many directions all at once.
One other thing, and I know I've asked this before, but why is it that NDEs are quite consistent, i.e., seeing doctors working to revive them, a feeling of looking at someone elses body, the meeting of some being of light that exudes a powerful feeling of warmth and love, the meeting of dead relatives, and, in some cases ones they thought were still alive but had died suddenly, a relative telling them it isn't their time and that they must return to their bodies, the moving down a dark tunnel, as though they are moving from one dimension to another, the flashing before them of their life? If these NDEs are nothing more than hallucinations or dreams, you would think they would all be different and more in the realm of dreaming.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 10:28 PM
Amphiox,
"Indeed, NDEs could even be produced AFTER the period of recorded "flat lining", AFTER the patient starts to recover, AFTER the brain function rising back to almost normal levels, just before the patient fully wakes up, when the brain is at 99% or even 100% functioning."
Now, this is a very good possibility. Still, again, as I asked in my previous post, how do you explain how NDEs are so consistent, rather than random like dreams or hallucinations?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 10:48 PM
Athyco,
"I have to thank you for the number and quality of people you have assembled here in your NDE presentation."
First of all, thank you for your comment. Though there are some good quality people here, I have to give credit where it is due. Amphiox, on this subject is by far the best I've encountered. Amphiox has been persistent and patient and has come up with some very good arguments for natural causes for NDEs. That said, there is still questions in my mind that he has not completely been able to answer. Still, I much appreciate his continued persistence. Hopefully, he will hit on some eureka comment. Even so, I feel closer to a natural answer.
You mention a satanic argument by your uncle. Let me make it clear that, though I was once a Christian, I, through much study, now feel that all religions are man-made and am now an agnostic. However, through reasoning, which I have gone into much detail on other blogs here, I feel that a creator appears to be necessary. I admit that I have to base this on speculation, since I cannot produce any proof, however, neither can any atheist prove that matter came all by itself from nothing and then expanded into the big bang into a necessarily extremely fine tuned universe, otherwise no life of any kind could exist, without some sort of intelligence bringing it about.
Athyco, keep searching. Don't just accept what people say here. You might want to get hold of Karen Armstrong's book, A Case For God. I'm about to order it myself. I find this book by her surprising, because she comes across in her other books as no longer a believer, she once was a nun. She is a very articulate writer. I've enjoyed other books by her.
After dropping out of Christianity, I thought it wouldn't be long before I found evidence that there is no creator, but that hasn't been the case. I'm not convinced one way or another because I cannot find definitive answers as yet. I am getting some good comments here, so who knows.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 11:00 PM
But how can you conclude that an experience by a non-material soul would be as vivid as a real experience. There is no soul, and it has to interact with reality to make an experience. But it doesn't interact with reality by your definition, therefore it can't make the experience. Are you just plain stupid?There is no case for god, as there is no hard and conclusive physical evidence for one. How do you determine you aren't a delusional fool for believing fuckwit? You are a delusional fool.They are different to a degree, but since they follow the same physical biopathways, they should be similar. If you weren't a professional liar and bullshitter you would acknowledge that fact.Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 11, 2011 11:03 PM
Athyco,
Glad things have improved and that you have a good Thanks Giving to look forward to. Religious issues can really cause a split in family relations. Glad they have been resolved for you. :-)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 11:09 PM
Rational and scientific arguments presented by Shiloh for NDEs involving a soul.:
*crickets chirring*
Evidence presented by Shiloh proving he is a presuppositional delusional fool? Every post in the thread above.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 11:23 PM
Fuck but you are stupid. because, as he just said in the bit you quoted, an experience by a non-material soul would be (by definition) a real experience.
Fuck, you really do think the brain is a damper on consciousness. But what would be the recipient of this filtered signal? If the consciousness has an experience, it has an experience ... in your nutty stupid incoherent picture, consciousness has some experience that gets filtered out by the brain so that it doesn't reach consciousness!
See with what? Do souls have soul-eyeballs in addition to body-eyeballs?
And you know this how, git?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 11:34 PM
Open your soul-eyes and read Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Stenger's "The God Hypothesis".
Posted by: KG
|
November 12, 2011 6:26 AM
*chuckle*
Reasoning is supposed to lead to conclusions, not feelings. What you've actually done, of course, as is evident to most here, is try to find reasons for your feeling that there must be a creator.
Posted by: KG
|
November 12, 2011 6:44 AM
I know I've asked this before, but why is it that NDEs are quite consistent, i.e., seeing doctors working to revive them, a feeling of looking at someone elses body, the meeting of some being of light that exudes a powerful feeling of warmth and love, the meeting of dead relatives, and, in some cases ones they thought were still alive but had died suddenly, a relative telling them it isn't their time and that they must return to their bodies, the moving down a dark tunnel, as though they are moving from one dimension to another, the flashing before them of their life? - Shiloh
You've not only asked it before, you've been answered before. Some of these features are not consistent at all (so-called NDEs have many culturally-specific features), some (such as the tunnel of light and the feelings of peacefulness or euphoria) can be explained physiologically, some are obviously derived from what is actually happening (doctors trying to revive them). Experiences apparently indistinguishable from NDEs can be induced in people who are not near death, by the dissociative anesthetic ketamine, and by high G-forces in pilots.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 12, 2011 10:34 AM
He'll correct me if necessary, but I don't think he's proud. I don't think he cares one way or another.
So? How many NDEs that featured the Muslim heaven (paradise with four rivers of milk, coffee, and I forgot what else) have happened in Christian places?
The things that are not different in different cultures are biological. That includes the light at the end of the tunnel, for instance – as I have already explained something like 20 times.
Because NDEs are caused by a combination of lack of oxygen to the brain, lack of oxygen to the eyes, and several other things.
...as I have also explained to you about 20 times now, I think.
...and right after accusing Amphiox of not having done the math before he talks about probabilities, you talk about probabilities that you derived from rectal extraction, put a comma behind that, and then treat the probabilities as certainties.
Dude.
Seriously.
Watch yourself thinking. It's an instructive experience.
Theorem. That's a word with three syllables.
You actually use your lack of imagination as an argument.
It's baffling.
Have you no shame?
Enough. The evidence I had, as far as I was able to interpret it, indicated quite clearly that you were maintaining a pretense of anonymity. I happily admit that my interpretation was wrong. On the other hand, the fact that you refuse to even consider the possibility of an innocent misunderstanding makes you flat-out evil. Nobody's writings, your included, are idiot-proof.
Happens to the brightest people. I didn't see a reason to assume you were immune against that.
I hadn't seen that latter occurrence. I've seen you pretty explicitly admitting your identity when called on it, but I've also seen you – as far as I remember and perhaps misremember – claim that you deliberately used a Yahoo! login because you didn't want your comments to be judged for your name.
Sleep paralysis.
You have no idea what science is, do you?
Please explain in your own words what science is. Hint: comment 354 is correct.
What rot. How much more often do we need to explain to you that a soul that perceives reality interacts with reality, has effects on reality, in other words? These effects can be measured if they exist, and that's what physics is fully equipped to do.
And the singular of phenomena is phenomenon. In Greek, that's regular.
I still don't understand why you think this way. It simply doesn't make sense to me. Do you perhaps believe you're somehow "more alive" when you're awake than when you sleep???
So comment 380 is right, and you actually "consider[...] the presence of a brain to be a damper on consciousness".
Wouldn't that be selected against?
Wouldn't it be better not to have a brain at all? What is the brain good for?
We've explained so many times why every word in this misrepresentation is wrong.
Go back and read. I'm too lazy to repeat everything here.
Actually called "God – The Failed Hypothesis".
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 12, 2011 11:12 AM
ARGH! Sorry. Having read comment 329, I wanted to delete my first paragraph and then forgot about it.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 12, 2011 11:39 PM
David Marjanovic,
"You have no idea what science is, do you?"
I know it is not based on parsimony you twit. The scientific method is not based on parsimony. Evolution is not based on parsimony. It is based on FACT. It's pretty obvious that you desperately want to cling to your belief that nothing can exist except the physical to the point that you will desperately attempted to manipulate the facts. And you have the nerve to say I have no imagination? WHAT A JOKE!!!!
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 12, 2011 11:46 PM
So, tell us, Shiloh, explain to us again why we must regard you as the ultimate authority of what can or can not be science?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 13, 2011 7:43 AM
Delusional fool Shiloh:
What a joke is your alleged NDE evidence. All bullshit, and fully explained by science. Your evidence isn't what you think it is. It doesn't suggest a soul in any way. That is a presupposition on your part, and utter and total wishful thinking on your part. You are viewing the evidence through pre judgmental rosy colored glasses. Just like all evidence for your deity. Parsimony means that the evidence for the stupornatural must be conclusive, or the simpler scientific explanation is the best, as you can leave out the stupornatural, and the results are the same. Still waiting for real evidence, not imagufactured bullshit like your NDE bullshit.Oh, and who am I going to believe on what is and isn't science. You, a professional liar and bullshitter, or a real working scientist? One goes to an accountant for tax advice, lawyer for law advice, doctor for medical advise, so going to a scientist for science advice is just plain logical. Which leaves you out.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 13, 2011 11:30 AM
Oh, no, no, no, no, Nerd! Going to a scientist for science advice is absurd and silly! 'Cause all scientists are really evil and stupid, and they all work for THE MAN! If you go to a scientist, they'll wrap you up in lies and spider silk, and then sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids!{/sarcasm}Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 13, 2011 12:52 PM
And thus the Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS.....) PROVES the assertion that it has no idea what science is.
Parsimony is arguably THE MOST IMPORTANT FOUNDATIONAL IDEA UNDERPINNING ALL SCIENCE.
The scientific method is based ENTIRELY on parsimony. The whole edifice is specifically constructed to reliably evaluate and compare the relative parsimony of competing claims.
The word "parsimony" isn't mentioned in any specific step of the scientific method because parsimony is the fundamental organizing principle BEHIND THE WHOLE THING.
Why does evolution theory posit LUCA, as opposed to independent abiogenesis events for bacteria and archaea followed by convergent evolution? Parsimony.
Why does evolution theory posit that mutations are random? Parsimony.
Why does evolution theory currently posit that natural selection is the primary mechanism for producing complex adaptions, and reject the idea that other as yet undiscovered mechanisms also have large roles to play? Parsimony.
How does evolution theory produce cladistic trees? Parsimony.
Why was BAND rejected by most evolutionary scientists as the correct explanation for all the fossil record data pertaining to the origin of birds? Parsimony.
Evolution is a scientific theory, and like ALL scientific theories, it is fundamentally parsimony all the way down.
It's nice to see the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLSSSS....) who's previously hinted at evolution denial, admit that evolution is based on fact.
And how are facts revealed, determined, and verified? Parsimony.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 13, 2011 12:59 PM
Yes, there is a joke here.
It's on the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLLSSSS....).
It would even have been amusing, if it weren't for all the odious lies.
Lies like this one.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 13, 2011 1:25 PM
Shiloh couldn't tell the difference between parsimony, a persimmon, a parsnip and antimony.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 16, 2011 10:45 AM
KG
"You've not only asked it before, you've been answered before. Some of these features are not consistent at all (so-called NDEs have many culturally-specific features), some (such as the tunnel of light and the feelings of peacefulness or euphoria) can be explained physiologically, some are obviously derived from what is actually happening (doctors trying to revive them). Experiences apparently indistinguishable from NDEs can be induced in people who are not near death, by the dissociative anesthetic ketamine, and by high G-forces in pilots."
Studies have shown that NDEs are similar across cultures. How NDEer being able to describe some instrument that they cold not do unless somehow they were actually conscious and floating above body has not been explained. Also, confirmation of something saw in the next room. I've already explained to you that the so called NDEs experienced by astronauts going through G force training is not same the as those having true NDEs. Same thing with anesthetic ketamine. Doesn't match either. The chemical induced euphoria is not the same as the meeting of a being of light that exudes an extreme feeling of peace and love. You keep saying that this has already been explained to me and I am saying that your attempted explanations, have, unfortunately, fallen short. So far, there are only partial similarities but nothing that hits the target. At one time I read that astronauts going through g-force training had the exact same experience as NDEers, but I have since read descriptions and their experiences are more like dreams and no meeting up of beings of light or dead relatives.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 16, 2011 11:16 AM
So Shiloh, if science has nothing to do with parsimony, then why do scientists all insist on parsimony?
All an evil conspiracy to oppress you?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 16, 2011 11:24 AM
David Marjanovic,
"So? How many NDEs that featured the Muslim heaven (paradise with four rivers of milk, coffee, and I forgot what else) have happened in Christian places?"
That's easy. NONE. But that also goes for Muslims too. Like I said Near Death Experiences are similar across all cultures.
"Because NDEs are caused by a combination of lack of oxygen to the brain, lack of oxygen to the eyes, and several other things."
Maybe, but doesn't explain why everyone has similar experiences. Maybe the dark tunnel? But meeting up with dead relatives and even one you thought was still alive. Also, meeting being of light exuding extreme love and peacefulness. And this happens to atheists as well as religious people.
"What rot. How much more often do we need to explain to you that a soul that perceives reality interacts with reality, has effects on reality, in other words? These effects can be measured if they exist, and that's what physics is fully equipped to do."
We may not have the instruments necessary to detect a soul or as someone else brought up it would be unethical to do a scientific experiment on people.
"You have no idea what science is, do you?"
No, it sounds like you have no idea what science is since your comment was in response to my statement that science doesn't consider parsimony as fact.
"I still don't understand why you think this way. It simply doesn't make sense to me. Do you perhaps believe you're somehow "more alive" when you're awake than when you sleep???"
What does this have to do with a brain that is flat-lined? You say you can't understand why I think this way, but I'm getting the feeling that you didn't think this out or you wouldn't have said that. I'll repeat. Whether or not a brain still has function, even though existing instruments show it to be flat lined, parsimony, yeah I'm using your argument against you, states that it is most unlikely that a person would have a more vivid experience when their brain is flat lined and they are under anesthesia then when they are conscious and moving about.
"Wouldn't it be better not to have a brain at all? What is the brain good for?"
I can only speculate that we may be here for a purpose and that it is necessary that the brain filter out everything we know before we entered our bodies. Why else would so many NDEers experience coming before a being of light and then together they both observe what happened while they were still alive? Also, some have said that they suddenly got an answer as to why we are here. Also, the brain controls all your physical functions such as mobility, etc.
"We've explained so many times why every word in this misrepresentation is wrong."
And I have explained so many times why Stenger and company are not necessarily right.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 16, 2011 11:39 AM
Amphiox,
"The scientific method is based ENTIRELY on parsimony. The whole edifice is specifically constructed to reliably evaluate and compare the relative parsimony of competing claims.
The word "parsimony" isn't mentioned in any specific step of the scientific method because parsimony is the fundamental organizing principle BEHIND THE WHOLE THING."
Woah Amphiox!!! Don't quit your day job. You may know something about neurology, but your above statement indicates that you know nothing about science. I repeat, the scientific method is definitely NOT based entirely on parsimony as you claim. And that is WHY it isn't mentioned in the Scientific Method which is as follows:
1. Ask a question
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
5. Analyze your data and draw conclusion
6. communicate your results
The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions.
Note that it is a process used to explore OBSERVATIONS, not parsimony.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2011 12:42 PM
That would be expected if the scientific explanation of brain chemistry, hypoxia, and false memories was true. Which it is. You have no credible NDE evidence, nothing but rehash of well refuted bullshit.Sorry fuckwit, you are the one who knows nothing of science. You think that the stupornatural exists. Science has shown you there is no need for the stupornatural. Since you don't like the results, you try to impeach the method.Poor, poor, ignorant Shiloh. It is there in black and white. Analyze your data and draw conclusions. That is where the parsimony comes in, in the drawing of conclusions. If the data is explained by science, say by brain chemistry, hypoxia, and false memories, not is not parsimonious to conclude a soul exists, as there is no evidence for the soul. And all you have is a wish for a soul to exist, and you must imagufacture sciency (just like truthiness versus truthfulness) sounding NDE bullshit.We are still waiting for your solid and conclusive physical evidence. You NDE bullshit isn't solid or conclusive, or even suggestive. It is just imagufactured bullshit.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 16, 2011 1:19 PM
ROTFLMAO!!!
Scientific method = falsification + parsimony. It's really funny that you try to deny the basic definition of science.
Evolution – descent with heritable modification – is a fact. The theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift is the most parsimonious explanation of how evolution happens.
Think a little! My impression is that you can't see beyond buzzwords.
In fact, I have such an analysis running on this computer right fucking now.
Wrong. NDEs that featured the Muslim heaven have occurred. Unsurprisingly, they have all happened to Muslims or to people who live in places with lots of Muslims.
Look it up.
For fuck's sake, learn to read.
I've explained so often that the light appears because of the way vertebrate eyes work.
I've explained so often that light increases the level of serotonin in the brain and decreases that of melatonin. I like looking into the sun with closed eyes, so that I see a bright but not actually dangerous yellow light. I like sunrises. I get... not outright depressed during long spells of dark weather, but plenty of people do. Of fucking course seeing a bright light leads to euphoria! That's how humans, at the very least, work!
Obviously, atheists have the same biology as believers, so these aspects of their NDEs cannot help being the same.
You make it sound as if a dead relative that one thought was still alive featured in every NDE. That's of course not the case, nowhere near it.
Meeting dead relatives at all... isn't that just an expectation? How many religions are there which don't promise exactly that?
If a soul can see, it is intransparent. That means we can see it.
If a soul can hear, it has air resistance.
If a soul can smell or taste, it can participate in chemical reactions.
If a soul can engage in fucking telepathy, it has an electromagnetic charge.
Why do you want to propose a long series of miracles that aren't needed to explain anything else???
Was about fucking time!
Once again – we already know that a flat line says more about our instruments than about a brain.
Once again – as long as there's any activity left, why should a vivid experience be less likely than a less vivid one? That's the part I don't get.
In other words, you haven't the foggiest idea, and you know it.
Because that's what they expect? My dreams, for comparison, are strongly shaped by my expectations, so strongly that it's often painfully obvious.
Namely?
Why doesn't the soul do that?
Conversely, what makes you think thinking isn't a physical function? Why are different thoughts associated with different amounts of measurable physical activity in different parts of the brain?
Please explain in your own words what "Stenger and company" claim.
X-)
Too stupid to know you're stupid.
I'll have to download the supplementary information of Dunning & Kruger to see if you were one of their data points.
So silly.
Your step 5 contains parsimony, you just didn't notice. Parsimony is the criterion for how to analyze your data and how to draw conclusions.
I'm a scientist. Here's how science works, with fewer buzzwords and fewer steps blithely glossed over:
1. Have an idea.
2. Think it through: what follows if that idea is correct?
3a. If this leads to internal contradictions, the idea is wrong. Buh-bye.
3b. If this does not lead to internal contradictions, try to disprove the idea by finding an observation that contradicts it. (If you can arrange for an observation under controlled circumstances – that's called an experiment – great, but that's not necessary and not always possible.)
4a. If you can find such an observation, the idea is wrong. Buh-bye.
4b. If you can't find such an observation, try to find a more parsimonious explanation for everything your idea can explain.
5b. If you can find a more parsimonious explanation, the idea is unnecessary (and probably wrong anyway). Buh-bye.
6. If you can't find a more parsimonious explanation, publish your idea along with the observations you've made when you tried to falsify it and the alternative explanations you came up with when you were looking for a more parsimonious alternative to your idea, so that other people can look for mistakes in your work, can make yet more observations, and suggest yet more alternative explanations that could be more parsimonious.
Dude. Where did you get your science education from? A paintbook for 5-year-olds?
Wrong.
"Explore observations" doesn't even mean anything. Learn to express what you think.
Parsimony is the process.
Posted by: ChasCPeterson
|
November 16, 2011 3:00 PM
you guys are still arguing with Kenny?
lol
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 16, 2011 3:48 PM
Everyone needs a hobby.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 16, 2011 3:59 PM
ROTFLMAO!!!
"Because that's what they expect? My dreams, for comparison, are strongly shaped by my expectations, so strongly that it's often painfully obvious."
Really? Come on now. The patient doesn't even know he died, yet you you try to claim that this patient's NDE was due to expectations.
On Parsimony in science from Wikipeida: Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is a principle that generally recommends selecting from among competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.
Can't you see the problem here? What happens if the more complex hypothesis is the correct one?
Further from Wikipedia: Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.[2]
And you wonder why your hypothesis fail so often?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 16, 2011 4:10 PM
ROTLMAO!!!,
Also from Wikipedia: In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[10][11][12][13]
I REST MY CASE!!!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 5:20 PM
It is a theorem of information theory (shown by Li and Vitányi )that a simpler hypothesis that explains a set of observations is less likely to make false predictions than a more complex hypothesis that explains the same set of observations.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 5:31 PM
Then eventually evidence will be found that it explains but the simpler hypothesis does not, at which point they are no longer "competing".
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 5:39 PM
Not for the first time, and yet you're still babbling.
A case that rests on arguing against parsimony is a very weak one: "Yes I'm making apparently unnecessary assumptions but it isn't logically impossible that they are valid."
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 5:51 PM
Here is a nice paper that discusses Ockham's Razor in depth and makes a game theoretic argument that it is both useful and "truth-tracking":
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 16, 2011 5:55 PM
Shiloh #412
Does that mean you'll finally shut up about your incredibly stupid woo?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 6:11 PM
That is false.
David, you silly, you negate your own credibility with such nonsense.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2011 6:11 PM
You rested your inane case months ago, and have been repeating yourself ad nauseum since then. I appears you won't shut up until we agree with you. We will agree with you when your provide solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary soul. So, you still have your work cut out for you, as your NDE fuckwittery is not even suggestive and utterly scientifically refuted imagufactured bullshit won't work. YOU NEED NEW EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CLAIM!!!!Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 16, 2011 6:14 PM
I was wondering if the liar Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS....) would fall into the trap of trying to list the steps of the scientific method to counter my argument, and thus explose it's stupidity and dishonesty even further.
And the idiot does not disappoint.
1. How do you determine what questions are worth asking, what questions need to be asked, HOW the questions should be asked (very important), and which of all the related competing questions should be asked first?
PARSIMONY.
2. When you do the background research, how do you determine what background findings are most important, deserve most weight? How do you rank conflicting prior observations you come across in your research in order of reliability and likelihood?
PARSIMONY.
3. How do you construct your hypothesis? How do you weigh the apriori likelihood of several competing hypotheses that you might be able to construct out of the same background data?
PARSIMONY.
4. What guides the design of your experiment in order to most efficiently and clearly distinguish between your various hypotheses and the null hypotheses?
PARSIMONY.
5. How do you interpret your data and produce conclusions from them?
PARSIMONY.
6. How does the community of peers evaluate your conclusions in light of your findings and data? Assuming you have not made gross methodological errors in your experiments, on what grounds will they most likely challenge your conclusions by reinterpreting your data? (And rest assured they'll be doing that a lot) How do you respond to these challenges? Indeed, how should you have framed your hypotheses and designed your experiments in anticipation of such challenges (doing so at the start really increases your chances of getting through peer review faster).
PARSIMONY.
In addition to being a neurosurgeon, I, like probably most of everyone who has been trying to teach the Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS....) what parsimony is and how it works, am also a published scientist. (The two of course are not mutually exclusive). I may not use the scientific method as often or as stringently as a pure basic research scientist, but I certainly use it frequently in my professional life.
It is comically laughable that the Zombie Shiloh (SSSSOOOUUULLLLSSS....) thinks it is competent enough to even try to argue the use of parsimony in the scientific method in a forum such as this. If it had the tiniest sliver of intellectual honesty and self-awareness, it would be shutting up and listening.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 6:29 PM
P.S. Of course you have a misunderstanding, David, but it is not innocent. Again,
That is how I interpret the evidence. For you to protest that the evidence as you interpret it indicated "quite clearly" that I was maintaining a pretense of anonymity is misplaced if you now accept that I wasn't, and it shows that your interpretation then and now was not clear-eyed, but rather flavored by hostility and self defense ... and in such you fail to address the point of your patronizing and self-centered advice that I stop wasting my time ... by expending more effort.
You write "Enough" but then proceed with your self-defensive whine and your attack on me as "flat-out evil" ... what does that say about you? Unsurprisingly, we probably have different opinions about what it does. As you say, neither your writings nor mine are idiot-proof. But also, both of us have our own sincere beliefs about evidence and behavior and motives ... but being sincere does not imply being intellectually honest, and thus it does not imply innocence.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 6:34 PM
See #329. I'm proud of some things, ashamed of some things, and neutral about others. But the salient point is that #306 was a stupid and dishonest non sequitur and I would be ashamed to be its author.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 6:45 PM
See how alike we are? :-) Except that I posted before reading your comment -- see how different we are? :-)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 7:03 PM
Oh fuck.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 16, 2011 7:19 PM
Round and round it goes,
Where it'll stop, we already know.
For it says the same things again and again,
Just as wrong now, as it was wrong then.
In one tiny circle it continues to turn,
We try to teach it, but it refuses to learn.
All of these postings, all of these threads,
Not a sliver of reason gets through it's thick head.
Can any hypothesis this idiocy explain?
Could it really be conscious with no evidence of brain?
And yet it persists, babbling away.
Over and over, day after day.
What law of nature could account this result?
Parsimony be damned, let's resort to occult!
Behold then an example, of the undead sort of troll,
It's the Zombie Shiloh (SSSSSOOOOOOUUUULLLLLSSSS....)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 7:30 PM
Before you try to talk any sense into Shiloh, keep in mind that his explanation for why we have brains is
Can we get a collective "Oh fuck"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2011 8:05 PM
Oh fuck, Shiloh's wrong AGAIN!!!!?????Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 16, 2011 8:12 PM
Oh no, I'm not. I'm claiming that various experiences within that NDE are due to expectations. If you experienced a tunnel, a bright light, and euphoria, what would you expect to come next?
See comments 414 through 416.
Whut?
Of course "simple" and "parsimonious" aren't exact synonyms. That's why the word "parsimonious" is used at all.
*shout*
*shout*
It's not a scientific result. It's a part of the scientific method.
Moron.
intellectually honest, and thus it does not imply innocence.I'll try to find the comments of yours that I was talking about. (Not now, though. It's well past 2 am.) In the meantime, don't project too many emotional motives into me. I have enough Asperger's that I'm capable of, for instance, insulting people not just without intending to trigger any emotional reaction, but even without disliking or despising them to any degree. You try to read between my lines a lot; but there's usually not anything there.
Why "but"? I had enough of your accusations and said so.
In this case, the difference lies in the fact that you read something that needs an answer, copy it, scroll down, paste it, write the answer, submit it, and then resume reading. I read, copy, scroll down, paste, write, scroll back up, resume reading, and so on till I've reached the end of the page, and then I submit. Often I only scroll down when I encounter the next passage that needs a reply. If, by then, I've forgotten that I've already copied something, I lose that...
I prefer headdesking, myself. :-)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 16, 2011 9:08 PM
It's hilarious how the Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS...) thinks it's scoring points by referencing Wikipedia when discussing parsimony with published scientists.
A fine demonstration of how going with the non-parsimonious alternative forces one to needlessly speculate more and more speculations on top of speculations, until the whole thing falls into total incoherency.
Reject the non-parsimonious idea of the non-material soul and one doesn't need to speculate anything at all.
And I wonder if the Zombie Shiloh (SSSSOOOOUUUULLLSSSS....) realizes that for the MATERIAL brain to be able to filter out anything at all from the soul, the soul MUST also be at least partly material. And not only material, but material specifically in a manner that can interact with the material brain ie made of NORMAL material and not exotic as yet undiscovered entities. And therefore DETECTABLE.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 16, 2011 9:10 PM
Do it hard enough and you might even produce an NDE!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 9:15 PM
An amusing projection.
Because the street runs both ways. Because if you've had enough of something, it doesn't make sense to solicit more. Again, you protest that you are sincere but seem unwilling to grant the same to me.
The accusations started from you. I believe that yours was not well grounded but believe that my own are ... what a surprise.
On the bit about preferring that what I write is judged on content rather than who I am, that is true, and did play a small role in not going to the extra effort of avoiding the yahoomess, and I did write something to that effect ... but since I did that while at the same time acknowledging my identity, the charge that I am trying to maintain a "pretense" (you whine so much about being attacked but fail to appreciate or acknowledge how offensive that charge is -- Asperger's or lack of intent notwithstanding) of anonymity with the yahoomess is silly. BTW, at the time I wrote about that, I did go to the effort of creating a more "readable" identity -- nothings.sacred, I think -- but I have lost track of how to log into that and may even have lost access to it. I'm thinking of trying again but your annoying me about this actually works on my psychology against it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 9:31 PM
But not always ... sometimes I search back to my last comment and proceed forward from there, as in this case, and sometimes I scan backwards. Sometimes (usually) I post multiple responses, even to the same post (as here) and sometimes I read through and respond to several posts at once.
I just hit the End key.
You left out "scroll back up". :-) But that actually isn't necessary if I remember to hit Duplicate Tab (ctrl-alt-T in my browser) before hitting End.
Immediate gratification doesn't run that particular risk. :-)
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 16, 2011 10:58 PM
OK, guys. Time to move on for now. Thanks for all your comments. I appreciate them very much. Some were very good and some very bad. Some here feel patronizingly that they have given me the answer to my questions. Unfortunately, none of these suggested answers manage to duplicate the experience of those having these Near Death Experiences.
When I studied the Christian religion, I had that Eureka moment that clinched the evidence for me that Christianity was man-made. Unfortunately, haven't experienced that with suggestions why NDEs are nothing more than function of a brain that has flat-lined but is POSSIBLY still functioning at a level not yet detectable by existing instruments. When I suggest that a soul may not yet be detectible because we do not have the correct instruments, suddenly I'm told that that can't be. Yet I'm told that the proof that there must be brain function is only a more sensitive instrument away. Your answer may be close, but still not conclusive, i.e., the possibility that consciousness may be separate from the brain cannot be ruled out.
I will leave you with a final observation. There are 20, that's right 20 constants which all have to be within an extremely close parameters or life of any kind would not be able to form. Physicists have tried to explain this with string theory, but this has fallen out of favor leaving, I believe, the possibility that a creator was necessary. Again, thanks everyone. Have a great evening.
CHOW!!!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 16, 2011 11:12 PM
ur doin it wrong.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 17, 2011 4:06 PM
Um, yes. :-| Wanting one's posts to be judged by their contents is a good reason.
More later.
This, Shiloh, is a half-truth.
If only one of these parameters would have a noticeably different value, but all others were constant, life as we know it would be impossible. If two of them vary together, no less than 21 % of the resulting possible universes are inhabitable. That's a pretty simple computer simulation to do; Victor Stenger has done it. *wave* Buh-bye.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 17, 2011 4:32 PM
Again, so much for "Enough." As I said earlier,
I will follow that policy from here on out.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 17, 2011 4:36 PM
Here is a better explanation of what brains are for: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 17, 2011 5:59 PM
Fixed that for you liar and bullshitter.Right, you either provide the methods to detect the soul, or shut the fuck up. Here's your problem. It can't both not interact with the real world, or interact with the real world. And if it interacts with the real world, as is required by NDEs, it is detectable. If it doesn't interact, then the NDEs cannot be explained by the soul. And your imaginary soul not seen. Typical vague definitions showing your lack of courage to be proven wrong. Which means you can't prove yourself right.Still losing loser. You lost that one a year ago. Still not showing you are right, just making a vague and unsubstantiated claim. Just like always, a loser ploy. Real thinkers allow themselves to be refuted. Which leave you out.A 100 e-ducats says Shiloh can't stick the flounce, being the abject ignorant, and arrogant loser he is.Posted by: oyunlar
|
November 17, 2011 6:28 PM
Yet I'm told that the proof that there must be brain function is only a more sensitive instrument away. Your answer may be close, but still not conclusive, i.e., the possibility that consciousness may be separate from the brain cannot be ruled out.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 17, 2011 6:36 PM
It pretty much is. The meatware brain dies or gets injured, so does the consciousness. So the null hypothesis is that consciousness is a manifestation of the brain. If it is otherwise, then hard and conclusive evidence is required. Have any in your back pocket? Welcome to science.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 17, 2011 7:06 PM
Neither can the possibility that the core of the moon is made of green cheese, with a moisture/fat/protein ratio that precisely produce the observed density and gravitational characteristics that our most sensitive instruments can currently measure.
Is it reasonable then to take the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese seriously?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 17, 2011 8:23 PM
oyunlar, why did you repeat a fragment of Shiloh's post as if it were something of your own?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 17, 2011 9:05 PM
And those are the SAME 20 constants (among many others) whose measured values are INCOMPATIBLE with the existence of non-material souls.
They are the constants in the equations that are the mathematical expressions of the fundamental laws of physics which we have referred to, that the existence of non-material souls violate.
How nice of the Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOOUUUULLLLSSSSS) to bring them up.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
November 17, 2011 9:17 PM
Shiloh:
I think you're doing it wrong.
Instead of rationally going over the counter-arguments and evaluating whether your stance has enough left going for it, you passively wait for some dramatic emotional response to arise in your mind. This creates a backwards reasoning process, in which, instead of asking "Have the counter-arguments been strong enough for me to change my mind?", you are saying "Well, I haven't changed my mind yet, so that must mean that the counter-arguments haven't been strong". You focus on your emotions rather than the evidence, and that makes you unable to discard previously refuted arguments.
truth machine:
Because that is the way some spambots work to produce what superficially seems like a meaningful comment.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 17, 2011 10:47 PM
Hmmm ... the specificity of that extract doesn't seem very spambotish, but the oyunlar35.com "Most Beautiful Game" site does ...
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 23, 2011 10:29 PM
Been watching Nova. Latest one stated that it appears that something called dark energy is responsible for the acceleration of our universe. The strength of this energy is so tiny that it has numerous zeros to the left. Well it seem that you only have to remove 3 of these zeros and this extremely small change in the energy would result in the big bang accelerating too fast for any planet or stars to form or life of any kind. The question is then asked how we lucked out when the energy tolerance is so minute? The answer was that we would have to have multiple big bangs with multiple universes. However, here is the key point, there is no way of proving that this has occurred. Hmmm, do you know what this means. It means that anyone who places his hat on this possibility is doing the same thing that the Theist is doing when they say a creator was responsible, and that is, yes you guessed it, don't have to be a brain surgeon to do so since I have already brought it up, it is based on FAITH!!!! Yes, I said I was done, but then I simply found more proof that material answers are not proven. No matter how much you wish it, the possibility of a creator is just not going to go away. Ahhh, yes, I can see it now, this organic mother churning out universe after universe which we cannot see. And you criticize a creator as being just a figment of imagination. DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!!!! Sorry Bunky, but this multiple universe speculation is simply just a silly attempt to disprove a creator and is nothing more than the product of an over active wild imagination.
Have a Happy Thanks Giving!!!
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 23, 2011 11:25 PM
You can go back so far in the past towards the big bang and before matter, but you can't go all the way. This causes a problem with philosophers, but it also causes a problem with physicists.
One other thing, a scientist stated that we cannot study string theory like you normally can scientifically. This causes a problem since it is more like philosophy than science.
To be more exact the energy in dark energy has been determined to be 120 zeros followed by a 1, i.e., extremely small and that if you remove 4 or 5 of these zeroes, this extremely small increase in energy would result in no planets or stars or life of any kind forming. The attempt to answer this is multiple universes. Unfortunately, science is based on evidence, not belief. Since there is no evidence what so ever for multiple universes, this means that this theory is based on belief, not evidence. Again, as a result, you cannot rule out a creator.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 24, 2011 4:15 AM
Shiloh:
No, that's fortunate; were it based on belief, it would be no better than religion and would have achieved as little.
You can't rule out Russell's Teapot, either.
(But believing it exists is no less pointless or silly)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 24, 2011 4:58 AM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2011 7:44 AM
Still not one iota of scientific evidence presented by Shiloh. His personal incredulity and belief in what he thinks is evidence, is not evidence. After all, he is shown presuppositionalist who will lie, bullshit, and twist any factoid to fit his presuppositions. In order to convince us, he has to take himself out of the explanations, and just cite the literature. We can take it from their, showing why he doesn't know what he is thinking is what the paper actually says.
Oh, and where's my e-ducats for Shiloh not sticking the flounce. Another prima facie piece of evidence showing he is nothing but a liar and bullshitter. I don't need to refute Shiloh, he refutes himself...
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 24, 2011 11:19 AM
Has Shiloh bothered to expand or even explain his inanely stupid claim that science is not based on parsimony?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 24, 2011 1:01 PM
The dishonest git Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOOUUUULLLLSSS) glosses over the fact that scientists interviewed in that particular Nova program HIGHLIGHT AND STRESS several times the fact that one of the MAIN REASONS multiverse hypotheses were controversial, to the point that many scientists were reluctant to even try to consider it is PRECISELY BECAUSE it appeared to be untestable, and that many scientists did (and still do) consider it to be non-scientific for exactly this reason. Even one of its ORIGINATORS shelved his own theory for several decades because he could find no way of testing it, and felt that it wouldn't withstand scrutiny from his peers because of this.
And it is only the newest ideas that suggest that the multiverse hypothesis can, indeed, make testable predictions that can be observed in the microwave background, that has elevated multiverse theory to the status of something even worth discussing in scientific circles, and it STILL remains highly controversial, with MANY scientists STILL considering it to be unscientific.
The Zombie (SSSOOOOUUULLLLSSS) again caught deliberately misrepresenting real science for its own dishonest rhetorical aims.
Quel surprise.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 24, 2011 1:08 PM
The Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOUUULLLSS) also seems to neglect to mention that the precise measured value of Dark Energy is one those many constants, that, when plugged into the known laws of nature, preclude the existence of non-material souls capable of producing NDEs.
It is surprising that the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS) is hostile to multiverse theory, though. Since in multiverse theory, assuming infinite universes, there really will be a universe out there somewhere where the laws of physics are such that non-material souls causing NDEs are allowed to exist. And, given infinite universes, there really may be a universe out there with a creator entity producing life and structure, if not entire new universes, ie a god.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 24, 2011 1:30 PM
Speaking of parsimony, the multiverse hypothesis arises from the natural extension of the mathematics governing the theories of inflation, and this theory has been rigorously tested in other domains and has to date held up.
One should think of multiverses not as a separate theory, but as a prediction of current existing theory, a prediction which at present is very hard to test.
The 10^500 plus possible universe solutions from string theory, likewise, is not a separate theory in and of itself, it is something derived from the math of string theory, and therefore a prediction of string theory. (A prediction supporting multiverse theory, but also a prediction that may with future hindsight turn out to be one of the first hints that string theory actually is wrong)
This is quite similar to how relativity predicted black holes and gravitational lensing, at a time when neither could be observed. (And indeed, Einstein, wrongly, initially thought that neither could ever be observed). And, quite rightly, the scientific community remained quite skeptical about both until technology advanced to the point where it became possible to detect them. And until black holes were finally confirmed by observation, the absurdity of the mathematics arising from singularities was viewed (and still is in some quarters) as a potential weakness of relativity, a hint that the theory is wrong or incomplete.
Which brings us back to parsimony. Between the two competing hypotheses to explain the observed value of Dark Energy, multiverse versus creator, one is a natural extension of existing theory, a prediction derived from the math underpinning existing theories that have been confirmed multiple times in multiple ways in multiple other areas. This makes every observation ever made that supports these existing theories in other realms indirect evidence in support of the multiverse extension of that very same math.*
The other pulls an entirely new and extremely complicated entity right out of its arse.
On grounds of parsimony, muliverse theory wins by a running mile, at least.
Of course the math might well turn out to be wrong, but existing observations strongly constrain how and in what manner it can be wrong. It constrains the shape of what a "right" theory can take. There is precious little room within those constraints to fit a creator of any sort. Even if multiverse theory turns out to be wrong, there are any number of potential theory X's out there that we can turn to in its place, all of which are much more parsimonious to anything to do with a creator.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 24, 2011 1:38 PM
The Zombie (SSSOOOUULLLSSSS) remains fixated on this pathetic strawman, I see.
Science doesn't care about possibilities. Science cares about probabilities. Ie QUANTIFIED possibility. The possibility of a creator will always be there, and always be so small as to be irrelevant.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 24, 2011 1:48 PM
As has been explained above, multiple universes are a prediction arising out of the mathematics of the theory of inflation. And there is LOTS of evidence supporting the theory of inflation. Scientists who support multiple universe theory ground their support on this EVIDENCE in support of inflation theory.
And, as with any good scientists confronted with a prediction of an established theory that currently has not been observed, they are working on ways to TEST this prediction, by detecting other universes.
Belief and faith are NOT part of this equation.
It is certainly possible that the mathematics of inflation theory is wrong/incomplete in the same way the mathematics of Newtonian gravity was wrong and incomplete, which would render the extension of that math that predicts multiple universes wrong, in the same way that the mathematics of Newtonian gravity that predicted the existence of "Vulcan", a planet closer to the sun than mercury, based on deviations in Mercury's observed orbit, turned out to be wrong.
But neither was a case of a theory based on belief, and not evidence. Both are cases of a theory based on evidence being extended to make a new prediction, which then proceeds to be tested.
The Zombie Shiloh (SSSOOOUUULLLLSSSS) is just making the standard creoidiot lie of equivalence, trying to falsely equate the working of the scientific method (which it does not understand in the slightest) with faith (which, incidentally, it also does not understand in the slightest).
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 24, 2011 2:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY8Zw5NzUXQ
This is an interview with Republican candidates on religion. Start with 38:00 and be ready to become sick. Let's hope the Dems win. That's all I have to say. BTW, have not had a time to read your comments. Will try to do so later on.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 24, 2011 3:01 PM
BTW, in that thing I sent you, the moderator stated without providing stats to back him up, that those believing in God or happier than secular people and that secular people are more angry. Funny, I've debated on Christan sites that Christianity is man-made and I have debated here that a creator may exist. The Christians tend to be much more angry.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 24, 2011 4:05 PM
oyunlar is one of those Turkish spambots. -lar/-ler is the plural ending for nouns.
*lightbulb*
Oh, now I finally understand that he means ciao. I thought "chow" was a new way to say "bite on that", "eat that".
Shiloh... it's Italian. It's a greatly shortened version of what amounts to "your slave", "your humble servant". And it's only approximately pronounced the way you believe it is.
*lightbulb moment*
Bingo! That's how he works. He's waiting for a religious conversion experience. He doesn't fucking care about arguments, he waits for the Lord On High to strike him down on the road to fucking Damascus and change his mind just so – for no reason a puny human could discern, and with zero input from Shiloh himself at all.
He simply can't grasp that this is not about religion. It's about science. And Dimasq is a murderous place in Syria that lies outside Shiloh's narcissistic head.
...which means multiplying the strength by 1000. "Only" my ass.
The strength of dark energy is one of the 20 constants. That's all I need to say.
That's one possible answer... and probably not a necessary one.
Yes. It means we have to apply Ockham's Razor and wield it like a war ax.
It doesn't become any more parsimonious either, though.
How often do we need to repeat it? The possibility of Russell's teapot is just not going to go away. The possibility of the undetectable dragon in Sagan's garage is just not going to go away. The possibility that you can actually read for understanding is just not going to go away – and yet, we have no reason to suppose to it exists.
Eternal inflation.
It's hard to avoid, actually, except that neither anything organic nor any mother is involved. It's simply the outcome when you take elementary physics together with the observation that the universe looks pretty much the same in any direction.
We don't make you laugh. We make you shout in all-caps and with four exclamation marks.
:-|
Hah. It's an interpretation of quantum physics that happens to make creators superfluous.
Have a happy Thanksgiving on which you learn to spell better.
(I don't know why Thanksgiving is stressed on the second part of the word. Several English compound words do, for no discernible reason.)
Then fuck string theory and try loop quantum gravity instead. :-| Or build a bigger collider.
Really, why do you keep talking about things you so obviously don't know anything about?
That's what comment 406 was. I poured my embarrassment over him in comment 408, and he shut up and moved on to his next (or previous) talking point.
...How so? Surely not because 10500 is an unimaginably large number?
Exactly.
...which means:
1) relativity predicts exactly these deviations without having to assume an extra planet;
2) not in Einstein's time, but by now, we'd have found that planet if it existed.
Tell us something we didn't know.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 24, 2011 4:12 PM
We can and do throw evidence at your head. They haven't got anything to throw, so all they can do is shout and throw tantrums. :-)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 24, 2011 8:13 PM
If some future measurement made while searching for other universes ends up constraining the number of possible solutions to a number less than 10^500, it would be a suggestion that at least the current version of string theory was partially wrong.
Or at least I think it would....
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 24, 2011 9:40 PM
Amphiox,
No matter how you try to slice it, it keeps coming back to the fact that theists state that dark energy has to be so finely tuned for any life of any kind to exist. They speculate that it has to be an intelligent designer. Physicists speculate that it is multiple universes being produced like a bunch of organic rabbits with one meeting all 20 finely tuned requirements for life of any kind. Neither one of them can prove their BELIEF. Again, Bunky, there may be a possibility of multiverses, as ridiculous as that sounds, but there may be a possibility of a Creator. Wonder which one meets Occam's Razor. I think the latter is more likely.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 24, 2011 9:49 PM
David Marjanovic,
"We can and do throw evidence at your head. They haven't got anything to throw, so all they can do is shout and throw tantrums. :-)"
True, they don't have anything to throw. Scientists do throw some evidence, but a lot is also based on belief, just like the theist. At least you don't end the discussion with "wait until you are on your death bed and have to answer to Jesus." To which I have to remark that I have done so much research that I am thoroughly convinced that Jesus was not God,but a failed prophet and that their comments produce no fear in me whatsoever.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 24, 2011 9:55 PM
Amphiox,
"And those are the SAME 20 constants (among many others) whose measured values are INCOMPATIBLE with the existence of non-material souls.
They are the constants in the equations that are the mathematical expressions of the fundamental laws of physics which we have referred to, that the existence of non-material souls violate."
I beg to differ with you. this constant has to do with energy causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. How does that equate to violation of the soul?
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 24, 2011 10:05 PM
John Morales,
"Shiloh:
Unfortunately, science is based on evidence, not belief.
No, that's fortunate; were it based on belief, it would be no better than religion and would have achieved as little."
What I mean is that it is unfortunate for those who claim that the reason for a fine tuned universe is simply chance due to multiple universes because this is based on belief and science is based on evidence.
" Again, as a result, you cannot rule out a creator.
You can't rule out Russell's Teapot, either.
(But believing it exists is no less pointless or silly)"
Who cares? We are talking about how the universe began. Debating whether or not Russell's teapot exists is nothing short of absurdity. It proves absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2011 11:27 PM
Fixed one of your many mistakes Shiloh. If you believe delusional fools who believe without evidence, you don't know what scientific evidence is or what it means. It means you are WRONG, just as you have been since you first presented your idiocy at this blog. You have nothing to change our minds, as that requires you to shut the fuck up, and just cite the peer reviewed scientific literature where your alleged evidence is. If all you have is sophistry, which is the case if you can't just point at the evidence, you have nothing but lies, bullshit, and presuppositions. Nothing of interest to anybody but fellow liars, bullshitters, and presuppositionalists.Posted by: John Morales
|
November 25, 2011 5:16 AM
Shiloh:
You can't rule out Russell's Teapot, either.
(But believing it exists is no less pointless or silly)"
Who cares? We are talking about how the universe began. Debating whether or not Russell's teapot exists is nothing short of absurdity. It proves absolutely nothing.
You are, as usual, wrong: you care, thus your ongoing protestations that because something cannot be ruled out it must be considered likely and taken seriously.
That you cannot rule something out proves that you cannot rule something out; that you cannot rule out Russell's teapot proves as much about the teapot's actual existence as not ruling out a 'creator' proves about a creator's actual existence — much as one is absurd, so is the other.
(Same principle, different instantiation)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 25, 2011 7:50 AM
Shiloh, not being able to rule out a creator is meaningless drivel. Negatives cannot be proven, unless what is being disproved is defined sufficiently that it can be falsified. You haven't defined your creator sufficiently to for it to be disproved. Since it can't be falsified with negative evidence, science puts the existence of your imaginary creator in the null hypothesis of non-existence. Then you must conclusively show with physical evidence that such a creator exists. And you failed spectacularly to show that such a creator exists. If you don't have that evidence, and you are honest, you must acknowledge it doesn't exist, and the null hypothesis of non-existence stands. Which it does.
Evidence was required, not argument. Evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. And that evidence has never, ever, been part of your what you keep doing. All you do is keep making the same presuppositional arguments, bad philosophy, imagufactured evidence, and the twisting of factoids to fit your delusional world view with a creator and soul. Both inane and evidenceless concepts, which you can't even define rigorously enough to be falsified. Typical theistic lying and bullshitting.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 25, 2011 11:58 AM
Because the observed energy causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe obeys, is consistent with, and supports the laws governing the conservation of mass-energy, while the existence of non-material souls would violate this, which de facto would automatically result in this constant being different from what is actually measured.
But this has already been explained to the Zombie (SSOOOUUULLLLSSS) in great detail. It is just dishonestly ignoring the point, as always.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 25, 2011 12:26 PM
Wrong.
As already explained to the dishonest Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS), multiple universes derive automatically out of the well-supported math governing the theory of inflation. So they are are not "ridiculous" at all, any more than the derivation for the existence of the planet Neptune from the math of Newtonian gravity and the observed path of Uranus' orbit was "ridiculous" prior to the discovery of the planet.
Multiple universes therefore requires NO additional assumptions. Their hypothesized existence merely follows naturally from pre-existing and well-established theories, and subsequent investigations will either confirm the prediction (lending even more support to the current theory) or not (which will tell us that current theories are incomplete in the area where they predict multiple universes).
Creator theory, however, posits a HUGE number of additional assumptions associated with the creator, and is therefore far less parsimonious.
The initial (and continuing) reluctance in the scientific community to embrace multiverse theory (and the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS) continues to dishonestly refuse to acknowledge this, and instead, liar that it is, continues to represent multiverse theory as if it were an accepted mainstream scientific theory like Relativity or Evolution) is practical in nature. If you do not have any way of testing a prediction, then it is not science. If you cannot ever, even in theory, test a prediction, then it is never science. If you cannot now test a theory, but possibly might be able to in the future, then it is not science, YET.
And the recent increase in interest in multiple universe theory is precisely BECAUSE it's advocates are starting to propose ways of TESTING it that may actually become practically feasible soon.
Which AGAIN exposes the fundamental dishonesty in the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLLSSS) argument. When real scientists consider something like multiverse theory to explain an observation, one of the first things they do is think of how to TEST the theory, how to DETECT these other universes. If they cannot figure out how this might be done, they SHELVE the theory. Individual scientists may continue to work on the theory, but the scientific community as a whole will NOT take it seriously until the possibility of testing becomes real. And it will not ACCEPT the theory until a detection is made.
They do NOT ever say "well, it could be multiverses, hurr hurr. It's possible that it could be mutiverses. I'll just believe it's multiverses and leave it at that. I don't need any positive evidence because it COULD be possible."
The corollary to this is simple. If the Zombie (SSOOOUULLLSSS) or anyone else wants the idea of a creator (or a soul) to be taken seriously scientifically, it must do the same, and propose a viable methodology by which said creator or soul could be DETECTED. The idea would not be accepted until such a detection is actually made and confirmed, but just the proposal of a methodology, if compelling enough, will get the scientific community interested in putting the effort into making the detection.
(And there are other theories out there besides multiverse theory that attempt to explain the supposed "fine-tuning" of the universal constants. NONE are widely accepted at present. ALL are areas of ongoing investigation. The scientific consensus right now is "We don't know. It COULD be one of these hypotheses we have, and we are working on figuring out how to test this." The scientific consensus never says "It COULD be X. It's POSSIBLE it is X. I'll just believe it's X and stop investigating.")
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 25, 2011 12:30 PM
(@470 is a response to @462). Blockquote fail of some sort.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 25, 2011 12:33 PM
Oh it proves something alright. It proves that the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS) is a dishonest idiot who does not know what it is talking about.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 25, 2011 1:20 PM
"Think"? Count. Simply count which is more parsimonious.
The idea that there is a creator requires a lot of additional assumptions:
– there is a creator;
– magic exists (a thick bundle of assumptions);
– physics has a couple of curious exceptions, each of them one extra assumption.
Eternal inflation requires... what?
Debating whether or not a creator exists is nothing short of absurdity. It proves absolutely nothing.
The assumption that Russell's teapot exists is not needed to explain anything.
The assumption that a creator exists is not needed to explain anything.
It doesn't even try to understand. It simply waits for a magic conversion experience to happen.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 25, 2011 10:10 PM
John Morales,
You cannot give reason for why Russell's teapot exist, but I have given you good reasons why a creator might be necessary. Trying to rebut this with silliness doesn't nullify what I have presented.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 25, 2011 10:14 PM
Amphiox,
Funny, you have stated that a soul violates physics because you cannot see it. Yet dark matter and dark energy cannot be seen, but I don't hear you trumpeting that this violates physics.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 25, 2011 10:18 PM
Amphiox 470,
Brian Greene, Physicist out of Columbia, stated that we have no proof whatsoever of multiple universes. So, who really is wrong? It appears that you are. I believe my well respected physicists trumps Neurologist Amphiox.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 25, 2011 10:21 PM
Amphiox 470,
I must repeat. You can't prove multiple universes. So long as you can't, you cannot state that a creator is not a possibility.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 25, 2011 10:29 PM
Amphiox,
"Oh it proves something alright. It proves that the Zombie (SSSOOOUUULLLSSS) is a dishonest idiot who does not know what it is talking about."
No. What is proven here is that, though you have no scientific proof of a multiple universe, you refuse to look beyond your tunnel vision to look at other possibilities such as a creator. Reason states that one of these is necessary to explain why 20 parameters are all within an extremely narrow parameters. Mathematics has its place, but it doesn't prove that multiple universes exist.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 25, 2011 10:35 PM
Shiloh:
No, you haven't.
Your reasons boil down to (a) you personally think it's a simpler explanation (but it ain't) than the universe just existing¹ and (b) science cannot rule it out.
(Neither is a good one)
You're trying to deny that both claims are in the category of speculative, unlikely and unnecessary suppositions — but you're failing at making a reasonable case for that.
--
¹ Instead (and contrary to parsimony), you think a creator just existing and then creating the universe is simpler than a universe just existing. :)
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 25, 2011 10:51 PM
David Majanovic,
I have given this a lot of thought. Have you? I don't think so. You call an intelligent designer a magician. Yeah, I guess you might want to call this intelligent designer a magician just like a human being that has not experienced modern science would consider it magic. That is exactly what you are doing.
Here's where you all are short sited. An intelligent designer cannot be proven, just like multiple universes cannot be proven either, but it can, just like multiple universes, be reasoned as a possible explanation how a finally tuned universe with 20 constants that have to be withing an extremely close tolerance in order for life of any kind to develop. Again neither one can be proven, but parsimony indicates that, a huge bunch of inorganic universes expanding all by themselves from matter coming from nothing into the big bang with 20 different constants, which must be within an extremely close tolerance in order for life of any kind to exist, is far more unlikely than a intelligent designer. But, in order to see that, you must first remove your blinders created by your belief that science is always the answer.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 25, 2011 11:36 PM
Shiloh, until you can prove your creator with positive, and conclusive physical evidence, it exists only in your mind. You started all this way back with the same idiotic argument. The null hypothesis put your creator into the imaginary category, since there is no physical evidence for it. YOU MUST SUPPLY SAID CONCLUSIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO GET IT OUT OF THE NULL HYPOTHESIS, AND MAKE YOUR IMAGINARY CREATOR REAL. To date, you have supplied no such evidence.For those lurking, Shiloh has made a big deal that we haven't shown his imaginary creator doesn't exist. But then, he's the one making the claim of existence. He also doesn't define his imaginary creator well enough for it to be properly falsified. Ergo, he expects us to prove a negative, that due to his failure to provide sufficient definition to his creator, it is impossible for that to happen. Typical of lying and bullshitting of presuppositional godbots.
Still waiting for your evidence Shiloh. Yaw, I suspect we will both be waiting for you to present any said evidence for the rest of our lives.
Posted by: Shiloh
|
November 25, 2011 11:43 PM
OOPS I didn't mean finally tuned universe. I meant finely tuned universe
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 25, 2011 11:59 PM
Shiloh, you're done. Your persistent idiocy and prolonged dribblings on this thread have been more than enough.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 26, 2011 1:25 AM
[meta]
Thank you, PZ!
(You are a balm to my SIWOTI syndrome)
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 26, 2011 8:14 AM
You haven't even tried.
Dark matter and dark energy cannot be perceived by literally seeing them. They still have measurable effects... some of which we can literally see, for instance the fact that galaxies rotate like wheels (not like whorls, even though that's what they look like).
Why do you still not understand that Amphiox didn't say anything about proof?
Why do you still not understand that science doesn't deal in proof at fucking all!?!
There is no such thing as "scientific proof".
Probability: the word Shiloh cannot read.
All the thought you have given it is circular and carefully sheltered from most relevant facts.
I'd ask you to explain if you were still here, because I don't understand how that could be. The theory of eternal inflation doesn't require any extra assumptions, everything just follows logically. The idea that there's any designer, intelligent or not, requires the extra assumption that there is a designer. So, it loses.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 26, 2011 12:43 PM
The first proponents of multiverse theory started by providing very good reasons why a multiverse might be possible. They were ignored, and their ideas considered unscientific by the vast majority of physicist.
UNTIL they were able to propose possible methodologies by which another universe might be detected.
THEN, and only then, did SOME other physicists get interested. Many others STILL consider multiverse theory unscientific because it isn't clear if these proposed detection methodologies are actually feasible in practical terms.
Suppose the zombie and its ilk really could propose "good" reasons (it hasn't) why a creator is necessary/could exist? That's not enough. They have to proceed to go on to propose believable methodologies by which a creator could be DETECTED. Then, they might get some scientific interest. And they will win consensus support only if those detection methodologies pan out and actually provide some EVIDENCE.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 26, 2011 12:48 PM
Because it was a pitiful, evil liar?
Once is chance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is incompetence.
Four times (four being evil in oriental numerology...) is malignancy. Or something....
The Zombie was well into double digits.
Good riddance.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 26, 2011 2:20 PM
In Oriental etiquette, three times is considered malignant/deliberately rude.Four is considered evil or inauspicious only because in Chinese, the word four is a (sort of) homophone of death.
Posted by: T-Rex
|
November 28, 2011 12:30 PM
Hi,
I've been lurking in the shadows. I just signed up. I prefer to just read the comments rather than making one of my own. I must say that I've really enjoyed the discussion here. However, I was very disappointed when the keeper of this blog blew off Shiloh. I don't understand why since Shiloh was making some very good arguments as was the ones rebutting him. It's as though PZ resented someone who would argue against his beliefs. I know it must be nice to have so many here agreeing with him, but having differing views also promotes discussion. Anyway, I just felt I needed to make this comment. Thanks for reading.
[Look here, everyone! Point and laugh! "T-Rex" is a sockpuppet for Shiloh. Are you surprised that he's back telling us how he was making good arguments? Pathetic, man, really pathetic. Banned again. But I'm leaving this post here to show what an idiot he is. --pzm]
Posted by: ChasCPeterson
|
November 28, 2011 1:04 PM
Well, that one's pretty obvious.
I still want to know, though: is it Kenny?
please say it's Kenny
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 28, 2011 1:54 PM
Well! This calls for a translation!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 28, 2011 1:55 PM
Not evil, but death, because it's pronounced almost the same in various kinds of Chinese (probably all of them) and exactly the same when you import both words into Japanese.
ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 28, 2011 2:23 PM
I recall my post, way upthread, concerning incompetence versus malignancy and the application of parsimony to those competing claims (back when I was still attempting to be charitable to the Zombie).
One more data point to the pile....
This one is news to me. I was aware of three (and nine, being 3x3) being associated with fertility in oriental numerology, as "three" is a homophone for "giving birth". Though perhaps an association with rudeness follows from that....
(Most of the Chinese languages are very rich in homophones and near-homophones. Consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating_Poet_in_the_Stone_Den. The funny thing is, this example actually uses the four/death homophone, which also has, as can be seen, lots of other homophones, one of which is another number, 10. But 10 has never been considered a bad/unlucky number at all. Possibly because it's a less exact homophone and extends across fewer dialects.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2011 2:52 PM
Shiloh was mentally masturbating. He had no arguments, because he had no evidence, just rehash of the same old bullshit he had been plying here for a while. Nothing but presupposition, wishful thinking, and twisting factoids into pretend evidence. You must be a non-thinker. *notes what appears to be a PZ note* Ah, prima facie evidence Shiloh is a liar and bullshitter if true...Posted by: Nova
|
December 17, 2011 7:00 AM
@#9 To declare Evolution not a fact on that basis is to render the word "fact" utterly useless. Almost nothing, if not absolutely nothing, is actually 100% certain beyond any conceivable doubt. If you do not consider Evolution a fact, what do you consider a fact?
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 17, 2011 12:17 PM
The people who deny the reality of Evolution generally regard only (their personal interpretation of) the Bible as being "a fact," and literally anything else that does not agree with (their personal interpretation of) the Bible is totally unreliable, as they hypocritically see fit.Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 18, 2011 7:08 AM
Nope. It only uses syllables that are pronounced shi in Standard Mandarin. "10" (shí) is one of them; "4" (sì) and "death" (sǐ) are not.
And to be honest, it's a contrived example, using several different stages of Classical Chinese at random, so that sometimes the same word appears with very different meanings.