On 4/4/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

    On 4/4/2013 8:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
    >
    > On 04 Apr 2013, at 15:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
    >
    >> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-memories-death-real-reality.html
    <http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-memories-death-real-reality.html>
    >>
    >> "Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by 
Steven
    Laureys)
    >> and the University of Li�ge's Cognitive Psychology Research (Professor 
Serge
    Br�dart
    >> and Hedwige Dehon), have looked into the memories of NDE with the 
hypothesis that if
    >> the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their 
phenomenological
    >> characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. 
details)
    should be
    >> closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are 
experienced in a
    way
    >> similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the 
memories of
    >> real events.
    >>
    >> The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of 
patients, each of
    >> which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy
    volunteers.
    >> They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and 
imagined events
    >> with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological
    characteristics
    >> of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being 
studied,
    not
    >> only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but 
the
    >> phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events 
(e.g.
    memories
    >> of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than 
in the
    >> memories of real events."
    >>
    >> These results fully support a sense based model of physics. It makes a 
falsifiable
    >> claim that if NDEs are dreams, then they should be like all other 
dreams. While this
    >> could still mean that being close to death gives you massively potent 
dream for some
    >> reason, it still points to a universe where realism, matter, and public 
events are
    >> derived from a universal foundation which is sensory rather than logical.
    >
    > With comp, we already know that the physical is a construct of the mind 
(of the
    > universal numbers), so your point here is precisely not valid. Indeed you 
seem to
    need
    > some primary matter to distinguish the "sensory" based on carbon from the 
one
    which we
    > could be based on silicon, or numbers.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Reality is the dream of eternity made temporarily public, not a 
collection of
    objects
    >> making temporary illusions.
    >
    > The self-referentially correct universal machine agrees with this. 100%. 
It is not
    > obvious at all, but that's what the UDA explains.
    >
    > On this you are more correct than many materialist, but you fit perfectly 
well with
    > comp. That is why I find a bit sad that you insist that comp is false. 
Keep in mind
    > that, unlike what many are thinking, comp is incompatible with even very 
weak form of
    > materialism. So much that physics should be entirely derivable from the 
global FPI on
    > arithmetic. The math confirms this up to now, if we agree with some 
rather standard
    > definition in the theory of knowledge.
    >
    > It would be interesting to see if some drug does not also produce more of 
the
    > phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events. 
Now, I have
    > not read those papers, and as you notice, it might only be more "potent 
dream".


    Dreams are not "pure products of imagination", and nobody has ever 
suggested they were.
    The researchers compared NDE reports to memories of real and imagined 
events, not
    dreams.
    But what does "memory of an imagined event" mean?  It means the researchers 
asked the
    subjects to imagine remembering something that didn't happen. They 
discovered that this
    did not have as much sensory detail as the memories of real events and 
NDEs.  Dog
    bites man.


But the memories of the NDEs are clearer than the real events. Common sense tells us that memories of imagined events or dreams would be less detailed.

Common sense tells us that events that have a lot of emotional content (like being near death) are going to be remember in more detail. That's why the researchers asked the subjects to remember real and imagined events that had emotional content. But how likely are they to have had an emotional event comparable to nearly dying? And the real events were further in the past than the NDE. And as John Clark and others have pointed out the NDE stories never have any new information. All of this is easily explained by assuming that experience is produced by the brain and NDEs are dreams that occur during trauma and/or lack to oxygen. Sensory-motive theory would predict that experience is independent of those merely physical brains.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to