Okay, I take that back. But then what do you mean by "But an NDE doesn't have any advantage without physical resuscitation." if you think that resuscitation can occur naturally?Where did I say "never"?
~~ Paul
Okay, I take that back. But then what do you mean by "But an NDE doesn't have any advantage without physical resuscitation." if you think that resuscitation can occur naturally?Where did I say "never"?
But an NDE doesn't have any advantage without physical resuscitation. In fact only very recently we see them more "frequently", which is an oxymoron, given the rarity of the phenomenon.
There are hundreds of types of crises that human beings face and have faced for millions of years and no similar preserving "mechanism" has ever showed up.
In fact you cannot mention one (that is analogous to NDEs).
Isn't there any other excuse you can make up, that would sound less ill-founded?
Compared to this the usual DMT + oxygen deprivation + some other mysterious brain activity sounds like a promising solution to the riddle...
Maybe you haven't followed the exchange with Kai. I was not talking about a "natural" resuscitation.Okay, I take that back. But then what do you mean by "But an NDE doesn't have any advantage without physical resuscitation." if you think that resuscitation can occur naturally?
But resuscitation IS fundamental!I don't think the advantage has much to do with "resuscitation" but with the organism being in a risk state for which there is a certain chance of survival. All that resus has done, imo, is to widen that window a little further.
But then why is the question of "physical resuscitation" an issue? If there is an advantage to natural resuscitation and that is why NDEs occur, then they come along for the ride when medical resuscitation is performed.Maybe you haven't followed the exchange with Kai. I was not talking about a "natural" resuscitation.
One of the main reasons why we're able to collect more near death experiences and study them, is the very recent (late XXth century) medical advancements in resuscitation.
Why is this necessarily the case? It could be that the NDE has no purpose at all. It could also be that certain kinds of NDEs lead to a stronger fight against death and thus increased survival.But resuscitation IS fundamental!
If you don't come back to life the NDE is useless.
Proposing NDEs as an evolutionary survival mechanism is nonsensical...
I'm tempted to believe that NDEs are simply an accident of our physiology, but who knows.
But resuscitation IS fundamental!
If you don't come back to life the NDE is useless.
The mortality rate just a few hundreds years ago was orders of magnitude higher, not just for heart attack, but for any illness besides a cold.
Proposing NDEs as an evolutionary survival mechanism is nonsensical, because it never triggers in the vast majority of possible crises. If human kind had to rely on NDEs to survive "risk states" we would have disappeared in the blink of an eye.
Today people's lives are equally threatened by all sorts of health crises but we can survive most of them thanks to medical advancements. We have a huge amounts of "survivors" from accidents, infections, tumors, heart attacks, and whatnot and yet the NDE phenomenon remains extremely rare. More evidence that your hypothesis is plain silly.
To add more mystery some people have an ND (or ND-like) experience in non life-threatening situations. The only analogue to NDE are mystical experiences which don't even require an organism in "risk state" to get triggered.
It's an indefensible position.
And you keep sounding like one of those ideologues sworn to see everything as a product of natural selection.
But then why is the question of "physical resuscitation" an issue? If there is an advantage to natural resuscitation and that is why NDEs occur, then they come along for the ride when medical resuscitation is performed.
Problem is you're offering a speculation that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and that just rests on its own internal logic. Like a fairy tale.It's not indefensible at all. It follows the pattern very strongly. Of course that alone does not render it true. However, you seem to have an ideological resistance to the exploration of possibilities alternative to the one you favor...which is a shame.
By using up critical energy for survival? :DWhy is this necessarily the case? It could be that the NDE has no purpose at all. It could also be that certain kinds of NDEs lead to a stronger fight against death and thus increased survival.
You really feel qualified to weigh the energy consumption against the psychological value? I don't think so.By using up critical energy for survival? :D
People who don't have an NDE would be at and advantage.
I may not be qualified, but now you make me very curious as to why would you be?You really feel qualified to weigh the energy consumption against the psychological value? I don't think so.
Problem is you're offering a speculation that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and that just rests on its own internal logic. Like a fairy tale.
Not to mention that it presupposes human behavior, such as spirituality and mysticism, must be originated from evolutionary adaptations, which typically slips into more unwarranted nonsense about the nature of consciousness and experience. (as secretions of the brain)
It is really funny how on one hand you are asking for strict and controlled scientific evidence regarding the mysterious features NDEs, and on the other hand you appeal to pseudo-science to explain it all away with one brush.
By using up critical energy for survival? :D
People who don't have an NDE would be at an advantage.
I'm not. I'm just offering various possibilities.I may not be qualified, but now you make me very curious as to why would you be?
There is a skeptic quote that might be paraphrased here, "I don't care how much evidence you show me, I will never believe you."Strictly speaking none of this "proves" that such phenomena cannot exist, but it weakens their case I think, and it is highly improbable that there is *no* relation between the psychological benefit they offer and the "strength of evidence" people are inclined to see for them.
Let me guess - they scientifically compared their research to all other empirical published scientific research in precognition? What? They didn't?!! Shocking.
Thanks!Well, statements like this don't contain any content. I could say exactly the same thing about your remarks. The problem is that people seem to have this idea that the mind cannot be "tricking" them, or presenting them with something that is not literally what it appears to be, or presenting it with an agenda, the most likely orientation of which is physical survival. Physical survival is the most important thing to the organism. Almost everything about your body and mind, honed from the first unicellular creatures over billions of years, has been "about" that. If this is *not* about that, then frankly the burden of proof lies with that claim. I'm not even saying that NDEs *can't* have a relevance which is beyond survival...but at present, it's a case of "I'll believe that when I see it."
The same could be said for people who seem to have this idea that the mind must be tricking them in each and every instance.The problem is that people seem to have this idea that the mind cannot be "tricking" them, or presenting them with something that is not literally what it appears to be, or presenting it with an agenda
The fact that an advantage can be hypothesized doesn't provide substance to the argument.Not sure why you conflate materialism with the existence of evolution. The two do not appear to me to be necessarily connected. The question is whether there is a discernible advantage in survival terms to having an NDE, and then asking onself whether NDEs fit the profile for such a survivial function.
Maybe you should read a thing or two about evolutionary psychology?I don't appeal to pseudo-science, but to have that conversation you would first need to understand the difference between pseudoscience and science, which I am not convinced you do