If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsweek)   Neurosurgeon who says he saw Heaven during near-death experience responds to critics, insists he's a "deep believer in science" despite special pleading for experience during least reliable mental state short of death   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 162
    More: Followup, Nobel Prize in Physics, cerebral cortex, imaging science, modern physics, Heisenberg, proof, bacterial meningitis, physical environment  
•       •       •

2614 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Nov 2012 at 7:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-25 12:04:46 PM
burn him at the stake for not being a deep enough believer in science
 
2012-11-25 12:10:32 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: I agree... which is the point I was making :)


I figured it came close, but the internet (and Fark threads like this particularly) is full of all manner of crazy-to-trolling-to-jokery-to-snide-remarks-to-serious-extent so it can be hard to properly parse. :-Þ

HindiDiscoMonster: Oh I never meant to say that all inspiration was good... only that hypothesis in science start with an idea/inspiration.


Ah, but which came first, the inspiration or the knowledge and education and experience that inspired the inspiration? ;-)

I still think we put undue emphasis on "where something came from" after said thing has already borne fruit. It seems like evolution itself is an interestingly close parallel, with "inspiration" (or the like) treates as mutations. Knowledge evolves like a species, utilizing a host of ideas and inspirations and tests and trials, and we can identify key ones with 20/20 hindsight, find use in highlighting the negative ones for future comparison, but are not as concerned with the vast majority of neutral ones. Whether contained in an individual like Einstein or Feynman, a larger group like "the active scientific community," or the largest grouping we can think of, "everyone ever." :-Þ

It is, of course, a fantastically large and long-running system. But I find people most often highlight one or two things that confirm the Pleasing Tale™ they prefer, and ignore the rest of the scope and scale.
 
2012-11-25 12:13:04 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I reserve judgment on the whole near-death thing, mostly because tales of people seeing things happening a great distance from where they were "dying" and then recounting details of those events they could not have possibly seen or overheard while semi-conscious on an operating table or hospital bed.

The euphoria, seeing people who died long ago, life review, flood of memories...all that can possibly be explained by the massive release of neurotransmitters and feel-good chemicals in the brain.

But having knowledge of things happening simultaneously a distance from where you are while you are in between life and death? Unexplainable by science (so far.)

Sadly, when I croak I will not be able to come back and tell you all what's what.


Spooky quantum action at a distance, maybe?

/just reaching for the first pseudo-scientific thing that I can think of
 
2012-11-25 12:17:24 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Where were you before you were born? Why all this complicated biological hardware if we have this ethereal soul?


And why isn't a question an answer?
 
2012-11-25 12:18:13 PM

falcon176: burn him at the stake for not being a deep enough believer in science


Who? The neurosurgeon?

He can believe what he wants ... especially a personal experience. That is much better than believing in god because your mommy and daddy said he was real.

That is not the issue here. The issue is that he is claiming that his anecdote that came from his oxygen-starved, chemically addled brain should be considered evidence of something.

It is an interesting story (not interesting enough to buy a book but that's just me). But it does not remotely come close to meeting the criteria of scientific evidence.

tldr;
He is not being mocked because of what he believes. He is being mocked because he is suggesting his anecdote is scientific evidence.
 
2012-11-25 12:22:58 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: what i find interesting here on Fark is... the very thing Athiests biatch about with believers (lack of evidence, or the convenient i don't understand therefore God) is the very same thing they rely on when stories like this come out... (lack of evidence, he's not really a Neurosurgeon/bad evidence/looses his special club ring because he believes in something now).

[images.sodahead.com image 350x346]

/wonders if God came down and sat next to an Athiest if they would believe or have to denounce themselves :P

Shut your farking mouth you goddamn retard. The jackass got high on his own brain but in a context where he believed he was summoned to some other plane of existence. Guess what, when you think like that, you aren't thinking like a scientist. Nature doesn't work in ways so we can understand it in terms of our fantasies.


Yeah! Someone should burn that guy at the stake for not following the rules!
At the very least, house arrest!
 
2012-11-25 12:29:43 PM

enforcerpsu: You are allowed to believe in science and God at the same time. I 100% trust that science and discovery will reveal what is really happening around us but I also believe in God.

No, not intelligent design or other BS like that. I just believe in God.


Why?
 
2012-11-25 12:35:04 PM

s2s2s2: Yeah! Someone should burn that guy at the stake for not following the rules!


Yes. Science has very clear, well documented rules.

If you don't follow the rules you can't call it science. Which is what this guy is trying to do.

/scientists don't burn people at the stake ... that is what religious people do (historically anyway)
 
2012-11-25 12:38:17 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Cinaed: Isn't that whole thing able to be replicated in testing environments meant to simulate high G forces?

Tunnel vision. A result of decreased blood flow to the brain?
Interesting how this discussion devolves into religion and evolution.


Keep the discussion medical? And miss a perfectly good opportunity for a d!ck waving contest?

Did you forget this is Fark?
 
2012-11-25 12:51:29 PM

s2s2s2: Quantum Apostrophe: Where were you before you were born? Why all this complicated biological hardware if we have this ethereal soul?

And why isn't a question an answer?


You don't want answers. Like a Space Nutter, all you want are fantasies.
 
2012-11-25 01:31:14 PM
Wow, a doctor had a human reaction to almost dying. Then makes the leap of faith that it was "heaven". I wonder what he would call it if he had been raised in a different faith culture?
 
2012-11-25 01:37:26 PM

m3000: My wife is making me read that damn book so I'll "believe in something". Halfway through and still nothing that can't be explained by normal dreaming.

/she said she was fine with me being an atheist when we married
//should have known better


Richard Marx tried to tell you.
 
2012-11-25 01:44:55 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Farking Canuck: HindiDiscoMonster: the very thing Athiests biatch about with believers (lack of evidence, or the convenient i don't understand therefore God) is the very same thing they rely on when stories like this come out.

Except there is evidence. Evidence that near-death experiences are fantasies produced by the random chemical soup the brain is exposed to when it is near death.

You are suggesting that we should take an anecdote (from a guy who just happens to be selling a book based on that anecdote), which was produced when the subject's brain was clearly in a compromised state, as evidence of something?? If so, you obviously don't understand what constitutes quality evidence (or you have confirmation bias because you like what his delusions said).

I am suggesting, that unless you are a neuroscientist like the person in the article, you are unqualified to judge his conclusions.

If the neuroscientist begins offering explanations for his own anecdote that are not consistent with the scientific consensus in order to sell a book, then yes, he no longer gets to represent himself as an authority.


Because there has never, ever been any instance whatsoever of scientific consensus being wrong....
 
2012-11-25 01:46:16 PM

letthepossumlive: The proper conclusion.
People with limited brain activity believe there is a heaven.


We call them 'low-information' brains.
 
2012-11-25 01:49:48 PM

bookman: Because there has never, ever been any instance whatsoever of scientific consensus being wrong....


Has there ever been a case of a scientific consensus being proven wrong by one anecdote from a person who's brain was clearly compromised?
 
2012-11-25 01:53:31 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Farking Canuck: HindiDiscoMonster: the very thing Athiests biatch about with believers (lack of evidence, or the convenient i don't understand therefore God) is the very same thing they rely on when stories like this come out.

Except there is evidence. Evidence that near-death experiences are fantasies produced by the random chemical soup the brain is exposed to when it is near death.

You are suggesting that we should take an anecdote (from a guy who just happens to be selling a book based on that anecdote), which was produced when the subject's brain was clearly in a compromised state, as evidence of something?? If so, you obviously don't understand what constitutes quality evidence (or you have confirmation bias because you like what his delusions said).

I am suggesting, that unless you are a neuroscientist like the person in the article, you are unqualified to judge his conclusions.

If the neuroscientist begins offering explanations for his own anecdote that are not consistent with the scientific consensus in order to sell a book, then yes, he no longer gets to represent himself as an authority.

oh i agree...

the earth is still flat, right?

Except nobody offered their own altered state of consciousness as proof of a spherical Earth. Instead there was specific empirical observations made: the top of a ship appears before the bottom as it comes in from the horizon, the earth casts an elliptical shadow on the moon, etc.


There are several problems with traditional scientific rules of evidence when dealing with internal subjective mental phenomena. Not the least of those issues is replicability. And there is no reason to ASSUME that "mind" is simply just another physical phenomena and that those rules of evidence MUST apply to it.
 
2012-11-25 01:55:57 PM

Mjeck: What is the evolutionary advantage to believing/experiencing an afterlife/god??


In terms of living evolution (rather than survival), absolutely nothing. Which, of course, is why God and the afterlife is debated at all.
 
2012-11-25 02:00:30 PM

bookman: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Farking Canuck: HindiDiscoMonster: the very thing Athiests biatch about with believers (lack of evidence, or the convenient i don't understand therefore God) is the very same thing they rely on when stories like this come out.

Except there is evidence. Evidence that near-death experiences are fantasies produced by the random chemical soup the brain is exposed to when it is near death.

You are suggesting that we should take an anecdote (from a guy who just happens to be selling a book based on that anecdote), which was produced when the subject's brain was clearly in a compromised state, as evidence of something?? If so, you obviously don't understand what constitutes quality evidence (or you have confirmation bias because you like what his delusions said).

I am suggesting, that unless you are a neuroscientist like the person in the article, you are unqualified to judge his conclusions.

If the neuroscientist begins offering explanations for his own anecdote that are not consistent with the scientific consensus in order to sell a book, then yes, he no longer gets to represent himself as an authority.

oh i agree...

the earth is still flat, right?

Except nobody offered their own altered state of consciousness as proof of a spherical Earth. Instead there was specific empirical observations made: the top of a ship appears before the bottom as it comes in from the horizon, the earth casts an elliptical shadow on the moon, etc.

There are several problems with traditional scientific rules of evidence when dealing with internal subjective mental phenomena. Not the least of those issues is replicability. And there is no reason to ASSUME that "mind" is simply just another physical phenomena and that those rules of evidence MUST apply to it.


But when has any other ANYTHING ever been metaphysical and not something physical? You could also assume, by your logic of evidence needing to disprove, that we are all computer programs and that everything in existence is just an illusion of sorts. With your definition of "proof", nothing can ever be truly proven. I think there are plenty of reasons to assume the mind is another physical phenomena... what are we supposed to do, doubt everything else? That's called faith... and is generally regarded as a case of the sillies when applied to science.
 
2012-11-25 02:01:50 PM

Farking Canuck: bookman: Because there has never, ever been any instance whatsoever of scientific consensus being wrong....

Has there ever been a case of a scientific consensus being proven wrong by one anecdote from a person who's brain was clearly compromised?


Like someone who can't tell "who is" from "whose"?
 
2012-11-25 02:14:28 PM

m3000: My wife is making me read that damn book so I'll "believe in something". Halfway through and still nothing that can't be explained by normal dreaming.

/she said she was fine with me being an atheist when we married
//should have known better


That's what they all say, along with "I won't try to change you, honey!" (with their fingers crossed behind their backs)
 
2012-11-25 02:19:00 PM

bookman: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Farking Canuck: HindiDiscoMonster: the very thing Athiests biatch about with believers (lack of evidence, or the convenient i don't understand therefore God) is the very same thing they rely on when stories like this come out.

Except there is evidence. Evidence that near-death experiences are fantasies produced by the random chemical soup the brain is exposed to when it is near death.

You are suggesting that we should take an anecdote (from a guy who just happens to be selling a book based on that anecdote), which was produced when the subject's brain was clearly in a compromised state, as evidence of something?? If so, you obviously don't understand what constitutes quality evidence (or you have confirmation bias because you like what his delusions said).

I am suggesting, that unless you are a neuroscientist like the person in the article, you are unqualified to judge his conclusions.

If the neuroscientist begins offering explanations for his own anecdote that are not consistent with the scientific consensus in order to sell a book, then yes, he no longer gets to represent himself as an authority.

Because there has never, ever been any instance whatsoever of scientific consensus being wrong....


Has there ever been any modern (past 100 years or so) scientific consensus which was wrong but was shown to be wrong by non-scientific methods?
 
2012-11-25 02:19:49 PM

Bontesla: That's why we still have debates about a ghost in the machine.


Yeah, a lot of people keep arguing that Synchronicity was better, but I think Ghost In The Machine was the best album by The Police.
 
2012-11-25 02:20:07 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Farking Canuck: bookman: Because there has never, ever been any instance whatsoever of scientific consensus being wrong....

Has there ever been a case of a scientific consensus being proven wrong by one anecdote from a person who's brain was clearly compromised?

Like someone who can't tell "who is" from "whose"?


shiat happens. I don't usually get caught by these types of grammar errors but I type faster than I think sometimes.

/Nice bust! I can just imagine all the Cheetos stained high-5s you must be getting around the 'grammar police' squad room.
 
2012-11-25 02:27:25 PM

bookman: Mjeck: What is the evolutionary advantage to believing/experiencing an afterlife/god??

In terms of living evolution (rather than survival), absolutely nothing. Which, of course, is why God and the afterlife is debated at all.



While I'm not sure what you mean by "living" evolution that is somehow decoupled from survival and therefore natural selection, be aware that there is a body of work that attempts to tease apart the adaptive significance of religious thought (or discounts it as an incidental side-effect of cognitive adaptations or 'mind').

Off the top of my head, two adaptive explanations are increased social cohesion and costly signaling in terms of ritual, but I've only had the briefest of exposure to the literature. What we need right now is an evolutionary anthropologist, or we could pull up some papers if you're interested.
 
2012-11-25 02:34:55 PM

Farking Canuck: Quantum Apostrophe: Farking Canuck: bookman: Because there has never, ever been any instance whatsoever of scientific consensus being wrong....

Has there ever been a case of a scientific consensus being proven wrong by one anecdote from a person who's brain was clearly compromised?

Like someone who can't tell "who is" from "whose"?

shiat happens. I don't usually get caught by these types of grammar errors but I type faster than I think sometimes.

/Nice bust! I can just imagine all the Cheetos stained high-5s you must be getting around the 'grammar police' squad room.


Considering that his smarmy grammar retort to your other post wasn't actually structurally correct, I'm pretty sure he's just getting head-shakes from his squad mates.
 
2012-11-25 02:37:37 PM

Damnhippyfreak: While I'm not sure what you mean by "living" evolution that is somehow decoupled from survival and therefore natural selection,


Besides genetic drift, of course.

/should get a slap on the hand for that
 
2012-11-25 03:50:25 PM
If there is a consciousness I have after complete death, I hope it's not some bad shiat. Otherwise I'd prefer nonexistence, which is what I think happens when one dies.

/atheist
 
2012-11-25 04:05:53 PM

cthellis: HindiDiscoMonster: I agree... which is the point I was making :)

I figured it came close, but the internet (and Fark threads like this particularly) is full of all manner of crazy-to-trolling-to-jokery-to-snide-remarks-to-serious-extent so it can be hard to properly parse. :-Þ

HindiDiscoMonster: Oh I never meant to say that all inspiration was good... only that hypothesis in science start with an idea/inspiration.

Ah, but which came first, the inspiration or the knowledge and education and experience that inspired the inspiration? ;-)

I still think we put undue emphasis on "where something came from" after said thing has already borne fruit. It seems like evolution itself is an interestingly close parallel, with "inspiration" (or the like) treates as mutations. Knowledge evolves like a species, utilizing a host of ideas and inspirations and tests and trials, and we can identify key ones with 20/20 hindsight, find use in highlighting the negative ones for future comparison, but are not as concerned with the vast majority of neutral ones. Whether contained in an individual like Einstein or Feynman, a larger group like "the active scientific community," or the largest grouping we can think of, "everyone ever." :-Þ

It is, of course, a fantastically large and long-running system. But I find people most often highlight one or two things that confirm the Pleasing Tale™ they prefer, and ignore the rest of the scope and scale.


Amen :P
 
2012-11-25 04:08:06 PM

Farking Canuck: s2s2s2: Yeah! Someone should burn that guy at the stake for not following the rules!

Yes. Science has very clear, well documented rules.

If you don't follow the rules you can't call it science. Which is what this guy is trying to do.

/scientists don't burn people at the stake ... that is what religious people do (historically anyway)


oh scientists can burn steaks too...

westpointsteakhouse.com

/mmmmm steak
 
2012-11-25 04:10:15 PM
*Cough* ... endorphins ... *cough*

When the body in in trouble and shutting down it releases endorphins, natural opioids. in high enough doses we see heaven, while lights or whatever. When my time comes (in many years time) I intend to relax and enjoy the ride.
 
2012-11-25 04:10:20 PM

FuryOfFirestorm: m3000: My wife is making me read that damn book so I'll "believe in something". Halfway through and still nothing that can't be explained by normal dreaming.

/she said she was fine with me being an atheist when we married
//should have known better

That's what they all say, along with "I won't try to change you, honey!" (with their fingers crossed behind their backs)


or.... "I'll always swallow"

wait what?
 
2012-11-25 04:48:31 PM
"C'mon guys--I'm trying to sell a book here."
 
2012-11-25 05:08:17 PM
Yet in spite of the complete absence of neural activity in all but the deepest, most primitive portions of my brain, my identity-my sense of self-did not go dark. Instead, I underwent the most staggering experience of my life, my consciousness traveling to another level, or dimension, or world.

Last night I had a dream where I was smoking a joint with Bill Murray. It was like my consciousness was traveling to another level.

But it wasn't real, either.
 
2012-11-25 05:29:58 PM

MacWizard: Yet in spite of the complete absence of neural activity in all but the deepest, most primitive portions of my brain, my identity-my sense of self-did not go dark. Instead, I underwent the most staggering experience of my life, my consciousness traveling to another level, or dimension, or world.

Last night I had a dream where I was smoking a joint with Bill Murray. It was like my consciousness was traveling to another level.

But it wasn't real, either.


that reminds me of a dream... it involved Jim Morrison and a half-naked Indian dude...
 
2012-11-25 05:34:05 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Farking Canuck: HindiDiscoMonster: the very thing Athiests biatch about with believers (lack of evidence, or the convenient i don't understand therefore God) is the very same thing they rely on when stories like this come out.

Except there is evidence. Evidence that near-death experiences are fantasies produced by the random chemical soup the brain is exposed to when it is near death.

You are suggesting that we should take an anecdote (from a guy who just happens to be selling a book based on that anecdote), which was produced when the subject's brain was clearly in a compromised state, as evidence of something?? If so, you obviously don't understand what constitutes quality evidence (or you have confirmation bias because you like what his delusions said).

I am suggesting, that unless you are a neuroscientist like the person in the article, you are unqualified to judge his conclusions.

If the neuroscientist begins offering explanations for his own anecdote that are not consistent with the scientific consensus in order to sell a book, then yes, he no longer gets to represent himself as an authority.

oh i agree...

the earth is still flat, right?

Except nobody offered their own altered state of consciousness as proof of a spherical Earth. Instead there was specific empirical observations made: the top of a ship appears before the bottom as it comes in from the horizon, the earth casts an elliptical shadow on the moon, etc.


In the Old Testament, Moses says god took him up in a ship, and Moses relayed seeing "the round of the earth." So yeah, somebody did.
 
2012-11-25 05:36:43 PM

s2s2s2: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: HindiDiscoMonster: Farking Canuck: HindiDiscoMonster: the very thing Athiests biatch about with believers (lack of evidence, or the convenient i don't understand therefore God) is the very same thing they rely on when stories like this come out.

Except there is evidence. Evidence that near-death experiences are fantasies produced by the random chemical soup the brain is exposed to when it is near death.

You are suggesting that we should take an anecdote (from a guy who just happens to be selling a book based on that anecdote), which was produced when the subject's brain was clearly in a compromised state, as evidence of something?? If so, you obviously don't understand what constitutes quality evidence (or you have confirmation bias because you like what his delusions said).

I am suggesting, that unless you are a neuroscientist like the person in the article, you are unqualified to judge his conclusions.

If the neuroscientist begins offering explanations for his own anecdote that are not consistent with the scientific consensus in order to sell a book, then yes, he no longer gets to represent himself as an authority.

oh i agree...

the earth is still flat, right?

Except nobody offered their own altered state of consciousness as proof of a spherical Earth. Instead there was specific empirical observations made: the top of a ship appears before the bottom as it comes in from the horizon, the earth casts an elliptical shadow on the moon, etc.

In the Old Testament, Moses says god took him up in a ship, and Moses relayed seeing "the round of the earth." So yeah, somebody did.


I think the important question we have to ask is.... did it have warp drive?
 
2012-11-25 05:44:47 PM
I also experienced that transitional period, when my mind began to regain consciousness: I remember a vivid paranoid nightmare....But that period of disorientation and delusion had absolutely nothing to do with what happened to me before my cortex began to recover.

Strong believer in Science boy is asserting that it's impossible to have two or more dreams in sequence?
 
2012-11-25 05:49:32 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: s2s2s2: Quantum Apostrophe: Where were you before you were born? Why all this complicated biological hardware if we have this ethereal soul?

And why isn't a question an answer?

You don't want answers. Like a Space Nutter, all you want are fantasies.


And you base this on what evidence? Gut feeling?
Well at least you prove that's a shifty way forward.
 
2012-11-25 05:50:13 PM

Farking Canuck: s2s2s2: Yeah! Someone should burn that guy at the stake for not following the rules!

Yes. Science has very clear, well documented rules.

If you don't follow the rules you can't call it science. Which is what this guy is trying to do.

/scientists don't burn people at the stake ... that is what religious people do (historically anyway)


... = "yet"
 
2012-11-25 06:26:34 PM

Lunaville: MayoSlather: As an atheist I want to believe. In the off chance there is consciousness after death I'll be pleasantly surprised, but either way I won't be disappointed.

I'm a Christian though I attend worship with a group that some would categorize as "not real Christians." I don't know whether there is consciousness after death and it doesn't particularly concern me. Either there will be or there won't and there is nothing I can do about it. I think it is more important to concentrate on how I live my life; to let my life speak. I don't think you have to be utterly convinced of an after-life to be a believer.


This man is a gentleman and a scholar.

The point of Jesus' teachings weren't as much to get you to believe in some system of an afterlife or cycle as much as they were to teach how to be a good person.

Of course, the afterlife is a nice addition to support some of the arguments made in the Bible, but it's neither here nor there to me in the context of the Gospels.
 
2012-11-25 06:29:08 PM

MacWizard: Yet in spite of the complete absence of neural activity in all but the deepest, most primitive portions of my brain, my identity-my sense of self-did not go dark. Instead, I underwent the most staggering experience of my life, my consciousness traveling to another level, or dimension, or world.

Last night I had a dream where I was smoking a joint with Bill Murray. It was like my consciousness was traveling to another level.

But it wasn't real, either.


I'm wondering how he could time-stamp his "experiences" and directly compare them to his EEG readings.
 
2012-11-25 07:08:48 PM
s2s2s2
In the Old Testament, Moses says god took him up in a ship, and Moses relayed seeing "the round of the earth." So yeah, somebody did

[citation needed]. Unless you were saying this sarcastically. I can't tell because my sacasti-meter malfunctioned over thanksgiving listening to kentucky hillbillies talk about "Obamer".
 
2012-11-25 08:50:49 PM
Sounds pretty interesting to me. Ordered the book this morning.
 
2012-11-25 09:15:31 PM

Buddha Belly: Sounds pretty interesting to me. Ordered the book this morning.


One sucker identified.
 
2012-11-25 10:10:27 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Dismissing any theory (no matter how wackadoo) just out of hand is exactly the same thing that contemporary science has done since day #1 in science


Wackadoo hypothesis are dismissed out of hand when they have no credible evidence supporting them. The crazier the idea (as in, the more it contradicts established science) the more evidence is needed before it should be taken seriously. Some guy's near death experience barely registers on the evidence scale and flies in the face of what we do know about the brain and consciousness. Why should we take him seriously when all he's given us to go on is his word?

/Give me evidence or give me a near death experience!
 
2012-11-25 10:41:21 PM
Let me just ask those who want to believe, "how does this guy's near death experience shed any light on afterlives, heaven, or hell?"

As the earlier comments have pointed out, while you're experiencing hallucinations caused by an oxygen starved or malfunctioning brain, the experiences that you have are not to be considered reliable. This is common sense and the simplest answer to the question of how to interpret what he saw.

This author seems to be seizing upon an opportunity to become rich by becoming the next enlightened one in a society that "wants to believe". To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence..." Keeping in mind that a story about a vision doesn't really qualify as evidence at all, much less extraordinary evidence.
 
2012-11-26 12:29:59 AM
let me help you atheist blowhards out.

thought requires relationships between neurons built on Biochemical activity.

Biochemical activity is built from particle physics. Particles have to have a relationship with one another in order to interact.

Where do particles come from? And why should they have relationships with one another?

Our best guess is from another dimension... String theory -or the multiverse via the other side of a singularity... but they are unscientific, but creative guesses built from mathematical models without a known way to measure them.

For all we know, the source of particles is Heaven.
 
2012-11-26 01:15:59 AM

threeoclockrock: let me help you atheist blowhards out.

thought requires relationships between neurons built on Biochemical activity.

Biochemical activity is built from particle physics. Particles have to have a relationship with one another in order to interact.

Where do particles come from? And why should they have relationships with one another?

Our best guess is from another dimension... String theory -or the multiverse via the other side of a singularity... but they are unscientific, but creative guesses built from mathematical models without a known way to measure them.

For all we know, the source of particles is Heaven.


Ok, but aren't you just telling us what we don't know? To state it differently, "For all we know, the source of particles is Hell."

Neither statement accomplishes anything.
 
2012-11-26 02:09:39 AM
The guy had a tower vision. Wooo good for you. Your brain went spastic for whatever reason and you got to see the starter motor for conciousness.

Been there. Done that. Although being blissed out for three days solid was a nice after effect of the experience I do admit.
 
2012-11-26 02:13:44 AM
I think you're all missing the more important point here.

FTFA: I remember a vivid paranoid nightmare in which my wife and doctors were trying to kill me, and I was only saved from certain death by a ninja couple after being pushed from a 60-story cancer hospital in south Florida.

Now why the hell isn't he writing a book about that instead? That sounds awesome!
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report