Mod+ 262. WILL STORR ON THE ENEMIES OF SCIENCE

Some ridiculous statements there. What can safely be concluded ? You would have to be a bit biased, to say the least, to postulate that zero can be concluded.
Tim, in my opinion (for what little it may be worth) I think you misread the post. All I read was an open-minded asking of a question or questions. There was no postulate stated, that I can see.
 
uote="Far.From.Here, post: 53233, member: 836"]Tim. For Christ's sake. I didn't say nothing. I said what. Loosen your knickers.[/quote]

If you didn't say nothing, you must have said something. I don't wear knickers but I do hope that hasn't spoilt your fantasy .
 
Last edited:
Apologies. I thought you were just another Skeptic here to attack. It seems like it's all they want to do these days.

My short opinion is NDEs are scientifically well established psychological phenomena, that have been corroborated with more recent shared death studies, and also other older reports of death bed visions. The veridical observations reported in a number of NDE accounts reinforces what parapsychological research has established now for the last 100 years, i.e. certain psychological events can occur with consciousness indicating non-local awareness, and enhanced capabilities - which are still little known in science.

There have been numerous theories proposed by materialist skeptics regarding NDEs, of which often the many different theories proposed logically conflict with each other, and even the materialists disagree on the validity of one theory over another. In addition, none of the materialist theories have stood up under the scrutiny of scientists who have spent decades research and publishing papers on NDEs. Currently, the best explanatory hypothesis has been the most obvious: there can be some kind of separation of consciousness from the physical body when near death, and very heightened awareness and engagement of well known paranormal phenomena. The kind of experiences reported are widely variant upon a few core elements such as separation from the body and observation, feelings of peace and love, great light that does not blind, increased awareness and energy, possible meeting of dead friends or relatives, and/or a decision point to return - often against the will of the person experiencing the NDE who is upset having to return to the body. In addition, having the NDE usually has a long lasting impact on the individual years afterward. Most NDE'rs report being absolutely convinced their experience was real and was not a dream.

My own opinion - well I think it is very likely consciousness does separate at physical death. That the physical reality we experience here is not the only reality. I believe consciousness is probably a fundamental component of reality, and it is not the product of the brain. Consciousness uses the brain much like a broadcast uses a radio, or a human uses a space suit to go into space, for much the same reasons. Beyond this opinion: I really don't know what if anything is beyond the separation of consciousness. Almost 80% of NDE reports indicate overwhelming feelings of love - actually indescribable love. So, I remain hopeful. I don't think NDEs prove there is a "God" or some kind of higher being. But I do believe enough research has now been conducted with NDEs that it is irrational and unreasonable to label the research as "woo" or "pseudo-science" like many materialists do. The Dawkin's class of materialists have become quite a group of dogmatists, and are now just as much religious acolytes of their belief in materialism than any bishops of religion were in christianity. They have abandoned rationality and even science in their worship of materialism.

My Best,
Bertha
Great post.

"In addition, none of the materialist theories have stood up under the scrutiny of scientists who have spent decades research and publishing papers on NDEs"

And what's more, in my opinion, the only explanation left now is the one that they simply will NOT allow.
 
Tim, in my opinion (for what little it may be worth) I think you misread the post. All I read was an open-minded asking of a question or questions. There was no postulate stated, that I can see.
Well, maybe I shouldn't have said the word ridiculous. I don't know who I am dealing with, is it a member that I should know ?

"What can we safely conclude?"

Scientifically, we cannot yet conclude that survival is true but based on the "fact" that patients report floating around the ICU when their brains are not working, I don't really see what else it could mean.

Scientifically, we can conclude that these experiences occur in approx. 10-20 per cent (sometimes more) of cardiac arrest patients and that the experience is generally very pleasant to say the least and therefore we can conclude that death is nothing to be afraid of for most people.

I am astonished at the level of resistance put up by the sceptics to this phenomenon. For me it's the most exciting research in existence and it has the greatest potential and possibilities to help change the world for the better. You'd think that everyone would welcome the message...we are not annihilated ...but no...the glory and the perceived superior maturity of accepting annihilation is preferred.
 
Last edited:
I don't know who I am dealing with, is it a member that I should know ?
I'm not sure on that. However, I'd been following the interplay of each post in response to a previous one within this thread, and there was some sort of structured interaction, call it playing according to some undeclared set of rules, describe it however you wish. However from my perspective that made it very difficult to take any individual post and take it literally at face value. Just as every kick in a game of football may not be a shot on goal, it may instead be a pass back into one's own half of the field, towards one's own goalkeeper, people write what they write for many reasons.

In using this allegory, I'm not intending to criticise any of the participants, not trying to find fault.
 
I'm not sure on that. However, I'd been following the interplay of each post in response to a previous one within this thread, and there was some sort of structured interaction, call it playing according to some undeclared set of rules, describe it however you wish. However from my perspective that made it very difficult to take any individual post and take it literally at face value. Just as every kick in a game of football may not be a shot on goal, it may instead be a pass back into one's own half of the field, towards one's own goalkeeper, people write what they write for many reasons.

In using this allegory, I'm not intending to criticise any of the participants, not trying to find fault.
Yeah, true. I didn't mean to hurt his/her feelings whoever it is/was but he bit back nicely accusing me of wearing women's underwear which I can honestly say I have never done. Call me old fashioned .........
 
They don't to me. People in this thread seem quick to interpret the intentions of the posters.
Do you not see that "they don't to me " is also an interpretation? Interpretation is part and parcel of communication. As is clarifying when others take things in ways that one didn't intend.
 
It's all cool. No offense taken on any front. I hope I didn't offend anyone. I've written here in the past on the NDE, but I can't find it now. If consciousness survives death, I think that the experience of the NDE is likely a kind of lived metaphor for the transition from physical embodiment to "non-physical", whatever that is. I don't think the territories explored in the NDE likely have anything to do with our final destination following physical death, if there is one. The NDE is, I believe, a journey, not a destination. That said, even after years of exploring all the subjects we enjoy on skeptiko, I'm still not convinced that consciousness survives the physical death. There are many, many pointers. And much compelling evidence. But I prefer to retain some sense of skepticism.
 
It's all cool. No offense taken on any front. I hope I didn't offend anyone. I've written here in the past on the NDE, but I can't find it now. If consciousness survives death, I think that the experience of the NDE is likely a kind of lived metaphor for the transition from physical embodiment to "non-physical", whatever that is. I don't think the territories explored in the NDE likely have anything to do with our final destination following physical death, if there is one. The NDE is, I believe, a journey, not a destination. That said, even after years of exploring all the subjects we enjoy on skeptiko, I'm still not convinced that consciousness survives the physical death. There are many, many pointers. And much compelling evidence. But I prefer to retain some sense of skepticism.
You may be an actual old-school bona-fide Skeptic. Kind of rare these days but rather cool to come across. tbh, I'm not 100% sure of anything myself. I mean I've read the evidence which is clear if one has an open mind. And I've even had two individuals in my life relate to me NDE types of experiences they had, and they weren't prone to making stuff up out of the blue.

But the fear of death and the unknown is huge. And you have the full weight of materialist conformity bearing down on you - telling you the only acceptable belief you must adhere to - if you wish to claim yourself rational - is the nihilist view of life being an accident, reality and the universe being a giant machine churning away mechanically, and the human psyche as the evolution of random events conforming to the law of survival and adaptability, that somehow evolved into the immense complexity and form of the human brain - but ultimately has little meaning outside of Darwinistic survival.

It is astonishing how much a grip materialism - the doctrine of materialism can hold sway on someone even today. What is even more ironic, is we got physicists even now proposing theories of multi-universes to explain away the measurement problem in quantum physics, or multi-dimensions to propose new ideas in String Theory. We also have the well established facts about the observer effect in quantum physics. All of which point to something far more mysterious that is taking place in reality than this Newtonian materialistic entrenchment we have had now for over a century. It is hard indeed to make the intellectual jump, and yet we are compelled to do so as more and more is discovered about reality and the human psyche.

I think there is much to hope for and that there is indeed a good deal of solid research that does point away from the entrenched materialism which is the dominating dogma of our time. A hundred years from now, who knows what might replace it. But I doubt very much it will be anything the Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris's of the world could ever imagine.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
the experience of the NDE is likely a kind of lived metaphor for the transition from physical embodiment to "non-physical", whatever that is. I don't think the territories explored in the NDE likely have anything to do with our final destination following physical death, if there is one. The NDE is, I believe, a journey, not a destination.
That is correct. Although the "destination" is a state - not a place. And it's a state within which physical frameworks (including NDEs) are being generated.
 
It is astonishing how much a grip materialism - the doctrine of materialism can hold sway on someone even today.
That I strongly disagree with. It is not astonishing at all. Given that most of the people who are in that grip are what we consider "highly educated" and that our educational systems indoctrinate in materialism as a matter of course.
 
That I strongly disagree with. It is not astonishing at all. Given that most of the people who are in that grip are what we consider "highly educated" and that our educational systems indoctrinate in materialism as a matter of course.
Good point. Maybe I'm astonished at how much I still remain in the grip of materialism, given just how much is available that clearly contradicts it.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Good point. Maybe I'm astonished at how much I still remain in the grip of materialism, given just how much is available that clearly contradicts it.

My Best,
Bertha
Given that everyone these days learns about the current mainstream paradigm from a young age on it really isnt astonishing indeed. If you never learn about something else or you get told that everything else cant be true you normally believe that what is presented to you. And since we humans dont like changes that much we normally stick with that what we learned. The truth isnt necessarily involved in that whole process.
 
Good point. Maybe I'm astonished at how much I still remain in the grip of materialism, given just how much is available that clearly contradicts it.
I tend to think that solely using the intellect to get there may not work. Having objective awareness of one's own experiences beyond the physical makes the jump. Reading and thinking about only go so far. One may be genuinely skeptical about a burner being hot, touching it erases that skepticism.
 
I tend to think that solely using the intellect to get there may not work. Having objective awareness of one's own experiences beyond the physical makes the jump. Reading and thinking about only go so far. One may be genuinely skeptical about a burner being hot, touching it erases that skepticism.
That's the thing, I've even had personal experiences that go beyond a normal materialistic explanation. And yet still, materialism clings to me like no tomorrow.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Given that everyone these days learns about the current mainstream paradigm from a young age on it really isnt astonishing indeed. If you never learn about something else or you get told that everything else cant be true you normally believe that what is presented to you. And since we humans dont like changes that much we normally stick with that what we learned. The truth isnt necessarily involved in that whole process.
“The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

Gloria Steinem
 
That's the thing, I've even had personal experiences that go beyond a normal materialistic explanation. And yet still, materialism clings to me like no tomorrow.
Huh. Interesting. So . . okay . ya got issues then? lol. Seriously I don't know what motivates that. I'd offer that you play with it. Objectively play with coming up with more expanded possibilities in the basic day-to-day. For instance you could, while drinking something, muse on the energy within the atoms and on how those atoms can be in more places than one at the same time, etc . . .
 
Last edited:
Scientists do research in areas where there is funding. You can take any obscure area and make it mainstream in a few years if you would fund research in that area. Many scientists have a materialist naturalist outlook. To some extent this is a reflection of the organizations that fund scientific research i.e. national governments.
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/s...isions-are-slowing-the-advance-of-science.ece
As research funders look to make prudent investments, big-name institutions can look like a safe bet while smaller, more nimble labs lose out. As money and power get concentrated, the aims of scientists can actually shift from major breakthroughs to incremental, but more reliable, short-term progress.
...
I have been working on questions of innovation for the last half-dozen years. My most recent book, The Creativity Crisis, is the fourth book in a series on innovation. My first book, Innovation Generation, was really about how to teach people a systematic method to think very differently, very radically, very innovatively. I’ve been happy to say that most of the major American universities have invited me to come out and give a talk about this. In many of those conversations, at the end of the question and answer period, a young person would raise their hand from the back of the room, get up, and say, “Dr. Ness, this was inspirational and I would love to be able to do this and think this way and work this way. But if I did it would destroy my career. I would never be able to get funded.”
 
Top