So recently these past few weeks I've been diving down the NDE rabbithole, reading numerous books and research articles. I haven't met or interviewed any NDErs myself but I'd love to so, and do some research on my own on this stuff.But here's the thing. I went to 2 of my professors about it. At first they were cordial and polite and professional and nice and helpful and accommodating and all of those good things. But as the discussions went deeper and I shared that I think these experiences provide good evidence for the soul, for the brain and consciousness not being the same thing etc...Jeebuz H. Fucking Christ.It was uncanny how they both got really defensive and angry. "Nobody takes this seriously!", "There's no evidence for this! Have I read it? No but there isn't or I'd already heard about it.", "You will waste your career on nothing", etc.What the actual hell? Shouldn't scientists be wayyyyyy more open-minded and curious? Online too I see a lot of sciency folk talk shit about it without even knowing much about it. Dismissing it seems more important than learning about it to them. What are these people so fucking afraid of???? Has anyone else noticed this weird reaction to NDEs among academics?
Design a randomized case-control study that can pass IRB and we’ll talk.Until then, you have work to do.
>>17064880"open minded" is the ultimate schitzo red flag term. I've never in my life seen someone seriously use the term "open minded" excepted schizophrenics getting mad that people won't entertaining some quack bullshit they're obsessed with
Oh boy, here we go again. The dualist is back.
>>17064880>Shouldn't scientists be wayyyyyy more open-minded and curious?You tell me. Is your soul a product of physical reality? Is it detectable by any physical means? Is science able to model, predict and explain your soul? Is your soul down for scientific refutation? No? Then why should any scientist care about soul-based "explanations" of NDEs and why should they entertain an utter faggot like you?
A possible mechanism for how NDEs and an afterlife could work:https://youtube.com/watch?v=65jdcvSOOjI
>>17064880>the majority of scientists who read into it share that sentimentkek, try actually looking into the embarrassment that parapsychology has undergone even when treated as a "serious" science"
>>17064888>Design a randomized case-control study that can pass IRB and we’ll talk. >Until then, you have work to do.Already happened, see the AWARE studies. Also, most NDE work is retrospective, in huge part because of ethics boards denying what they did in the movie Flatliners. Imagine how easy NDE research would be otherwise.>>17064895The literal definition of closed-minded.>>17064902Hypothesis: The brain creates the mind locally.Prediction: OBEs during NDEs should virtually never provide accurate veridical perception at a distance.Result: This happens routinely.Conclusion: The hypthesis is false.It's not harder than that.>>17064926I did: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200070001-9.pdfAnd this is what parapsychology skeptic Donald Hebb said already in the 1950s:"Why do we not accept ESP as a psychological fact? Rhine has offered enough evidence to have convinced us on almost any other issue... Personally, I do not accept ESP for a moment, because it does not make sense. My external criteria, both of physics and of physiology, say that ESP is not a fact despite the behavioral evidence that has been reported."Already in the 1950s the evidence was at the standards of other science fields, but dismissed because muh worldview and muh dogma. Great stuff.
>>17064928>Result: This happens routinely.I'll believe that when it happens to me or in my presence. Either way, since you completely ignored all of my questions, I conclude the answer is 'no' to all of them and therefore I accept your concession.
>>17064880Some are genuinely curious but refrain with engaging with the topic because if researchers were to clarify a given paranormal phenomena, here come the ENGINEERS trying to squeeze useful work out of it. Which results in combustion chambers running on souls, or something.It must be subconsciously terrifying.
NDEs are the domain of liars and schizos. Even the religious people I know put no stock in them.
>>17064880There are some categorical issues here. It isn't proper to call a given experience an experience of the divine. A divine experience proper is revelatory in nature and falls under the same pfm as creation. There is nothing you can do to cause a divine moment.The best you can get is supranatural, that is some notion of the intervening layers. NDE are also not the only vector to analyze this qualia space, drugs and various meditative or ritualistic practices can reach them.You can't compel God, least of which through mixing chemicals or suicidal edging.
>>17064902Is your conciousness a product of physical reality? Is it definable by physical means? Is science able to model, predict and explain your conciousness? Is your conciousness down for scientific refutation? No? Then why do you believe in it?
>>17065118>Is your conciousness a product of physical reality? Is it definable by physical means? Is science able to model, predict and explain your conciousness?Probably. And at least it's being directly witnessed by everyone, unlike muh special subset of NDEs that supposedly prove the existence of souls.
>>17065083Nice ad hom faggot
>>17064880>I AM SILLY
>>17064880>Meat proxy wants to prove the existence of the soulYou are evidence against it
>>17065118Anon, we already had that conversation in the other thread.It lead nowhere because you didn't acknowledge your reasoning errors.The main one being you looking for a justification for your a priori beliefs.That's backwards thinking, not science. It belongs to /x/ at most.
>>17064928>Already happened, see the AWARE studies.“Zero respondents reported seeing the control messages.”There you have it. Well done./thread
>>17065187>rent-free
>>17065290So, you finally reckon that that consciousness does exist in my head then.Thanks for confirming everything.
>>17065297>being this mindbroken by OP the faggot
NTA but the seethe generated by just mentioning anything resembling Christianity is real. If you go with Buddhism, you'll just get indifference.
>>17065313You almost never see buddhists spamming 90 IQ woo on science boards or otherwise pestering scientists with their religion. It's almost always going to be some christgolem doing it.
>>17064880Who cares? Fuck your professors, they're dinosaurs clinging to a corpse, if it interests you research it and pay no attention to the gatekeepers other than as a source of income.>>17064895Imagine unironically saying being open minded is bad, kek, you've been totally indoctrinated, you cant think for yourself, but luckily the 'experts' can think for you.
>>17065343>if it interests you [then] research it and pay no attention to the gatekeepers other than as a source of income.Wow. Focused ignorance really can be blissful.
>>17064880Shit that frauds allege PhDs told them:>"Nobody takes this seriously!", "There's no evidence for this! Have I read it? No but there isn't or I'd already heard about it.", "You will waste your career on nothing",Shit real PhDs tell to frauds:>Design a randomized case-control study that can pass IRB and we’ll talk.>>17064888
>>17065397researching is ignorance? is this the inverted doctrine of scientism?
>>17065343>Imagine unironically saying being open minded is badYou're just ignorant about modern neuroscience facts, like that every time you open your mind you risk your brain falling out of it.
>>17065187No the other thread is way worse. It's about computers not been physical.
>>17065499>rent-freeIt makes me hard knowing how many pseudoautists I've mentally scarred.
>>17065509Why are computers not physical again? Please tell us. We need to know.
>the bad voices are saying funny things to me and the good voicesOff his schizomeds again.
>>17065524Honest question philosofag. Do you think computers have NDE?
>>17065528You're literally incoherent and I know I did this to you. :^)
>>17065529Is that what gets you off? Do you imagine mentally raping others over the internet? It's all good, no judgement here.But I really need to read that copypasta about computation. Can you post that again please?
>>17064880There are topics on which what science knows is much stronger than the understanding of how we know it. That is, topics that are well understood, but for which most experts on it do not understand very well WHY the understanding is as strong as it is.Near death experiences are one such topic. This can induce defensiveness in people that should know better; regardless, the topic is well understood, even if few can explain the motivations for that understanding coherently.
>>17065534>Is that what gets you off?Yes, it feels nice to enter a random thread and see that some generic, forgettable retard is still seething about me.>I really need to read that copypasta I know you've memorized it by heart.
>>17065534Stop it. Two threads already maxed out from people trying to engage this troll in honest conversations. Don't need to ruin another one.
Reminder that the following statements are mutually exclusive:>AI is conscious>consciousness is a physical phenomenonA computation is not a physical phenomenon. A computation can be spread arbitrarily across space and time (at least up to sequential dependencies). You can pause it, forget about it for a thousand years, resume it by completely different physical means etc. Show me any physical phenomenon that works like this. You literally can't. A physical phenomenon is held together by reality's own laws. You can't arbitrarily distribute it in space because it's sustained by local interactions. You can't pause it because disrupting its internal dynamics will cause it to disintegrate. It drives itself.A computation is tied together only by convention and driven externally by physical means independent of its internal logic. "AI consciousness" is literally the cargo cult belief that you can make entities appear by dancing in the right pattern.
>>17064880>Shouldn't scientists be wayyyyyy more open-minded and curiousThe problem with these things is that there is no way to discern between hallucination, fake, or genuine experiences.
>>17065575Attaboy, that's the good stuff I was looking for. Peak philosophy right there.>>17065567Nothing of value to ruin. It's an NDE thread lmao.
>>17065581>mental patient is rambling incoherently again
>>17065576>The problem with these things is that there is no way to discern between hallucination, fake, or genuine experiences.You don't understand. I'm talking about scientifically documented but physically impossible feats.For example, how about the armless Iraq veteran whose head was crushed by a tractor while he was pulling out weeds with his teeth? He arrived to the hospital in critical condition and was declared legally braindead by 3 different neurosurgeons and a team of highly trained lawyers.In the time it took the ethics committee to decide if his liver should go to a trans alcoholic or a Mexican orphan, the man's soul left his body and decided to fly to the head trauma surgeon's bedroom, where he witnessed the surgeon's wife performing extreme pornographic acts with 3 black man. The horrifying sight shocked him back into consciousness, whereupon he was able to recount the exact penis lengths of all 3 perpetrators to all the medical staff present - a detail later corroborated by the surgeon's wife.Science simply can't explain a case like this. It's undeniably supernatural. And I really don't understand why scientists aren't more interested in scientifically studying this phenomenon.
>>17065422Sorry. I was calling you ignorant. Should have figured you’d misunderstand.You are ignorant.
>>17064880dats sum gud propaganda right der
>>17065590You are obvious.
>>17064880NDE is like the benadryl hat man. Your brain has a functional structure and altered states will result in common hallucinations.
>>17065970>NDE is like the benadryl hat manMaybe. So uhh... you got any falsifiable, scientific explanation for the hatman?>Your brain has a functional structure and altered states will result in common hallucinations.Ok, guess not. Next!
>>17065119It's not being the directly witnessed. You're witnessing the supposed effects of conciousness (speech, movement). Just admit verificationism is a retarded principle that doesn't even meet it's own criteria
>>17066490>NPC doesn't know it exists unless it hears itself talking
>>17064880there used to be a literal sect of "devotion to science" to prohibit anything that could support the Bible being correct guess who the big names were in that sect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Clubi think they're still around
I simply know how superstitious and gullible people are.There are videos of people seeing a completely normal light and thinking it's the Virgin Mary, there are people falling for completely fake faith healings and there are tons of people interpreting a normal feeling of calm as a divine message.
>>17066494I'm obviously talking about other people's state of concsiousness, not your own
>>17067277>I'm obviously talking about other people's state of concsiousnessWhat about it? I know consciousness exists because I can witness my own. Why would other humans not have it? This in no way applies to your religious fantasies, which I have to just take some guy's word for.
>>17064935>I'll believe that when it happens to me or in my presence.Amazing and adorable way to think and approach it <3 Do you think about and approach other things this way too?>I'll believe heroin feels addictive when it happens to me or in my presence.>I'll believe the planets are out there when it happens to me or in my presence.I'll believe giraffes are tall when it happens to me or in my presence.Etc :D>Either way, since you completely ignored all of my questions, I conclude the answer is 'no' to all of them and therefore I accept your concession.The reason I did not answer them was because they were irrelevant. Regardless of whether the answer to each of them is yes or no, the answer I did provide makes them irrelevant.
>>17067868>Do you think about and approach other things this way too?It depends on how out of line they are with observable reality. >they were irrelevantNo, they are very relevant. Since you believe yous soul is basically magical and impenetrable to science, why should scientists bother with stories about it?
>>17067881>It depends on how out of line they are with observable reality. So you ignore data because muh worldview bias. Do you think Christians are reasonable when doing the same thing?>No, they are very relevant. Since you believe yous soul is basically magical and impenetrable to science, why should scientists bother with stories about it?You are still approaching this from a dogmatic fixed perspective. It does not matter whether you can study it the way you are asking. What matters is that materialism as a theory makes predictions. One of those is that veridical OBEs should basically never happen. So when we demonstrate that they do happen - and we have - materialism has been empirically falsified. Whether we can study the soul in the lab beyond that is, pun and double entendre intended, immaterial.Dp you also doubt that black holes exist and that there is stuff inside a black hole because you can not study in a lab btw?
>>17064880>It was uncanny how they both got really defensive and angry.Demons don't want you to know the truth
>>17067922>So you ignore data because muh worldview bias.Yep. That's called "learning", retard. >Do you think Christians are reasonable when doing the same thing?Maybe. Give an example.>What matters is that materialism as a theory makes predictionsI don't understand. When you said you approached two of your professors, did you mean two of your Materialism professors? Are you a Materialism student, anon?>Dp you also doubt that black holes exist and that there is stuff inside a black hole because you can not study in a lab btw?First of all, I'm open to the idea that astrophysicists are wrong. Secondly, I don't have to take their word for it. I could, at least in principle, collect and interpret the data for myself, without attempting suicide or relying on 3rd-hand sources.
>>17064880>Shouldn't scientists be wayyyyyy more open-minded and curious?You forgot about the psychic vampires. They always want to deny anything not based in classical material physics, and stamp the very notions away outright. They never ever entertain the possibility of that or anything supernatural ever. That's rule number one. Just read their literature and it says things like "deny everything supernatural outright."There's plenty of videos of people doing wild shit. There's even suspicions, and committees of skeptics. But proof of anything supernatural is banned and the vampires absolutely love it. I think most people old enough know about the psychic drug vampires (why are you paranoid bro it's just weed) but the person who talks about them openly definitely looks insane. If someone knows about the psychic vampires they don't talk about them openly because you're either in the club or you've never heard of it, or you're like Alex Jones.So the people in churches are the practically same people in the halls of science, just reversed. Half of them in there don't believe anything in their official story, but it's ecumenical to push it along.>>17065079This person is onto it. As soon as people figure it out, someone evil tries to exploit it. Like Jeffrey Epstein types with their "spirit cooking." But you can't automate or mass produce spirituality shit of any type so hey "spirit guide" might be the best job to hedge against artificial intelligence.>>17065327Buddhists never try to convert anyone else which may be a proven sound principle if you consider how long their practices have lasted.
>>17064880>presents himself as open minded>has not researched any of the caveats of anything he proposesfaggot
>>17064880>What are these people so fucking afraid of????That to study NDEs you have to listen to a bunch of subjective stories from people in high stress situation that could easily be misremembered or completely made up and you get put in a situation where you have to randomly decide which stories to accept and which are too fanciful.Its really no different than trying to study cryptids or alien abductions in that you have to deal with shady people tainted by superstitious pop culture nonsense who have unbelievable stories to sift through and almost no physical evidence to support any of it.
>>17065118>Is your conciousness a product of physical reality? Is it definable by physical means?Yes, consciousness is the awareness and control of ones surrounding physical reality.>Is science able to model, predict and explain your conciousness?Not only can scientists model consciousness, but even hobbyists can simulation it with simple games like The Sims.Is your conciousness down for scientific refutation?Yes, doctors have to deal with this problem all the time, it occasionally makes the news that they are pulling the plug on someone whose consciousness is in question, but whose close family swears they subtly react to bedtime stories and other external physical stimulation despite those responses being completely immeasurable by the doctors.
>>17065313Buddhists aren't currently in control of the most powerful government in the history of earth and currently bankrupting it it to wage holy wars for israel while trying to imprison their own population with nonstop purity laws.
>>17065575>can be spread arbitrarily across space and time (at least up to sequential dependencies). You can pause it, forget about it for a thousand years, resume it by completely different physical means etc>Show me any physical phenomenon that works like this.Eating a jar of honey.
>>17064880I am Jewish so I believe in life after death and I also believe you're only gone for a set amount of time and then you come back to this world.But that is not necessarily scientifically sound. That's based on faith.The way I could easily explain near-death experiences without having to rely on faith would be that the brain is an analog electrical and Chemical Organ. Just like an old school transistor holds on to some charge for a while, because that is how it's designed to be, our brains hold on to the charge of what we call consciousness for a while. And that would explain why about 12% of people who are brought back to life have near-death experiences. However, there are some interesting points made by when they check what would happen to a rat's brain as it died, and the gamma oscillations in and out. So that could scientifically explain the near-death experiences.I personally believe in orch OR. So, how I think it would work is that our consciousness and our free will is in part a cold quantum reaction. This is why a lot of humans don't actually seem conscious, it's because they don't have enough neurons to create that sort of field that creates actual free will. And, in so far as that is where the consciousness resides. What observational experiments do you think would be necessary to make it more provable for the average person to believe near-death experiences prove a soul?
>>17067922>One of those is that veridical OBEs should basically never happen.No, its not, material cells can still physically react to external stimulus after brain death and no heart activity and people can still use their senses to gleam information outside of the direct sensation.>So when we demonstrate that they do happen - and we have Then why do you waste the thread bitching about your professors instead of actually presenting this unimpeachable totally not completely subjective evidence?>materialism has been empirically falsifiedAgain, no it hasn't material has direct and indirect implications and reach, you can figure out someone is cooking bacon in the other room simply by smelling it without witnessing any stovetop cooking process.
>>17064880Mighty curious how the religiously themed NDEs people experience are exactly in line with their pre conceived beliefs. In a collection of 100 reported NDEs across different faiths all of which contradict each other, somehow the brains all validate their own cultural beliefs. It's almost like there's nothing divine causing this and it's your own internal hallucinations manifesting your inner beliefs. But you're not ready to accept that.
>>17065313>Go to science board>Post non science slop>See how mad they get?>I'm big right lol!It's like going to a women's rights march, saying they should go into the kitchen, then ask why they're annoyed by you. Actually you probably would.believe this line of logic so let me try again. It's like a woman who goes to a men's group to talk about makeup and doing her nails. When men tell her to fuck off she takes this as evidence of widespread misogyny. See the problem? Probably not. Because you're a retarded Christian.
>>17068530Can you give some more examples to help me understand better? Is it also like going to a communist hangout and say "you will never be a woman"? Or like going to a LGBT parade and asking them nicely to stop raping children? Or is it more like going to a Nazi convention and admitting you're a jew?
>>17068546You're getting warmer. Your still messing it up. >Is it also like going to a communist hangout and say "you will never be a woman"? No, it's like going to a DNC party and talking about how you poo purchased MAGA accessories. >Or like going to a LGBT parade and asking them nicely to stop raping children? No. It's like you walk into a classroom while not being an enrolled student, drop your pants, take a shit and eat it. Then you tell everyone loudly how they're sinners. >Or is it more like going to a Nazi convention and admitting you're a jew?Almost! It's like you walk into a synagogue and proclaim you're a Nazi. In case you can't figure it out, I'll lay it out. You are a Christian nationalist. You easily buy into propaganda. You're not the good guy here. You're also a certifiable, uneducated idiot. Which is why your analogies are all wrong.
>>17068557>>Is it also like going to a communist hangout and say "you will never be a woman"? >No, it's like going to a DNC party and talking about how you poo purchased MAGA accessories.Can you explain why these two are different? Is it because you will never be a woman?
>>17068559I can explain why they are different, but I fear you're incapable of understanding. You are however correct that I will never be a woman. My fiancee is happy about that.
>>17068561>I can explainDo it. Protip: you won't because you can't.
>>17068527>Mighty curious how the religiously themed NDEs people experience are exactly in line with their pre conceived beliefs. In a collection of 100 reported NDEs across different faiths all of which contradict each other, somehow the brains all validate their own cultural beliefs>what are psychopompsLmao, you're basically revealing yourself as a crypto-christcuck with this one sentence, believing that religions *should* be at the absolute exclusion of others and other such nonsense.>It's almost like there's nothing divine causing this and it's your own internal hallucinations manifesting your inner beliefs. "Hallucination" isn't a bad, naughty no-no word like you think it is. You should actually read up on NDE anecdotes before you make fun of them.
>>17068633Human Speciation is desirable and seems to happen at every layer of existence?Fucking nice, if you ask me.
>>17064880>What the actual hell? Shouldn't scientists be wayyyyyy more open-minded and curious?If paranormal NDEs are real, the scientific question is: what's the physical mechanism behind them? Souls are never going to be a scientific answer. But it's a foregone conclusion that any story you tell and any information you include is gonna be framed so as to stifle scientific explanations, so they're correctly determining that you're not worth wasting any time on.Even if you were right and NDEs were actually caused by souls, the correct scientific approach would STILL to just keep looking for a physical explanation. NDEs are at best a proof of scientific incompleteness. Unless you believe going to heaven is a physical phenomenon scientists can probe, there is no value in having a scientific discussion with you.
>>17068654OP already posted the published work which refutes his theory.Let the thread die.
>>17068643>Human Speciation is desirable and seems to happen at every layer of existence?Yes.
>>17068633What the fuck are you babbling about? Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills would recognize I'm speaking from a secular perspective xD
>>17068670>Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills would recognize I'm speaking from a secular perspective xDYes, that's the point.
>>17065528/g/amer here. Yes desu, when a critical part is removed the computer still keeps thinking until it has to access said critical function at which point it crashes. Often times this leads to a breakdown of visual image processing which leads to a default error message (usually a blue screen). Take the ram out of your computer and it will likely spasm graphically before death. Often you can plug it back in after a crash and the PC will post, then repair itself. Don't really care about NDE but wanted to share.
>>17064880NDEs are a meme. You're not dead until your brain stops working, there's 0 people who have come back from that.
>>17068633>believing that religions *should* be at the absolute exclusion of othersAn didn't say anything about *should* he just pointed out that they are, judaism waiting for the messiah to come does absolutely exclude christianity claiming that jesus was the messiah and already came and many other factors lead religions to be at odds with each other. So if hallucinations are not "bad" are you conceding that NDEs are just hallucinations?
>>17065587>where he witnessed the surgeon's wife performing extreme pornographic acts with 3 black man. The horrifying sight shocked him back into consciousness, whereupon he was able to recount the exact penis lengths of all 3 perpetrators to all the medical staff present - a detail later corroborated by the surgeon's wife.If this actually happened, i would take it seriously but i doubt there are any NDE's that grant information anywhere near this specific. Atleast outside the range of their senses
>>17064880Scientists are people, they can even be irrational outside their main fieldsDon't take it personally, those men are fags if they got butthurt
>go to /g/>land on /x/jannies cannot fix this bug in 4chud software
>>17069718Lmao. People who fuck randos IRL cannot even state the proper sizes of the dicks.
>>17068520>I am Jewish so I believe in life after death and I also believe you're only gone for a set amount of time and then you come back to this world.Why is the concept of hell absent in Judaism ?
>>17069889Because Jews don't need fear of hell to behave altruistically. Higher IQ means they're less impulsive on average. They're less prone to violent crimes. Never needed a concept of hell for control.
>>17070028It doesn't hurt they just use that high verbal IQ to justify to themselves enslaving everyone else, abusing/raping their slaves, and generally breaking all the divine laws in subtle ways that tricks god into letting them into his kingdom anyway.
>>17070037>Jews were kicked out of 100+ countries >Jews control the worldIt never ceases to amaze me how Neonazi /pol/tards like you hold mutually contradictory beliefs regarding Jews.
>>17069718>If this actually happenedThe surgeon and his wifey say it happened. What more do you need? He's a real, scientific doctor.
>>17070042I didn't say either of those things, hallucinon, I just said their prerogative is to enslave nonjews, not that they always succeed even though their whole ideology is built around themselves as descendants of judah being entitled to global aristocracy because judah enslaved his own brother and it made god smile enough to promise his offspring the right to royalty.
>>17070054You're not subtle. You're not clever. >>>/pol/>>>/x/
>>17068520>I am JewishStopped reading. "Free Palestine" doesn't mean you can have it, Schlomo.
>>17070056I am not trying to be either of those things, I am just factually pointing out the origin of judaism and their basic tenets about how god mandated they try to enslave everyone else.
>>17068520So jews stopped flying since the events of the bible because they interbred with goys after jesus tricked them all and lost the neuron density needed to defy gravity with their willpower and have more true free will?
>>17070081You should get tested for schizophrenia. I'm not joking.
>>17070162You are the ghost worshiping jew with a bloodline prone to schizophrenia from all the inbreeding who clearly can't refute a thing I said, so maybe test yourself.
>>17070167I've been tested. I'm not schizophrenic. The irony is that for everything you blame the Jews for, you're displaying the same behaviors you ascribe to them. It's sad to see tbqh. When's the last time you spoke to your mother? Call her. She loves you and misses you.
>>17070173>you're displaying the same behaviors you ascribe to them.I am sure you can totally link to the posts and explain how the quotes display the behaviors I ascribed and you definitely aren't having another schizo delusion at all.
>>17070174See e.g.>>17070167>>17070054
>>17070182So I was right and you definitely can't explain how any quote displayed any behavior I ascribed because you are hallucinating.
>>17069718>If this actually happened, i would take it seriously but i doubt there are any NDE's that grant information anywhere near this specific. Atleast outside the range of their sensesThere are documented NDEs with even more specific observations than this. For instance, in the book "The Self Does Not Die" they go into detail about an NDE where the NDEr accurately saw a 12-digit number far away from their sensory inputs, and it was later verified and corroborated to have been completely accurate.To randomly guess that is a one in a trillion chance. And not just the number, but precisely that there was a number and where it was just adds to the astronomicalnessn of it all.
>>17071103>There are documented NDEsHow do I verify "documented NDEs"? Is there a reproducible procedure?
>>17068527 #source?If you look at real people NDEs (not Christian propaganda channel on YouTube spamming fake NDEs) you see that very often it's atheists and nonbelieving people having them, and afterwards they usually also denounce modern dogmatic religious views.I saw one woman describe her account and in it she said, I paraphrase, "I then asked [guiding/helping entity guy in NDE] which religion was the correct one that had it right. He didn't reply but he telepathically transferred to me his POV at that moment and the way my question sounded from his perspective was like a child asking which cheese the Moon is made of."
>>17068527>It's almost like there's nothing divine causing this and it's your own internal hallucinations manifesting your inner beliefs.That's a nonsequitur wrt. your made up premise. Everyone interpreting a transcendental experience through their religious framework is perfectly consistent with them all being right and you being wrong.
>>17071123>A is right>B is right>A says B is wrong >B says A is wrong Your brain cell must be dying of loneliness.
>>17071245>A is right>B is rightSuppose that for the sake of argument.>A says B is wrong >B says A is wrongThey could simply be wrong about that. What's the problem? I'm getting a strong sense that you've never had a single independent thought in your life.
Don't NDEs add credance to that Penrose - Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory.
>>17065587>In the time it took the ethics committee to decide if his liver should go to a trans alcoholic or a Mexican orphan, the man's soul left his body and decided to fly to the head trauma surgeon's bedroom, where he witnessed the surgeon's wife performing extreme pornographic acts with 3 black man. The horrifying sight shocked him back into consciousness, whereupon he was able to recount the exact penis lengths of all 3 perpetrators to all the medical staff present - a detail later corroborated by the surgeon's wife.Isn't that the Von Trier movie.
>>17071300>Don't NDEs add credance to that Penrose - Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory.Maybe, but why not simulation theory? Vague paranormal anecdotes can add credence to whatever you want.
>>17071113In an ideal world with no funding and ethics committees bullshit getting in the way, we'd just flatline suicidal volunteers lmao. Flatline 10000 or so.9-18% of all cardiac arrests have NDEs. 24-50% of those have OBEs. That will be a lot of OBEs to work with. Have targets with astronomically unguessable extremely specific information far away from the test subjects. They know where to look but they can impossbly see it from their flatlined bodies using normal sensory inputs. Then just interview them immediately after waking up about what they saw.
'Science' is not really suited to studying NDEs and it is kind of futile to expect it to be, the fundamental dogma of science is that it will only study phenomena that are: 1. quantifiable, 2. independent of observer, 3. repeatable. So if you study phenomena that don't fit that dogma, go right ahead, but you are not doing 'science' and wont get scientists to humor your efforts.
>>17065575this reminds me of an example anon.could you make someone alive if you had a big enough village and enough paper work.we could make most llms with a big enough village , so at the very least if those are alive , we can make a bunch of paper work alive.but what does that really mean?
>>17072306>1. quantifiable, 2. independent of observer, 3. repeatableThe thing about studying NDEs is that you're studying anecdotes, not the NDE itself. Granted. But the same is true of studying all human experiences. And dismissing anecdotes as a source of empirical knowledge has absurd and insane implications. Pic related.
>>17072262>Have targets with astronomically unguessable extremely specific information far away from the test subjects. They know where to look but they can impossbly see it from their flatlined bodies using normal sensory inputs. Then just interview them immediately after waking up about what they saw.How do I verify that any of this actually happens?>In an ideal world with no funding and ethics committees bullshit getting in the way, we'd just flatline suicidal volunteers lmao. Flatline 10000 or so.We don't live in an ideal world.
>>17073051>The thing about studying NDEs is that you're studying anecdotes, not the NDE itself. Granted. But the same is true of studying all human experiences.You're the authority on what you experienced subjectively, not on what it means objectively.
>>17073051based retard award
>>17073056>How do I verify that any of this actually happens?Like with all scientific studies everywhere and always, you trust the scientists who report that this is what happened when they write it down in the study paper. If you do not trust scientists, basically all of science knowledge goes out the window anyway. Everyone has to start on square one and do all of science for themselves.You could also ask them to video document every part of the study carefully and release all of it publically. But why don't we do that for all studies all the time?>We don't live in an ideal world.Yeah but that's a choice we collectively make. I am ashamed of humanity.>>17073062>You're the authority on what you experienced subjectively, not on what it means objectively.Disregard how this is irrelevant to the point I was making, consider this. With your logic, if we can't make inferences about objectivity based on our subjective experiences, then no scientist's subjective experience as they experienced studying anything and reporting on it can be used to make an objective implication about anything.Even more so, no human being can infer the objective existence of this universe based on their subjective experience of it. Which is crazy and insane and of course not even you believe that.
>>17068517Are Christians in control of that?
>>17074761>>17074761>this is irrelevant to the point I was makingIt's exactly as relevant to the "point" you were making as your pic was. Nobody doubts that people on shrooms are hallucinating like crazy just like nobody doubts that people whose brains are shutting down are hallucinating like crazy.>if we can't make inferences about objectivity based on our subjective experienceYou can make whatever inferences you want based on your subjective experience. I'm not gonna make mine based on yours, no matter how hard you insist the shrooms transported you to the real machine elf dimension. It's that simple.
>>17074761>Like with all scientific studies everywhere and always, you trust the scientists who report that this is what happenedNo, I don't. If they don't provide a detailed procedure to replicate their findings, it goes straight into the trash.
>>17074772NTA but where does it go if they do provide a detailed procedure? Do you replicate it yourself or do you assume that other people like you have already replicated it?
>>17074776>where does it go if they do provide a detailed procedure?If the findings are actually interesting, it goes in the "needs replication" drawer.>do you assume I don't assume anything.
>>17074780Have you ever measured the acceleration of a marble dropping for different lengths of time from bridges of different heights?
>>17074784I used to do stuff like this as a kid, yes. >>17074772 still stands regardless of who replicates what and your cope is helping you none.
>>17074786>stuff like thatNo, have you ever done that exact thing, give or take a bridge. The answer's obviously no, so what do you make of that?
>>17074788>have you ever done that exact thing, give or take a bridgeYes. But for the same of sharting all over you, I'll go with 'no'. I have never replicated a thing in my life. What's the next step of your master plan?
>>17074791>goes in the "needs replication" drawerDropping a marble goes in the "'needs replication' drawer" but you haven't replicated it?
>>17074793Exactly. Everything goes in the "needs replication" drawer, except for paranormal NDEs, which go in the trash because there's no procedure for replicating them. Alternatively, I trust the experts, but with a caveat: if it's something that sounds implausible, I need it to be confirmed by many different experts, especially the skeptical ones.You can make up whatever you like about me. There's no version of me you're winning this argument against because if it can't be replicated, it goes in the trash - an objectively correct stance regardless of who takes it.
>>17064880>.I have also looked into NDE's although everybody has conflicting reports so...
>>17074763>You can make whatever inferences you want based on your subjective experience. I'm not gonna make mine based on yoursSo you don't trust other scientists and their scientific studies? You only trust the science you have done yourself? You started from scratch yourself and have caught up to everyone else on your own?Impressive! :3
>>17075698>So you don't trust other scientists and their scientific studies?The persistent pattern here is that you (an obviously religious retard) think science is a religion and that scientists need to be "trusted". You clearly don't comprehend the concept of reproducibility.
>>17075703Amazing how I have been so fucking explicit and that people STILL don't understand basically fucking anything :oOh well, let's try CAPS LOCK. And short sentences.LIFE IS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE.THEREFORE, SO IS EVERY EXPERIENCE IN IT TOO.THEREFORE, SO IS EVERY SCIENTIFIC STUDY.A SCIENTIST HAS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF DOING A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.HE WRITES IT DOWN.THAT IS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IN ANECDOTE FORM.AT ITS CORE, THIS IS TRUE FOR EVERY SCIENTIFIC STUDY EVER, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.THEREFORE, DISMISSING SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES _OR_ ANECDOTES AS A SOURCE OF EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE IS BY LOGICAL IMPLICATION DISMISSING ALL OF SCIENCE.BUT IDIOTS WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THIS.Clear enough?
>>17075698>>17075706i'm the first one to kek at funny ai memes. yours are not funny. they are also not true.
>>17075706Ok. Let me put it in your retard terms: if the scientist describes a reliable method by which others can experience observing the result he reports, in such a way that they're forced to agree with him about what those results are, he's doing science. Otherwise, he's telling anecdotes. How are you managing to get filtered by this? Jumping through the hoop of subjectivity doesn't change anything.
>>17075708Oh no, one person was not entertained by the pics I posted! Existential crisis galore, who even am I anymore?!? *endless spiraling self-reflection into deep depression and never trying to do anything ever again*1. The main reason you don't find them funny is probably because you don't think they are true. This is always the first suspect when someone is not laughing at a joke - it hits too close to home and they don't wanna accept the underlying truth of the joke. If you disagree, do you think all muslims laugh at all atheist jokes about their religion too? When a muslim critiques the lack of humor of the atheist comedian, do you think the atheist comedian feels upset, or that the muslim has a good point, and that he is not actually funny?As Bill Hicks noted long ago, it is impossible to make everyone laugh unless you go out and tickle everyone individually. And one of many reasons for this is because people have different worldviews and thus different truths they are capable of accepting as foundations for the humor.2. Saying something is not true is not the same as demonstrating it. It is a negation, basically "Nuh-u-u-uuuuh!!!"-tier. Explicitly refuting the central point is the only game worth playing.And as you are not in the business of doing that, I will just smile and say this:"Ok." :)
Man, I read half the first panel, the first 8-10 words of your post, and decided it'd be a waste of time to continue further.
>>17075722What a crushing refutation. I am forced to concede.
>>17075706finally we agree that ndes are subjective anecdotical experiences and that no conclusions beyond that can be derived
>>17075713>if the scientist describes a reliable method by which others can experience observing the result he reports, in such a way that they're forced to agree with him about what those results are, he's doing science. Otherwise, he's telling anecdotes.1. Where did I say anything that in no uncertain terms explicitly contradicted this?2. If you think every retard and ideologue on the planet will be "forced to agree with him" and will do so, I have numerous bridges to sell you. Here, check out my catalogue!3. He's telling anecdotes either way, which is the whole point I was making. Every published scientific study ever = fanciful written anecdote, at the core.Oh, and retard-proofing caveat: Of course 2 and 3 is joking with your imprecise wording, not the spirit of your general point.
>>17075764Are you a boomer? Still not reading btw
>>17075764>Where did I say anything that in no uncertain terms explicitly contradicted this?Now that we have this settled, what procedure can I use to reliably reproduce paranormal NDEs?
