Near death experience of Howard Storm

[robvalue]

Yeah, I like to use the question, "What wouldn't be evidence of your pet woo?" I generally don't get much of an answer, from anybody. They simply can't fathom the idea they might be wrong, or that they are projecting their own ideas onto reality rather than simply studying it.

[Bunburryist]

I think a mistake that can be made on either side of the atheist/spiritualist aisle is the give in to the temptation to interpret religious content into the experience.  Just as a religious person might automatically assume that (I'm simplifying here) if he experiences seeing a guy that looks like it is Jesus that it really is Jesus (and so the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans are right), so an materialist atheist might assume that just because someone has had an experience that leads them to believe in life after death it has to have been some kind of hallucination, and therefor can have no "real" meaning.  We don't understand the relationship between brains in our experience and this "world" experience as a whole.  Neither do we understand the "physical reality" underlying this experience.  I had an out of body experience as a child (nothing special - just the garden variety floating to the ceiling), but don't attribute any particular meaning or explanation to it.  I feel the same way about OBEs.  People have these experiences, and I don't know what they are.

[robvalue]

Sure, I agree. I don't take the stance that all experiences outside of current explanation are hallucinations. I say that any particular one is probably a hallucination, but I admit I have no way whatsoever of analysing it. So I leave its cause as unknown. This is plenty enough to still leave the burden of proof on the person presenting their anecdote as evidence for something. They will reach for the argument from ignorance, of course.

I've also changed my attitude greatly regarding woo of all kinds. I think it's all probably bulllshit, obviously. I eagerly await any actual evidence; at which points I'll take it seriously. However, my philosophical position is that "things are as real to any particular observer as they appear to be". If someone "sees Jesus", and truly believes it is Jesus, then it is Jesus to them. I won't simply tell them they aren't seeing Jesus. They believe what they believe. To them it is real.

Of course, I do doubt the sincerity of some professed beliefs. I don't think for one second every religous person truly believes everything they say. But since I have no good ways of differentiating, I take them at their word generally.

[Edwardo Piet]

No Psychiatrist needed here son.

Verified Out-of-Body Perception In Near-Death Experiences contradict your fantasy.

http://www.near-death.com/science/resear...ences.html

Your link is worthless because an "out of body experience" is logically impossible. Our perception itself is bodily so we cannot perceive outside our body. It's literally impossible. Unless you argue that our entire bodies and experience is an illusion and it's all in our mind... but that kind of monist solipsism is indistinguishable from everything being bodily and our thoughts being physical along with everything else.

Literally, an "out of body experience" makes no sense. We are bodies... whether we're physical bodies or mental bodies. Our perception is part of us: we cannot perceive of being outside ourselves because if we do that then what we start to perceive is our self... so we're not outside ourselves.

TL;DR: Our self being outside our self is a logical impossibility... therefore out of body experiences are logically impossible.

Unless you define more clearly what you actually mean... because a literal "out of body" or "out of mind" or "out of self" experience are all, literally speaking, logically impossible. What do you actually mean? Any so-called "evidence" can mean anything unless you first clearly define your premise.

[Edwardo Piet]

This is the quality of your evidence?  No wonder you need "hundreds" of NDEs to make your case.  A lot of poor evidence does not equal good evidence.  

Absolutely.

The thing is, Little Rik, it doesn't matter how many zeros you collect: even an infinite number of zeros will never become the number one.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sure, I agree. I don't take the stance that all experiences outside of current explanation are hallucinations. I say that any particular one is probably a hallucination[...]

This.

I mean, sure, if I see the sun turn into a kebab/kabob it's possible it's really happened... but what's more likely... it really happened or I need to see my psych? I think the latter. Every time.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I like to use the question, "What wouldn't be evidence of your pet woo?" I generally don't get much of an answer, from anybody. They simply can't fathom the idea they might be wrong, or that they are projecting their own ideas onto reality rather than simply studying it.

I was just thinking of applying this to science. What wouldn't be evidence science is useful? Or indeed, evidence that science possibly isn't useful?

A lack of results, I suppose. A general conclusion that reality is not predictable enough to study at all. Of course, in such a weird scenario, it may well be we just don't have the understanding yet.

But there, I answered the question. Your turn, woo.

[Little Rik]

NDEs are there for learning.
If you are not interested in learning why God would waste his time with you?
You can well die more and more times it really wouldn't change anything as far as you are not interested in learning.  

Bullshit. I'd be open to any evidence that I could learn from. While I won't speak for Banjo, I will assume he would answer much like me on that. Neither atheism nor skepticism mean anti-learning.

Nice try with the confirmation bias, though.

Humans unfortunately got a small problems.
They can not exist in two places at the same time.
Not only physically.
Mentally as well.
When someone fill his-her mind with materialistic stuff he-she will find very very difficult to concentrate on something totally different such as spirituality.
For God the creation is a mental projection.
There is a force that lead low forms of life up but when plants and animals reach the human forms the push
come to an end and free will take over.
With the free will it is YOU that will decide where to go.
If you choose the materialistic way of life God will let you play as much as you like in this situation.
It will be up to you to decide what to do.
He will not show him-herself.
He will not show you how the whole system works unless you will start to desire him.
In other words to be open to any evidence means absolutely nothing to him.
Without the desire to know him it will all be futile.
You will never know him-her.  

[Little Rik]

No Psychiatrist needed here son.

Verified Out-of-Body Perception In Near-Death Experiences contradict your fantasy.

http://www.near-death.com/science/resear...ences.html

Your link is worthless because an "out of body experience" is logically impossible. Our perception itself is bodily so we cannot perceive outside our body. It's literally impossible. Unless you argue that our entire bodies and experience is an illusion and it's all in our mind... but that kind of monist solipsism is indistinguishable from everything being bodily and our thoughts being physical along with everything else.

Literally, an "out of body experience" makes no sense. We are bodies... whether we're physical bodies or mental bodies. Our perception is part of us: we cannot perceive of being outside ourselves because if we do that then what we start to perceive is our self... so we're not outside ourselves.

TL;DR: Our self being outside our self is a logical impossibility... therefore out of body experiences are logically impossible.

Unless you define more clearly what you actually mean... because a literal "out of body" or "out of mind" or "out of self" experience are all, literally speaking, logically impossible. What do you actually mean? Any so-called "evidence" can mean anything unless you first clearly define your premise.

Body-mind is pure matter while the consciousness is not.
The fact that during a lifetime the two are stuck together doesn't mean that they have to be stuck together even when the body-brain die.

Where is the evidence that when the body-brain die also the consciousness is bound to follow the rotting body to the dogs?

Would you follow your old car to the wrecker and be destroyed as well or would you get out and get a new car so you can continue your journey to your destination?  

You never thought about that AL, did you?  

[Jesster]

Bullshit. I'd be open to any evidence that I could learn from. While I won't speak for Banjo, I will assume he would answer much like me on that. Neither atheism nor skepticism mean anti-learning.

Nice try with the confirmation bias, though.

Humans unfortunately got a small problems.
They can not exist in two places at the same time.
Not only physically.
Mentally as well.
When someone fill his-her mind with materialistic stuff he-she will find very very difficult to concentrate on something totally different such as spirituality.
For God the creation is a mental projection.
There is a force that lead low forms of life up but when plants and animals reach the human forms the push
come to an end and free will take over.
With the free will it is YOU that will decide where to go.
If you choose the materialistic way of life God will let you play as much as you like in this situation.
It will be up to you to decide what to do.
He will not show him-herself.
He will not show you how the whole system works unless you will start to desire him.
In other words to be open to any evidence means absolutely nothing to him.
Without the desire to know him it will all be futile.
You will never know him-her.  

That had nothing to do with anything. Did you just wake up?