RE: Today Show Sybill Shepherd and NDEs
March 19, 2015 at 1:03 am
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2015 at 1:24 am by Brian37.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ear-death/
And here is the link to the study and the University he and others did it at.
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sci...155-0?cc=y
Although he does use the word "many" and not "all", is the same principle of place a safe bet on anything we don't currently know as being all natural needing no supernatural explanation.
When you hit a wall in knowledge, you don't stop and assume a gap answer you like, you continue and what science is proving over and over time after time none of life needs a supernatural cause because we always end up finding a natural reason eventually for what we don't currently understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
Now don't just cherry pick the parts of this wiki entry, more towards the bottom they have multiple scientist saying that this "experience" really is nothing more than our brain flipping out.
Here is another scientist criticizing another proponent of "something after death"
Yea, and again, if you are a doctor and you set out to make the data fit what you want to see, sure you will come to that conclusion.
Ethical science isn't about looking for justifications or seeking the answers you want. Ethical science is proper methodology and going where the evidence leads, not where you want it to go.
Neuroscientist Dean Mobbs Wrote:. "Many of the phenomena associated with near-death experiences can be biologically explained," says neuroscientist Dean Mobbs, at the University of Cambridge's Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit.
And here is the link to the study and the University he and others did it at.
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sci...155-0?cc=y
Although he does use the word "many" and not "all", is the same principle of place a safe bet on anything we don't currently know as being all natural needing no supernatural explanation.
When you hit a wall in knowledge, you don't stop and assume a gap answer you like, you continue and what science is proving over and over time after time none of life needs a supernatural cause because we always end up finding a natural reason eventually for what we don't currently understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
Now don't just cherry pick the parts of this wiki entry, more towards the bottom they have multiple scientist saying that this "experience" really is nothing more than our brain flipping out.
Here is another scientist criticizing another proponent of "something after death"
Quote:Jason Braithwaite, a Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience in the Behavioral Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham. He issued an in-depth analysis and critique of Lommel's prospective study published in the medical journal The Lancet, concluding that while Lommel's et al. study makes a useful contribution, it contains several factual and logical errors. Among these errors are Lommel's misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the dying-brain hypothesis, misunderstandings over the role of anoxia, misplaced confidence in EEG measurements (a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is not evidence of total brain inactivity), etc. Jason concluded with, "it is difficult to see what one could learn from the paranormal survivalist position which sets out assuming the truth of that which it seeks to establish, makes additional and unnecessary assumptions, misrepresents the current state of knowledge from mainstream science, and appears less than comprehensive in its analysis of the available facts.
[quote]"it is difficult to see what one could learn from the paranormal survivalist position which sets out assuming the truth of that which it seeks to establish,
Yea, and again, if you are a doctor and you set out to make the data fit what you want to see, sure you will come to that conclusion.
Ethical science isn't about looking for justifications or seeking the answers you want. Ethical science is proper methodology and going where the evidence leads, not where you want it to go.
