2012 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[SPX]

BTW, I would love nothing more than to be able to study the shit in a more objective way--to get really get a handle on it, as it were--but I mean, there's just not really a way to do it. So it's a situation where we just have to do the best we can. I think that's better than ignoring it.

[MMA_scientist]

Some of the lengths that hard-core skeptics will go to to deny that there is a phenomenon are mind-blowing and, in my opinion, border on lunacy.

There is definitely a double standard going on there. I haven't really paid attention to the NDE debate, but you see it all sorts of other places. The same scientists that don't accept testimonials for super natural phenomena, will accept them readily in other areas (I am in love, I have always known I was gay, I know right from wrong). There are wishy washy non scientific things all around us that we all readily accept as existing and much of it is just based on a lot of people saying they experience the "feeling." I have always thought it was interesting to see scientists accuse their religious colleagues of intentionally turning a blind eye, as though it is incorrect to just believe something... when most do the same thing in their lives only not with religion, but things like "loving" someone or assigning a moral value to something. Love and inherent rightness- I don't know if these things actually exist any more than I know if there is a white light at the end of the tunnel.

[SPX]

I guess ultimately it comes down to what your level of skepticism is.

The true believer will believe anything for any reason, so long as you can tell it in a convincing manner. The super-skeptic will only believe what he sees or hears for himself.

I feel like whichever a person chooses to be, they should do that and apply it equally across the board.

This is why I reacted when you said, "As for the verifiable details of nde's, i would be more inclined to believe that the doctors who report it are full of shit."

That demonstrates extreme skepticism. And if that's your position, then okay. But I think that equally you would have to believe that any time you read a history book, any time you read a science text on another subject, etc. that you equally cannot take any claims at face value and should be inclined to believe that the authors are full of shit. After all, you didn't see it, you didn't experience it, you didn't conduct the experiment yourself. So you're just taking someone else's word for it.

But not to pick on you. I agree that you're completely right that many scientists and academics (and really, anyone) have sliding scales of proof. In some ways, this makes sense since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But there is a point to where you just go too far and are being unfair.

I also want to make a point regarding anecdotal evidence: If one person says they saw bigfoot run through Central Park then it's easy to dismiss the claim. But if a thousand independent witnesses make the same claim then I think it deserves a lot more consideration.

[SPX]

I've literally seen like 3 different commercials today for products/services designed to boost testosterone. I think there's a clear shift in consciousness about this stuff. In 10 years TRT will just be the thing to do after 40.

[MMA_scientist]

This is why I reacted when you said, "As for the verifiable details of nde's, i would be more inclined to believe that the doctors who report it are full of shit."

That demonstrates extreme skepticism. And if that's your position, then okay. But I think that equally you would have to believe that any time you read a history book, any time you read a science text on another subject, etc. that you equally cannot take any claims at face value and should be inclined to believe that the authors are full of shit. After all, you didn't see it, you didn't experience it, you didn't conduct the experiment yourself. So you're just taking someone else's word for it.

Well, if doctors everywhere were reporting things like the shoe on a ledge, I wouldn't be as skeptical. But it seems like that one story gets brought up a lot... if that is all you have, I tend to think the doctor was making it up. Or even if you have a handfull or a hundred doctors... out of the hundreds of thousands of people who are recuscitated... it seems like just a small fringe. I wouldn't call that extreme skeptism... I think it just regular old realism.

[SPX]

Well, if doctors everywhere were reporting things like the shoe on a ledge, I wouldn't be as skeptical. But it seems like that one story gets brought up a lot... if that is all you have, I tend to think the doctor was making it up. Or even if you have a handfull or a hundred doctors... out of the hundreds of thousands of people who are recuscitated... it seems like just a small fringe. I wouldn't call that extreme skeptism... I think it just regular old realism.

I personally bring up the shoe a lot because I think it's one of the most evidential stories and also because it was powerful enough for that particular doctor to send her on her own personal investigation of this phenomenon. In many ways it changed her life.

But there are many, many more. You can read about a lot of experiences at www.near-death.com, some even in the experiencers' own words (I think). Or you can read some of the many good books on the subject and I'd be happy to recommend a few. But like any subject, to really get a handle on it it's going to require some digging. You can't just watch a documentary on TLC or read a news article and really expect to know anything.

Now, in regard to the "fringe" nature of the experiences, for many years these reports were being told to doctors and nurses, but they either a) did not repeat them for fear of ridicule, or b) wrote them off as hallucinations without any real consideration or investigation.

[zY|]

www.near-death.com

Never fails that any kooky site like this has atrocious web design.

[Svino]

Do you really think you can control the soul leaving the body?

(Who wants to go to Heaven?)

But yes, scientists do study this stuff in labs. They know about how hallucinations can occur when the brain is stressed in different ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

[Svino]

Love and inherent rightness- I don't know if these things actually exist any more than I know if there is a white light at the end of the tunnel.

Yeah, I would say that one's own emotional experiences are essentially self-proving at least according to our own internal definitions. If I feel that I hate Juggalos then I hate Juggalos. We could fairly question whether my concept of "hate" is exactly the same as another persons, and maybe it isn't exactly, but there is obviously a shared concept here that people basically agree on (just like any other word).

As for *inherent* rightness, I would completely agree that a belief in such a thing would be just as dogmatic as any religion. I think the majority of non-theists believe in a personal moral code that sits somewhere alongside every other persons moral code. When looked at together, these moral beliefs would be largely overlapping, but not completely. Some people might be tempted to call those overlapping parts "universal", but I think they are a function of biology and the course of our species' behavioral evolution, and see no reason why they should be considered a deep property of the universe.

[SPX]

But yes, scientists do study this stuff in labs. They know about how hallucinations can occur when the brain is stressed in different ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/he...2&pagewanted=1

Experiences with some elements of an NDE have been replicated by fucking around with the brain, but never an experience that has the elements that actually make an NDE important.

There's a big difference between merely having a sense of being separated from the body and actually bringing back verifiable, nonlocal data.

[SPX]

Never fails that any kooky site like this has atrocious web design.

It's simple, but also clean and easy to navigate.

Here's a better example of atrocious design:

https://www.truthbeknown.com

[Svino]

Experiences with some elements of an NDE have been replicated by fucking around with the brain, but never an experience that has the elements that actually make an NDE important.

There's a big difference between merely having a sense of being separated from the body and actually bringing back verifiable, nonlocal data.

Right. And that second part is never going to happen because it isn't possible.

[Svino]

It's simple, but also clean and easy to navigate.

Here's a better example of atrocious design:

www.truthbeknown.com

Time cube will always be the true champion:

http://www.timecube.com/

[SPX]

Right. And that second part is never going to happen because it isn't possible.

It has happened. Many times. You don't even have to look to NDEs for this.

This is something that at least some people can control to some degree in the form of remote viewing.

You'd probably be interested in Russell Targ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ

[SPX]

Time cube will always be the true champion:

http://www.timecube.com/

I don't know why, but I was already loling before I clicked the link. But yeah, that's bad.