Dreams and Life after Death?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2014, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2014 03:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
(22-12-2014 03:23 PM)Gordon Wrote:  We can't seem to figure out how a brain could possibly produce consciousness.

Wrong again. HE can't. "We' are not the problem. The problem here is Egnoramus. I referenced him to a number of scientific articles, which he can't even comprehend, apparently, as they have not been commented on.

Life after life has never once been observed. EVER. It is totally Unreasonable.
In the history of religion the Hebrews (Bible) did not believe in immortality. Paul thought ONLY the saved were immortal.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2014, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2014 03:44 PM by Gordon.)
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
(22-12-2014 03:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The University of Michigan :
Rats and NDEs.

Brain activity on an EEG at the time of cardiac arresst does not tell us that rats are having NDEs. And even if there is a corresponding increase in electrical activity in humans at the time of death, that doesn't suggest at all that that is responsible for the NDE. It could be that as the soul decouples from the brain there is an increase in electrical activity as evidenced on an EEG.

The article you present is very bad science, because it is biased entirely in the direction of materialism. The increase in electrical activity, according to the article, is the biological basis for the NDE; why? Because there can be no other explanation that is acceptiable from a traditional scientific, materialistic point of view.

Even granting that the same phenomenon occurs with dying human beings, it still leaves open the huge door of the overall hard problem of consciousness: What is it that is experiencing the brain going into "hyperconsciousness" as they term it? The burst of electrical activity, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, at the time of cardiac arrest is forcing a vivid dream onto the picture screen of the consciousness--so what? Every time a person dreams the same thing occurrs: the part that is considered to live after physical death is not the movie--it's the entity that's watching the movie.

So, even though the research says nothing, really, about NDEs (I mean, who knows what the rat is experiencing?), I'm willing to give it even more credit than it deserves. I'm willing to grant that there is a correlation between the NDE and the electrical activity, but describing the water in a drowning event doesn't do much good.

Quote:OF COURSE Egoramus knows NOTHING about what he's even talking about.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/08/...xperiences

I think I know something of what I'm talking about here. You shouldn't be so easily swayed, BB, by every headline in a scientific article. You should try to think more critically. I mean, you're at Harvard now, right? At least that's what you told me. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
(22-12-2014 03:38 PM)Gordon Wrote:  The article you present is very bad science, because it is biased entirely in the direction of materialism. The increase in electrical activity, according to the article, is the biological basis for the NDE; why? Because there can be no other explanation that is acceptiable from a traditional scientific, materialistic point of view.

Of ALL the people on TTA YOU are THE ONE not to be lecturing ANYONE on "critical thinking". Facepalm

But thanks for demonstrating with that one post, you have NOT THE SLIGHTEST clue about how science works. You tell us how EXACTLY science would TEST for a "decoupling of a soul", or anything non-materialistic. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
I haven't read this whole thread so this might have been discussed, but NDE's can be induced by centrifuge machines astronauts use.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html


The drug, ketamine.

http://www.lycaeum.org/leda/Documents/Us...9260.shtml

Here is an interesting but loooooooog, very detailed article about NDE's. Probably the most detailed study of NDE's I've read.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith...HNDEs.html


Um. This v v v v


when you're dead, that's the end of everything.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like dancefortwo's post
23-12-2014, 12:10 AM
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
(22-12-2014 03:38 PM)Gordon Wrote:  The article you present is very bad science, because it is biased entirely in the direction of materialism. The increase in electrical activity, according to the article, is the biological basis for the NDE; why? Because there can be no other explanation that is acceptiable from a traditional scientific, materialistic point of view.

"It's bad science cause it acts like science. It's bad science cause it does not allow for nonscientific explanations."

Facepalm

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
23-12-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
Gordon, after spending some time reading your posts I have determined that you are not interested in an actual debate. The formula for your "discussion" goes something like this:

1. Posit unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to incite atheist
2. Pick and choose comments and portions of comments you wish to address and ignore the rest
3. Insult and belittle at will

There isn't any evolution to these discussions. You continue to say what you like to say, others say what they like to say, sometimes people point out flaws in your reasoning and they almost always go unaddressed. This makes for a very frustrating and dissatisfying experience.

I now very little about neuro biology, but I would be happy to take this up in something like a formal debate with you. If you prefer, we can discuss another topic - just about anything you like. If you don't like me as an opponent, there are many people who would happily debate you. The point I want to stress is that these threads, these "discussions" you keep creating prove very little and are severely lacking in critical insight. I think you could benefit from a focused, critical, and rational discussion about your beliefs. If you're right it will only become more apparent after a deeper investigation, if you have flaws in your reasoning you can take the opportunity to identify them and modify your beliefs accordingly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
23-12-2014, 11:07 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2014 11:11 AM by Gordon.)
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
(23-12-2014 10:37 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Gordon, after spending some time reading your posts I have determined that you are not interested in an actual debate.

Oh, I'm interested in it. It just never happens. Usually after the third response to a post of mine, the whole string disintegrates into a junior high school dissing match.


Quote:The formula for your "discussion" goes something like this:

1. Posit unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to incite atheist
2. Pick and choose comments and portions of comments you wish to address and ignore the rest
3. Insult and belittle at will

I insult and belittle people who insult and belittle me. So far I haven't belittled or insulted you in this response, right? Why? Because you haven't done it to me. If you give respect, you get respect.

As for picking comments, when I make an OP, there's too much response for me to actually respond to everyone, and so I pick and choose what I think I can answer as I'm sitting at the computer. Though I do typically read ever post.

What may seem like ignoring is not really deciding whether I want to engage. If I say that I believe something to be true, or that I think it's reasonable to conclude something, and then someone posts a huge post arguing every little point I made, I can't then go back and debate every little point they made about every little point I made, or we'd have book-length posts over what was always an "opinion" to begin with.

Also, it depends on who's making a response. If a person has been in the forum a while, they get more of my attention. If they are civil I'm going to consider them first. If they're kind or respectful, then I'm really going to consider what they post.

But so often, what seems like a learned counterpoint is someone posting research that is biased toward atheism. It takes a long time to pick through that stuff and counter it--a lot of work. Look at BuckyBalls response. He posted an article about rats having increased brain activity following a cardiac arrest. I went through and explained how the conclusions reached in that article are no supported by the observations. That took time. I had to read the article and formulate a response--for what? Did BB come back and address that? No, he came back with his normal hostile insults. So, what was the point? I really shouldn't have addressed it at all.

Except in that case, I found the research interesting.

Quote:There isn't any evolution to these discussions. You continue to say what you like to say, others say what they like to say, sometimes people point out flaws in your reasoning and they almost always go unaddressed. This makes for a very frustrating and dissatisfying experience.

Because most of what I say is an opinion or a statement of faith. If I say I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and there is no salvation from sin except through faith in him--what's there to talk about? If someone then comes back with a lengthy post about how Jesus never existed, what's the point in responding to that? It's a stupid premise (that there was never a Jesus of Nazareth), there's no way to win that argument, and there's no point, because my statement was based on my religious faith.

Quote:I now very little about neuro biology, but I would be happy to take this up in something like a formal debate with you.

No! See, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You know very little about neurology, but you want to debate me. Why? You don't know the subject, you wouldn't be able to interpret the scientific research. You'd have to rely on the conclusions of that research typically found in popular literature. There's no point.

Example: I have done original research with paramecium, because they seem to show evidence of consciousness. I have read and understand the scientific papers on it. I know the subject of biology and microbiology at least to the undergraduate level, because I took several of those classes in college, and I work in the medical field; I know the species inside and out, and I have had a debate about them several times since 2004, only for those debates to be ignored by atheists who say--"Nope, I don't see evidence of consciousness," and then insult me. It's like screaming at someone that the sky is blue and they simply refuse to admit it but call you an idiot for saying it's blue.

So, what would be the point in a debate with you on the consciousness of species that have no neurological systems? You already said you don't know that much about it. I already know you're an atheist, and I know that if I win, you won't be able to be an atheist anymore, and you will not give that up, because you need to be an atheist every bit as much as I need to be a Christian.

Quote:If you prefer, we can discuss another topic - just about anything you like. If you don't like me as an opponent, there are many people who would happily debate you. The point I want to stress is that these threads, these "discussions" you keep creating prove very little and are severely lacking in critical insight.

But they're entertaining. Drinking Beverage

Quote: I think you could benefit from a focused, critical, and rational discussion about your beliefs.

Oh, That's different. I'd love to do that. Believe me, that's what I would really love to do.

Quote:If you're right it will only become more apparent after a deeper investigation, if you have flaws in your reasoning you can take the opportunity to identify them and modify your beliefs accordingly.

Exactly. Yes
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: Dreams and Life after Death?
(23-12-2014 11:07 AM)Gordon Wrote:  
(23-12-2014 10:37 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Gordon, after spending some time reading your posts I have determined that you are not interested in an actual debate.

Oh, I'm interested in it. It just never happens. Usually after the third response to a post of mine, the whole string disintegrates into a junior high school dissing match.

That is exactly the kind of discussion you initiate. The OP of this thread is deliberately insulting and antogonistic. Besides of which, intermixed with snide remarks are genuine points that you choose to ignore. If you intent is troll, and increasingly I believe it is, then fine. Don't play the victim though - you're far from it.

Quote:
Quote:The formula for your "discussion" goes something like this:

1. Posit unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to incite atheist
2. Pick and choose comments and portions of comments you wish to address and ignore the rest
3. Insult and belittle at will

I insult and belittle people who insult and belittle me. So far I haven't belittled or insulted you in this response, right? Why? Because you haven't done it to me. If you give respect, you get respect.

As for picking comments, when I make an OP, there's too much response for me to actually respond to everyone, and so I pick and choose what I think I can answer as I'm sitting at the computer. Though I do typically read ever post.

What may seem like ignoring is not really deciding whether I want to engage. If I say that I believe something to be true, or that I think it's reasonable to conclude something, and then someone posts a huge post arguing every little point I made, I can't then go back and debate every little point they made about every little point I made, or we'd have book-length posts over what was always an "opinion" to begin with.

Also, it depends on who's making a response. If a person has been in the forum a while, they get more of my attention. If they are civil I'm going to consider them first. If they're kind or respectful, then I'm really going to consider what they post.

But so often, what seems like a learned counterpoint is someone posting research that is biased toward atheism. It takes a long time to pick through that stuff and counter it--a lot of work. Look at BuckyBalls response. He posted an article about rats having increased brain activity following a cardiac arrest. I went through and explained how the conclusions reached in that article are no supported by the observations. That took time. I had to read the article and formulate a response--for what? Did BB come back and address that? No, he came back with his normal hostile insults. So, what was the point? I really shouldn't have addressed it at all.

Except in that case, I found the research interesting.

You could address the numerous people who quoted scientific literature claiming to be able to recreate common near death experiences in a controlled setting. You could perhaps comment on the the numerous theories surrounding the subject, one of which being that a lack of oxygen in the brain can cause primitive lobes to fire off randomly, which when interpreted by our more advanced frontal lobe, can be recalled as glowing light, shrinking tunnels ect.

As for dreams, if this hasn't been posted yet, this video would be a great place to start:





Quote:
Quote:There isn't any evolution to these discussions. You continue to say what you like to say, others say what they like to say, sometimes people point out flaws in your reasoning and they almost always go unaddressed. This makes for a very frustrating and dissatisfying experience.

Because most of what I say is an opinion or a statement of faith. If I say I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and there is no salvation from sin except through faith in him--what's there to talk about? If someone then comes back with a lengthy post about how Jesus never existed, what's the point in responding to that? It's a stupid premise (that there was never a Jesus of Nazareth), there's no way to win that argument, and there's no point, because my statement was based on my religious faith.

Quote:I now very little about neuro biology, but I would be happy to take this up in something like a formal debate with you.

You are not usually content with saying "I believe X", more often you say "i believe X and you atheists are delusional for not also believing X". If we respond with something like "how do you know and by the way xyz" this is both a rational and predictable response. If you only intent is to inform us of what you believe, without at all debating it or comparing it to other belief systems, then I am not sure why you have made so many threads nor why you are here in the first place.
[/quote]

Quote:No! See, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You know very little about neurology, but you want to debate me. Why? You don't know the subject, you wouldn't be able to interpret the scientific research. You'd have to rely on the conclusions of that research typically found in popular literature. There's no point.

I know enough about neurology and the study of dreams to be able to conclude, based on the substance of your posts, that you know even less. If you have something intelligent to add then post it. You haven't presented research, only unfounded assertions.

Quote:Example: I have done original research with paramecium, because they seem to show evidence of consciousness. I have read and understand the scientific papers on it. I know the subject of biology and microbiology at least to the undergraduate level, because I took several of those classes in college, and I work in the medical field; I know the species inside and out, and I have had a debate about them several times since 2004, only for those debates to be ignored by atheists who say--"Nope, I don't see evidence of consciousness," and then insult me. It's like screaming at someone that the sky is blue and they simply refuse to admit it but call you an idiot for saying it's blue.

THEN BEHAVE LIKE AN AUTHORITY. You haven't given anyone any reason to take you at all seriously. My biggest objection to your argument is you have very poorly defined terms. What is consciousness? What mechanism drive "consciousness" if not the living brain? More importantly HOW DO YOU KNOW? If you are interested in intelligent discourse, then provide something intelligent to read and respond too.

Quote:So, what would be the point in a debate with you on the consciousness of species that have no neurological systems? You already said you don't know that much about it. I already know you're an atheist, and I know that if I win, you won't be able to be an atheist anymore, and you will not give that up, because you need to be an atheist every bit as much as I need to be a Christian.

If you aren't speaking from ignorance, you are doing a very good impersonation of someone who is. This is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Besides of which, if you are going to post a thread on a public forum you cannot only expect the uneducated and the uninitiated to respond - you have deliberately instigated it.


Quote:Oh, That's different. I'd love to do that. Believe me, that's what I would really love to do.

Then do it. I realize that part of being a good troll is convincing others for as long as possible that you are not trolling. If you intent it to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialogue then start making meaningful and intelligent posts.

Quote:
Quote:If you're right it will only become more apparent after a deeper investigation, if you have flaws in your reasoning you can take the opportunity to identify them and modify your beliefs accordingly.

Exactly. Yes
[/quote]

The invitation for a debate is open and ongoing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: