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
>>17064880Atheists are right and to a lesser extent Buddhists, spirituality is more of a constant thing, rather than achieved through physical events. Objectively speaking, eating lasagna can have more spiritual significance than death. It's passive and constant, not contingent on a warm meat bag going cold.Physical effects are probability based, strong spiritual effects can sometimes affect the physical, but the physical is never significant, it is merely synced coincidentally to the spiritual at times.
>>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!
