Time, death and the universe

[thir]

I decided to cut this in two, as one part has to do with science, and the other with religion.



t:Not at all scientific. It's all anecdotal. We are expected to believe, first of all, that these people actually saw something. Then we are expected to believe that they are telling the truth about what they saw. All with no real evidence! The fact that these viewings tend to follow cultural lines is also suspect. You don't hear about Christians getting an Islamic view of heaven, or Muslims seeing the Shinto version. And none of these people actually come back with any information that is not available through more mundane methods here on Earth.

You are really stubbornly misinterpreting what I say in that this has nothing to do with religion! Ok?

You do not believe that anyone saw anything. You do not believe that they say the truth. You want it proved. So how are people going to prove that? It is not like you can record it on tape. The only thing you can do is gather such experiences, and there are researchers who do. Your belief has nothing to do with it, people either have or haven't had them. Now, why is it so impossible that people see things during these situations? We do not know enough about the brain to say that it is not possible.


T:I agree, our understanding of the brain, of the mind, is still in its infancy. There is so much more to learn. A hundred years ago, if your heart stopped, you were clinically dead. There was no method of resuscitation. Now, we have ways to restart hearts. Yes, there have been a few people, with no detectable brain activity, who have been revived under very unique circumstances. It's more common with those who have fallen into icy water, kept cold to preserve the physical structure of the brain. There have also been people who, after suffering clinical brain death, have lost portions of their brains to decay, and when revived are much different than who they were before. Everything points to the mind being dependent upon the physical structure of the brain. No magic involved.

No magic is implied. I find it unscientific to keep persisting in trying to make it religious or magical. Some people have had experiences that cannot at this point be explained. You (generic) cannot keep saying that people are lying or fantasizing without any proof of that either.

[Thorne]

You are really stubbornly misinterpreting what I say in that this has nothing to do with religion! Ok?

I'm not deliberately misinterpreting you, honest. But certainly you must be aware that the vast majority of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are religious ones.

You do not believe that anyone saw anything. You do not believe that they say the truth.

What I believe, or disbelieve, has no bearing on the matter. All that matters is whether or not evidence can be provided.

You want it proved. So how are people going to prove that? It is not like you can record it on tape. The only thing you can do is gather such experiences,

Yes, you can gather the stories, and investigate them. Did the person relating the NDE know anything that they could not have known through any other means? If they claim to have met relatives or friends, did those they met give them any information which they could not have otherwise known? There are many ways such experiences could be tested and verified, or falsified. To date, none has been shown to be demonstrably true.

Now, why is it so impossible that people see things during these situations? We do not know enough about the brain to say that it is not possible.

I don't mean to claim that it is possible or not possible. Only that there is no evidence to indicate that such things are so, therefore no evidence to believe such stories are anything but artifacts of the brain. The lack of ultimate knowledge, whether about the brain or anything else, does not leave the door open to whatever fanciful nonsense we like.

No magic is implied. I find it unscientific to keep persisting in trying to make it religious or magical.

When someone postulates a supernatural cause, without first demonstrating the existence of the supernatural, then magic is certainly implied.

Some people have had experiences that cannot at this point be explained. You (generic) cannot keep saying that people are lying or fantasizing without any proof of that either.

Again, the fact that they cannot yet be explained does not give anyone the right to dream up some fanciful explanation, either magical or not. And I don't claim that people are lying, at least not deliberately. They have, certainly, had some kind of experience. But at this point in time there is no evidence to suggest that these experiences are anything other than hallucinations, or lucid dreams, or tricks of a damaged brain. And the more we learn about the brain, and about memory, the less "miraculous" these NDEs seem to be. People can, and have, experience dream fragments, mingled with garbled memories, and the mind tends to weld these fragments into some kind of coherent whole. Our brains are very good at filling in the gaps, and what is filled in does not have to have anything to do with reality. And when people relate such experiences, they tend to fill in even more gaps, whether deliberately or subconsciously. The mind wants a smooth narrative, even if what was experienced was anything but smooth.

Again, I'm not saying such things cannot be real. Any more than I would say that ghosts, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster cannot be real. All I claim is that there is no evidence to suggest that such things ARE real, and so there is no justification in treating them as if they are. Investigate? Certainly! I have no quarrel with that. Just don't claim such things as fact until you have been able to prove them.