Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Jun 14, 2016.
I don't get your point here.
I think he's saying what I've seen others say, that he certainly believes people have experienced something, for whatever the reason might be. He just doesn't consider it relevant to the task at hand in most cases.
Or "proof" of anything?
Which is fair. If there was well-accepted conclusive proof of some reality pointed to by those sort of experiences, this forum would have no need to exist.
In some respects that is bound to prove correct because people go to the hospital when they are very ill. To make a fair comparison you'd have to remove all the patients that were certain to die in hospital because of their condition. But if you then consider the rest (who are not in danger of dying) the comparison with an airline pilot is reasonable. If you (as a doctor) administer insulin instead of glucose to reverse hypoglycaemia you can kill your patient.
If the pilot makes an error trying to land, he can kill a plane-load of people.
But what about local anaesthetic, no coma there
What is a mainstream doctor ?
Wouldn't I be better off not taking a wild guess ? I would have thought all MD's are mainstream, that is they adhere by and large to the rules of the General Medical Council or whatever governing body it is in the country where you practice medicine. Other doctors might be "quacks" (struck off or phonies) or I guess "witch doctors" who claim to be able to treat people.
I get that but in administering anaesthesia I guess you wouldn't be directly treating someone's mental health issues, would you. ? I mean if a person came into your OR to have their appendix removed (and was known to be psychotic), you wouldn't be expected to try to deal with his psychosis before you put him under surely ?
Without all kinds of things and the people that produce them we could suffer and die. Without the elements of water, food, sewerage, power and the people who produce them,the list is long. I'm not trying to demonstrate how smart I am. I don't think I am particularly smart, small dog but if you remember, you accused me of bullshit ( I always try my best never to do that......) and that's why I replied in what might be a slightly unfriendly manner. Anyway thank you for the keep well wishes but at the moment I'm suffering from a bloody awful hangover from last night which I will attempt to treat with some "hair of the dog."
A small one, I assume.
Dammit ! I should have spotted that, Typoz. That's proves conclusively, I ain't smart.
"Well accepted" is trivial. Most academics still act as if there was some sort of looming threat that the Church is going to make a comeback and force us all back into their grip. Times have changed, but they are still stuck in the enlightenment, hence the status quo.
If there wasn't such an aversion to change, we surely would have some sort of "well accepted" something, be it for or against. But, since the response is still to look away, we are depending on a small set of ill-funded and gung ho researches and the acolytes that rebuff them for religious concerns.
In such an environment, progress is expected to be slow; in fact, it is actually amazing that there has been some sort of progress *at all*.
I'm not strictly talking about academics when I say "well-accepted". I'd wager a decent percentage of people in general may certainly be interested in the phenomena but nonetheless are cautious to even discuss them for fear of others around thinking they're kooky.
I agree. But, most of the time, the masses respond to conditioning. Even when they think that they are being rebellious by opposing the establishment, most end up following the trail that is already there (many of the so-called "free thinkers" end up being a great example of pretentiousness and irony). Thus, they are merely reflecting what the academics feed them, either directly or by proxy.
Yeah - that particular account rather sticks in your mind - doesn't it!
I'd love to know whether the patient in question had a terrible past!
The thing about that website , is how matter of fact it is, "y'all knew it was coming, didn'y ya?" - these people encounter these phenomena day in day out!
Do not blame yourself David. I have had similar experiences many times. Some people can become very upset by any mention of NDEs. And not just materialists. Religious believers too can be offended by mention of NDEs. In my personal life I have learned to be very cautious about mentioning them; and if I do mention them I have a series of verbal caveats I routinely append so as to lessen the possibility of a negative reaction.
I know that in my own case the discovery of NDE literature was a watershed event in my life
But I also know that for many it is not. On the contrary many have a very negative response to the issue - and for many different reasons
As I said above, even religious people can find NDEs objectionable
So to answer Alex's question.... It all depends on the person being helped
There are some who will benefit and others who will not
I think the motivation is sound- you were trying to ease your friend's pain. I prefer people to open the conversation these days no matter how much I think I might be able to help.
What I think what amazes me more than the negative reaction, is the non-reaction. I have a bit of a hard time understanding how folks would have no interest in NDEs (or psi). As seemingly transient, mortal beings, I guess what's going to be on the next episode of the Kardashians is more important than, whether, or not, we may be spiritual, eternal beings
I guess I do understand it (I've been there myself in the past), but it really is a strange thing ...
I have to admit I'm curious....what exactly irritates you if you think there are no people, just deterministic personality fragments pretending to have a centralized free-willed "I"?
I think you meant to reply to David Bailey ?
I often think the problem is really just that ..."they".. ( the great unconvinced) can't actually see the consciousness/soul/spirit/whatever leaving the body and naturally "they" demand to know WHY they can't.... if there is ACTUALLY something exiting the body. Can't see it, it's not there.
Switch now to the people actually having the out of body experience and there seems to be no problem accepting it as a genuine separation of consciousness. If everyone had the experience wouldn't it be case closed ?
At the very least when our turn comes, we will all believe that we are leaving our bodies behind. We will all believe that our dead relatives are waiting there for us. I can't see much of a difference, personally
I think the question that inevitably comes up is why so few people seem to have such experiences. Even if we assume everyone has them, why then do most people seem to forget about them completely?
Separate names with a comma.