subject:"Re\: NDE's Proved Real\?"

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 15 Apr 2013, at 21:26, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/14/2013 1:07:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, marc...@ulb.ac.be 
 writes:
NDE might helps people in stress situation, of after being wounded.  
Given the fact that humans seems to fight since a long time, that  
might convey some evolutionary role. This does not logically entail  
that


Apparently some NDE can at least help some people to realize that  
science has not yet decided if we are human beings capable of having  
from time to time some divine experiences, or if we are divine  
beings capable of having from time to time some terrestrial  
experiences.


That can help to doubt or attenuate certainties in the spiritual  
field, which are frequent, for diverse reasons.


Indeed, Dr. Marchal, perhaps it is merely some sort of stress,  
hallucination. This is why the AWARE study is import. Because  
developing telescopic sight, shouldn't occur to the subject who is  
injured. At least we'll find out of anything unusual gets reported.  
It might be interesting.


Yes. But to progress there, we must come back to rigor. many derive  
wrongly that because something is an hallucination, the content of the  
hallucination can be dismissed. But if that was the case, then comp  
would entail that we can dismiss the whole physical reality, which is  
non sense.
Today, the basic of cognitive science are still based on the  
conjunction of materialism and computationalism, which makes it  
inconsistent.


Bruno





http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-15 Thread Spudboy100

 
In a message dated 4/14/2013 1:07:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
marc...@ulb.ac.be writes:

NDE might helps people in stress situation, of after being wounded. Given  
the fact that humans seems to fight since a long time, that might convey 
some  evolutionary role. This does not logically entail that 


Apparently some NDE can at least help some people to realize that science  
has not yet decided if we are human beings capable of having from time to 
time  some divine experiences, or if we are divine beings capable of having 
from  time to time some terrestrial experiences.


That can help to doubt or attenuate certainties in the spiritual field,  
which are frequent, for diverse reasons.





Indeed, Dr. Marchal, perhaps it is merely some sort of stress,  
hallucination. This is why the AWARE study is import. Because developing  
telescopic 
sight, shouldn't occur to the subject who is injured. At least we'll  find out 
of anything unusual gets reported. It might be  interesting.

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 09 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Telmo Menezes wrote:


The web of trust comes from PhDs from accredited Universities. That is
the deal that everyone accepts.


If only that was true. Not all academies play the rule. Separation of  
power leaks so much (since Nixon, more or less), that even academies  
can be simply corrupted and defend only personal interest.


It is not the deal, it is the ideal.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


Hi John,

On 14 Apr 2013, at 00:10, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, I stand corrected (redface): I had a closed mind for NDE  
considered  only as the observable experience on the 'patient' in a  
"dying-like" situation.
Your airplane-example opened my eyes: it may refer to experiences  
when someone (a group?) faces death.


Thanks for telling me. I knew you are a serious guy :)




Adding my story to my mistake:
I had a similar experience in the 1944 siege of Budapest when 5 of  
us were crammed into a small WC watching the sounds of explosions of  
the Russian serial gun-hits closing in on us 1-2 seconds apart. We  
did not know which "next" one will hit us. Every participant had a  
totally different attitude, I kept a strong observing eye on them  
(to keep myself sane). Fortunately the salvos hit higher than where  
we were and destroyed a higher étage.

I forgot to realize that things have more than one aspect to watch.
This WAS a NDE - on others. We just knew that we're gona die.
No philosophy, no physiology, no 'return'. Then we heard the  
explosions passing "us?" i.e. coming from further and further.


Yes, that's a "third person NDE". I am happy you survived.

Best,

Bruno






John





On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 12 Apr 2013, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER
you wrote:

"...Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike.  
Anyone, with a few practice, can see by itself.


I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD  
experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy  
of you on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy,  
despite being fully conscious all the time, get your memory back  
slowly, so that the copy feels becoming "you", but "you" can see  
your "original self" staying there. This is frequent in the salvia  
reports (the copy effect, or the max effect as I call it in the  
entheogen.net forum)


.With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be  
described as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is  
the normal logic of the self-referentially correct machine (there  
are cul-de-sac accessible from any state). In a sense, life is a  
near death experience all along. What is still amazing, and might  
contradict comp, is that we can live NDE or DE and come back with  
some realist memories of the event. .."


Who told you about "a real???" NDE? Live people imagine various  
fables.


Hi John, sorry, I was probably unclear, by a real NDE I mean when  
someone concretely approach death. My favorite collection is given  
by the plane crash investigations. I call that sometime third person  
NDE, and they are or not related to what is called NDE and which  
concerns usually  the first person report (the light, the  
tunnel, ...).


So, when you are in a plane, and the plane fall 5000 miles, you do a  
near death experience, with or without the usual first person NDE  
account.


In some context, by a "non real" NDE,  I can also mean a NDE brought  
by the use of a drug (like DMT or salvia), as opposed as the  
experience brought by going concretely near death, like when falling  
from a mountain, or surviving a plane crash.




Congrats to your 'theory' about Salvia, - still within your  
imagination.


All theories are within our imagination. But the one brought by  
salvia can be shown to be also in the imagination of all universal  
machine. But it belongs to G* - G, and is not communicable as such.




Fable, I could say, about the "COPY", the "SENDING  B A C K  to  
Earth, etc. etc.


That's a report of experience. It is like a dream report. Nobody  
should take the content as something believed or even believable.




All
these are good for discussions on the Everything list - no merit in  
my opinion.

I tried to get 'entheogen.net': Google did not find it.


You might try clicking on this:

http://entheogen-network.com/forums/index.php?sid=5f144b42a9e7d2045066513721ec5436

or this (salvia discussion)

http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=8

My username there is salvialover24.





Nobody "CAME BACK" from a real NDE or DE especially not with REALIST
Memories. Fantasies - maybe.
Sorry, Bruno, I don't want to spoil your game or good feeling. Just  
chat.


No problem. I will come back on this some day, perhaps, but the NDE  
is rather easy to explain in the comp theory/belief.
I don't insist on that, as the notion of NDE is a bit hard for many  
to keep being rational on, but this is just one more symptom of the  
Aristotelian widespread superstition in "Matter", "primary  
physicalness", etc.


With salvia, on me and on others, I have also got a better  
understanding of the paradoxical nature of any theology. It is  
morbid subject matter. But we need to use it a little bit to grasp  
where the physical reality comes from, when we assume  
computationalism.


Bruno






John Mikes

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 13 Apr 2013, at 16:13, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr.  
Sam Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE  project. He has a  
partial sumary of this study in his new book, Erasing Death (US) or  
The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book different titles.  Parnia's AWARE  
study involves 25 hospital emergency rooms, in which signs or  
messages are place in odd places, that face upwards, to determine if  
out of body sensing is valid?  A patient seeing a 5-pointed star  
with a daisy printed next to it, that has been placed  3 metre's  
above the emergency room floors might be an example of what Parnia  
has done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then  
that tells us something.


Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The  
main thrust of his research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus  
is using techniques like cold treatments to preserve body and neural  
tissue. Parnia complains that depending on which emergency room  
physicians use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will  
effect the chances of survivability and recovery of the patient.  
Fore example, Dr. Parnia says that in the US, Seattle is the place  
to be, for cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals are  
well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the  
heart, cooling the brain, whatever?


The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to  
ressucitation research. What do I expect? I am not sure, although  
the opponents of the Liege study haven't yet come up with the  
"vividity" explanation, versus dreams, hallucinations, and drug  
trips. In other words, you can lose the cognitve regions of your  
brain, if you imbibe some bad, blotter acid, and not be able to  
recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, from every day  
life. One simply believes what one hears and see's.


The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin.  
Is there a neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid  
hallucinations? Hard to understand the neural mechanism for this.  
When you've lost blood, do you produce a lot of serotonin, or  
endorphins? What evolution basis causes this, if that is our  
explanation. How did it become a successful trait that permitted  
wounded or damaged animals, to survive, and thus, mate, and  
therefore, go on to have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in  
tooth and claw, would likely have accidently evolved to elininate,  
such damaged animals. So what gives?


-Mitch




NDE might helps people in stress situation, of after being wounded.  
Given the fact that humans seems to fight since a long time, that  
might convey some evolutionary role. This does not logically entail that


Apparently some NDE can at least help some people to realize that  
science has not yet decided if we are human beings capable of having  
from time to time some divine experiences, or if we are divine beings  
capable of having from time to time some terrestrial experiences.


That can help to doubt or attenuate certainties in the spiritual  
field, which are frequent, for diverse reasons.



Bruno








http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-13 Thread meekerdb


On 4/13/2013 2:59 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Brent >>Five years and no positive result.<<

The study hasn't been released yet. It gets released in November, this year.


If they had positive results to you really suppose they, the doctors, the nurses could 
have all kept it secret?




<contrary to reproductive success it may be carried along in a population.>>


This, goes against Darwinian principles does it not?


No.


Everything is natural selection, unless it's artificial selection.


Natural selection can only act on traits that make a difference - not all traits make a 
difference.


Brent

I wonder if there was an artificial selection going on, that occurred because of human 
behavior of our ancestors, both recent and remote? I can't come up with such an line of 
behavior, but perhaps someone else can. What kind and manner of behavior would prevent a 
wounded animals' death, so they can survive and procreate? How did these vivid 
hallucinations evolve in a dying creatures brain. We understand endorphins and 
enkepflins (sp?), but what creates a  trans-real illusion in a dying brain? How does 
this emerge, biologically, through randomness?


We will have to wait until November to see if Parnia comes up with something 
interesting, or it's a dead end, literally. The more interesting the evidence, the more 
vehement will be the opposition.



Mitch


-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: NDE's Proved Real?

On 4/13/2013 7:13 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr. Sam Parnia, 
releases his research on the AWARE  project. He has a partial sumary of this study in 
his new book, Erasing Death (US) or The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book different 
titles.  Parnia's AWARE study involves 25 hospital emergency rooms, in which signs or 
messages are place in odd places, that face upwards, to determine if out of body 
sensing is valid?  A patient seeing a 5-pointed star with a daisy printed next to it, 
that has been placed  3 metre's above the emergency room floors might be an example of 
what Parnia has done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then that 
tells us something.


Five years and no positive result.


Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The main thrust of his 
research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using techniques like cold 
treatments to preserve body and neural tissue. Parnia complains that depending on which 
emergency room physicians use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will effect 
the chances of survivability and recovery of the patient. Fore example, Dr. Parnia says 
that in the US, Seattle is the place to be, for cardiological issues, because in 
Seattle, hospitals are well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the 
heart, cooling the brain, whatever?
The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to ressucitation research. What 
do I expect? I am not sure, although the opponents of the Liege study haven't yet come 
up with the "vividity" explanation, versus dreams, hallucinations, and drug trips. In 
other words, you can lose the cognitve regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad, 
blotter acid, and not be able to recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, 
from every day life. One simply believes what one hears and see's.
The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin. Is there a 
neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid hallucinations? Hard to 
understand the neural mechanism for this. When you've lost blood, do you produce a lot 
of serotonin, or endorphins? What evolution basis causes this, if that is our 
explanation. How did it become a successful trait that permitted wounded or damaged 
animals, to survive,


What makes you think it helps them survive?

and thus, mate, and therefore, go on to have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in 
tooth and claw, would likely have accidently evolved to elininate, such damaged 
animals. So what gives?


No every trait is driven by natural selection.  So long as it is not sufficiently 
contrary to reproductive success it may be carried along in a population.


Brent


-Mitch
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6241 - Release Date: 04/12/13
--
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/o

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-13 Thread John Mikes

Bruno, I stand corrected (redface): I had a closed mind for NDE considered
 only as the observable experience on the 'patient' in a "dying-like"
situation.
Your airplane-example opened my eyes: it may refer to experiences when
someone (a group?) faces death.
Adding my story to my mistake:
I had a similar experience in the 1944 siege of Budapest when 5 of us were
crammed into a small WC watching the sounds of explosions of the Russian
serial gun-hits closing in on us 1-2 seconds apart. We did not know which
"next" one will hit us. Every participant had a totally different attitude,
I kept a strong observing eye on them (to keep myself sane). Fortunately
the salvos hit higher than where we were and destroyed a higher étage.
I forgot to realize that things have more than one aspect to watch.
This WAS a NDE - on others. We just knew that we're gona die.
No philosophy, no physiology, no 'return'. Then we heard the explosions
passing "us?" i.e. coming from further and further.
John





On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 12 Apr 2013, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER
> you wrote:
>
> *"...Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike.
> Anyone, with a few practice, can see by itself.*
> *
> *
> *I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD
> experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy of you
> on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy, despite being
> fully conscious all the time, get your memory back slowly, so that the copy
> feels becoming "you", but "you" can see your "original self" staying there.
> This is frequent in the salvia reports (the copy effect, or the max effect
> as I call it in the entheogen.net forum)*
> *
> *
> .*With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be
> described as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the normal
> logic of the self-referentially correct machine (there are cul-de-sac
> accessible from any state). In a sense, life is a near death experience all
> along. What is still amazing, and might contradict comp, is that we can
> live NDE or DE and come back with some realist memories of the event. .."*
> *
> *
> Who told you about "a real???" NDE? Live people imagine various fables.
>
>
> Hi John, sorry, I was probably unclear, by a real NDE I mean when someone
> concretely approach death. My favorite collection is given by the plane
> crash investigations. I call that sometime third person NDE, and they are
> or not related to what is called NDE and which concerns usually  the first
> person report (the light, the tunnel, ...).
>
> So, when you are in a plane, and the plane fall 5000 miles, you do a near
> death experience, with or without the usual first person NDE account.
>
> In some context, by a "non real" NDE,  I can also mean a NDE brought by
> the use of a drug (like DMT or salvia), as opposed as the experience
> brought by going concretely near death, like when falling from a mountain,
> or surviving a plane crash.
>
>
>
> Congrats to your 'theory' about Salvia, - still within your imagination.
>
>
> All theories are within our imagination. But the one brought by salvia can
> be shown to be also in the imagination of all universal machine. But it
> belongs to G* - G, and is not communicable as such.
>
>
>
> Fable, I could say, about the "COPY", the "SENDING  B A C K  to Earth,
> etc. etc.
>
>
> That's a report of experience. It is like a dream report. Nobody should
> take the content as something believed or even believable.
>
>
> All
> these are good for discussions on the Everything list - no merit in my
> opinion.
> I tried to get 'entheogen.net': Google did not find it.
>
>
> You might try clicking on this:
>
>
> http://entheogen-network.com/forums/index.php?sid=5f144b42a9e7d2045066513721ec5436
>
> or this (salvia discussion)
>
> http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=8
>
> My username there is salvialover24.
>
>
>
>
> Nobody "CAME BACK" from a real NDE or DE especially not with REALIST
> Memories. Fantasies - maybe.
> Sorry, Bruno, I don't want to spoil your game or good feeling. Just chat.
>
>
> No problem. I will come back on this some day, perhaps, but the NDE is
> rather easy to explain in the comp theory/belief.
> I don't insist on that, as the notion of NDE is a bit hard for many to
> keep being rational on, but this is just one more symptom of the
> Aristotelian widespread superstition in "Matter", "primary physicalness",
> etc.
>
> With salvia, on me and on others, I have also got a better understanding
> of the paradoxical nature of any theology. It is morbid subject matter. But
> we need to use it a little bit to grasp where the physical reality comes
> from, when we assume computationalism.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> I thin

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-13 Thread spudboy100

Brent >>Five years and no positive result.<<


The study hasn't been released yet. It gets released in November, this year.


<>


This, goes against Darwinian principles does it not? Everything is natural 
selection, unless it's artificial selection. I wonder if there was an 
artificial selection going on, that occurred because of human behavior of our 
ancestors, both recent and remote? I can't come up with such an line of 
behavior, but perhaps someone else can. What kind and manner of behavior would 
prevent a wounded animals' death, so they can survive and procreate? How did 
these vivid hallucinations evolve in a dying creatures brain. We understand 
endorphins and enkepflins (sp?), but what creates a  trans-real illusion in a 
dying brain? How does this emerge, biologically, through randomness? 


We will have to wait until November to see if Parnia comes up with something 
interesting, or it's a dead end, literally. The more interesting the evidence, 
the more vehement will be the opposition. 




Mitch



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: NDE's Proved Real?


  
On 4/13/2013 7:13 AM,  spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


  
Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November,  when Dr. 
Sam Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE   project. He has a 
partial sumary of this study in his new  book, Erasing Death (US) or 
The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book  different titles.  Parnia's AWARE 
study involves 25 hospital  emergency rooms, in which signs or messages 
are place in odd  places, that face upwards, to determine if out of 
body sensing  is valid?  A patient seeing a 5-pointed star with a daisy 
 printed next to it, that has been placed  3 metre's above the  
emergency room floors might be an example of what Parnia has  done. If 
no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then  that tells us 
something.
  

Five years and no positive result.




 

Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd  ressucitation. The main 
thrust of his research is not  primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using 
techniques like cold  treatments to preserve body and neural tissue. 
Parnia  complains that depending on which emergency room physicians 
 use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will effect the  
chances of survivability and recovery of the patient. Fore  example, 
Dr. Parnia says that in the US, Seattle is the place  to be, for 
cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals  are well-versed 
and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling  the heart, cooling the 
brain, whatever?

 

The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to  ressucitation 
research. What do I expect? I am not sure,  although the opponents of 
the Liege study haven't yet come up  with the "vividity" explanation, 
versus dreams,  hallucinations, and drug trips. In other words, you can 
lose  the cognitve regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad,   
   blotter acid, and not be able to recognize your imagination, a  
visual image, a memory, from every day life. One simply  believes what 
one hears and see's. 

 

The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's  origin. Is 
there a neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with  super vivid 
hallucinations? Hard to understand the neural  mechanism for this. When 
you've lost blood, do you produce a  lot of serotonin, or endorphins? 
What evolution basis causes  this, if that is our explanation. How did 
it become a  successful trait that permitted wounded or damaged 
animals, to  survive, 
  

What makes you think it helps them survive?



and thus, mate, and therefore, go on to have offspring with  this 
trait? Nature, red in tooth and claw, would likely have  accidently 
evolved to elininate, such damaged animals. So what  gives?
  

No every trait is driven by natural selection.  So long as it is not
sufficiently contrary to reproductive success it may be carriedalong in a 
population.

Brent



 

-Mitch

No virusfound in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6241 - Release Date:
04/12/13
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai

On 4/13/2013 7:13 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr. Sam Parnia, releases
his research on the AWARE project. He has a partial sumary of this study in his new
book, Erasing Death (US) or The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book different titles.
Parnia's AWARE study involves 25 hospital emergency rooms, in which signs or messages
are place in odd places, that face upwards, to determine if out of body sensing is
valid? A patient seeing a 5-pointed star with a daisy printed next to it, that has been
placed 3 metre's above the emergency room floors might be an example of what Parnia has
done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then that tells us something.

Five years and no positive result.

Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The main thrust of his
research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using techniques like cold treatments
to preserve body and neural tissue. Parnia complains that depending on which emergency
room physicians use cold revival techniques, and which do not, will effect the chances
of survivability and recovery of the patient. Fore example, Dr. Parnia says that in the
US, Seattle is the place to be, for cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals
are well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the heart, cooling the
brain, whatever?
The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to ressucitation research. What do
I expect? I am not sure, although the opponents of the Liege study haven't yet come up
with the "vividity" explanation, versus dreams, hallucinations, and drug trips. In other
words, you can lose the cognitve regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad, blotter
acid, and not be able to recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, from
every day life. One simply believes what one hears and see's.
The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin. Is there a
neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid hallucinations? Hard to
understand the neural mechanism for this. When you've lost blood, do you produce a lot
of serotonin, or endorphins? What evolution basis causes this, if that is our
explanation. How did it become a successful trait that permitted wounded or damaged
animals, to survive,

What makes you think it helps them survive?

and thus, mate, and therefore, go on to have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in
tooth and claw, would likely have accidently evolved to elininate, such damaged animals.
So what gives?

No every trait is driven by natural selection. So long as it is not sufficiently contrary
to reproductive success it may be carried along in a population.

Brent

-Mitch

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6241 - Release Date: 04/12/13

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.

--
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-13 Thread Spudboy100

Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr. Sam  
Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE  project. He has a partial  sumary 
of this study in his new book, Erasing Death (US) or The Lazarus Effect  
(UK). Same book different titles.  Parnia's AWARE study involves 25  hospital 
emergency rooms, in which signs or messages are place in odd places,  that 
face upwards, to determine if out of body sensing is valid?  A patient  seeing 
a 5-pointed star with a daisy printed next to it, that has been  placed  3 
metre's above the emergency room floors might be an example of  what Parnia 
has done. If no patient was able to see what was on the sign, then  that 
tells us something.
 
Parnia's medical speciality is cardiology annd ressucitation. The main  
thrust of his research is not primarilly, NDE's but his focus is using  
techniques like cold treatments to preserve body and neural tissue. Parnia  
complains that depending on which emergency room physicians use cold revival  
techniques, and which do not, will effect the chances of survivability and  
recovery of the patient. Fore example, Dr. Parnia says that in the US, Seattle  
is the place to be, for cardiological issues, because in Seattle, hospitals 
are  well-versed and trained in cold revival techniques-cooling the heart, 
cooling  the brain, whatever?
 
The NDE aspect is a possibly significant side benefit to ressucitation  
research. What do I expect? I am not sure, although the opponents of the Liege  
study haven't yet come up with the "vividity" explanation, versus dreams,  
hallucinations, and drug trips. In other words, you can lose the cognitve  
regions of your brain, if you imbibe some bad, blotter acid, and not be able 
to  recognize your imagination, a visual image, a memory, from every day 
life. One  simply believes what one hears and see's. 
 
The vivid NDE stuff seems somehow different, whatever it's origin. Is there 
 a neuro-chemical mechanism that kicks in with super vivid hallucinations? 
Hard  to understand the neural mechanism for this. When you've lost blood, 
do you  produce a lot of serotonin, or endorphins? What evolution basis 
causes this, if  that is our explanation. How did it become a successful trait 
that permitted  wounded or damaged animals, to survive, and thus, mate, and 
therefore, go on to  have offspring with this trait? Nature, red in tooth and 
claw, would likely have  accidently evolved to elininate, such damaged 
animals. So what gives?
 
-Mitch

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-13 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Apr 2013, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER
you wrote:

"...Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike.  
Anyone, with a few practice, can see by itself.


I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD  
experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy  
of you on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy,  
despite being fully conscious all the time, get your memory back  
slowly, so that the copy feels becoming "you", but "you" can see  
your "original self" staying there. This is frequent in the salvia  
reports (the copy effect, or the max effect as I call it in the  
entheogen.net forum)


.With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be  
described as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the  
normal logic of the self-referentially correct machine (there are  
cul-de-sac accessible from any state). In a sense, life is a near  
death experience all along. What is still amazing, and might  
contradict comp, is that we can live NDE or DE and come back with  
some realist memories of the event. .."


Who told you about "a real???" NDE? Live people imagine various  
fables.


Hi John, sorry, I was probably unclear, by a real NDE I mean when  
someone concretely approach death. My favorite collection is given by  
the plane crash investigations. I call that sometime third person NDE,  
and they are or not related to what is called NDE and which concerns  
usually  the first person report (the light, the tunnel, ...).


So, when you are in a plane, and the plane fall 5000 miles, you do a  
near death experience, with or without the usual first person NDE  
account.


In some context, by a "non real" NDE,  I can also mean a NDE brought  
by the use of a drug (like DMT or salvia), as opposed as the  
experience brought by going concretely near death, like when falling  
from a mountain, or surviving a plane crash.




Congrats to your 'theory' about Salvia, - still within your  
imagination.


All theories are within our imagination. But the one brought by salvia  
can be shown to be also in the imagination of all universal machine.  
But it belongs to G* - G, and is not communicable as such.




Fable, I could say, about the "COPY", the "SENDING  B A C K  to  
Earth, etc. etc.


That's a report of experience. It is like a dream report. Nobody  
should take the content as something believed or even believable.




All
these are good for discussions on the Everything list - no merit in  
my opinion.

I tried to get 'entheogen.net': Google did not find it.


You might try clicking on this:

http://entheogen-network.com/forums/index.php?sid=5f144b42a9e7d2045066513721ec5436

or this (salvia discussion)

http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=8

My username there is salvialover24.





Nobody "CAME BACK" from a real NDE or DE especially not with REALIST
Memories. Fantasies - maybe.
Sorry, Bruno, I don't want to spoil your game or good feeling. Just  
chat.


No problem. I will come back on this some day, perhaps, but the NDE is  
rather easy to explain in the comp theory/belief.
I don't insist on that, as the notion of NDE is a bit hard for many to  
keep being rational on, but this is just one more symptom of the  
Aristotelian widespread superstition in "Matter", "primary  
physicalness", etc.


With salvia, on me and on others, I have also got a better  
understanding of the paradoxical nature of any theology. It is morbid  
subject matter. But we need to use it a little bit to grasp where the  
physical reality comes from, when we assume computationalism.


Bruno






John Mikes


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote:

I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D"  
because the 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather  
a compendium

of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena.
When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes  
back to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long  
time partner in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still  
cannot explain those miraculous experiences (saved my life once)  
coming allegedly from 'dead' benefactors I knew before they died.


I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100  
publications, some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) -  
it is 'click-stuff' and refereed by well selected (opinionated)  
scientists mostly.


I agree. "impact factor" and "big name" leads to self-sustained  
argument per authority.




However the reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g.  
with certain (peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger  
politician.


I agree very much. Despite I was inclined to believe that Obama  
might make some progressive change, I find absurd to give a price  
before seeing him doing anything

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-12 Thread John Mikes

Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER
you wrote:

*"...Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike. Anyone,
with a few practice, can see by itself.*
*
*
*I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD
experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy of you
on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy, despite being
fully conscious all the time, get your memory back slowly, so that the copy
feels becoming "you", but "you" can see your "original self" staying there.
This is frequent in the salvia reports (the copy effect, or the max effect
as I call it in the entheogen.net forum)*
*
*
.*With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be described
as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the normal logic of
the self-referentially correct machine (there are cul-de-sac accessible
from any state). In a sense, life is a near death experience all along.
What is still amazing, and might contradict comp, is that we can live NDE
or DE and come back with some realist memories of the event. .."*
*
*
Who told you about "a real???" NDE? Live people imagine various fables.
Congrats to your 'theory' about Salvia, - still within your imagination.
Fable, I could say, about the "COPY", the "SENDING  B A C K  to Earth, etc.
etc. All
these are good for discussions on the Everything list - no merit in my
opinion.
I tried to get 'entheogen.net': Google did not find it.
Nobody "CAME BACK" from a real NDE or DE especially not with REALIST
Memories. Fantasies - maybe.
Sorry, Bruno, I don't want to spoil your game or good feeling. Just chat.

John Mikes

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote:
>
> I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because the
> 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a compendium
> of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena.
> When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes back
> to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long time partner
> in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still cannot explain those
> miraculous experiences (saved my life once) coming allegedly from 'dead'
> benefactors I knew before they died.
>
> I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100 publications,
> some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it is 'click-stuff' and
> refereed by well selected (opinionated) scientists mostly.
>
>
> I agree. "impact factor" and "big name" leads to self-sustained argument
> per authority.
>
>
>
> However the reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g. with
> certain (peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger politician.
>
>
> I agree very much. Despite I was inclined to believe that Obama might make
> some progressive change, I find absurd to give a price before seeing him
> doing anything.
> I will ask for the Nobel prize in medicine and I will promised to the work
> after :)
>
> Since then Obama has signed the NDAA bill, which is a mysterious
> frightening fact, and since he is in power, he has killed many civilians by
> using the drones in an unprecedented manner, may be there should be
> something like a withdrawal of price (that happened to me, BTW!).
>
>
>
> Even in sciences it occurred that hypothetical and fantasy-based ideas
> were awarded the Prize
>
>
> Indeed. But that's OK. Big genius are the one saying big stupidities.
>
>
>
>
> (e.g. circumstances of the Big Bang etc.). Not to mention the questionable
> lit.
>
> What does an agnostic like myself believe? that we don't know 'it'.
>
>
> Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike. Anyone, with
> a few practice, can see by itself.
>
> I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD
> experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy of you
> on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy, despite being
> fully conscious all the time, get your memory back slowly, so that the copy
> feels becoming "you", but "you" can see your "original self" staying there.
> This is frequent in the salvia reports (the copy effect, or the max effect
> as I call it in the entheogen.net forum).
>
> With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be described
> as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the normal logic of
> the self-referentially correct machine (there are cul-de-sac accessible
> from any state). In a sense, life is a near death experience all along.
> What is still amazing, and might contradict comp, is that we can live NDE
> or DE and come back with some realist memories of the event.
>
> The crash investigation reports gives interesting reports on third person
> person NDE. You can see the beneficial effect on some people.
>
> Good to stay agnostic. The fun consists in trying theories and testing
> them, not in taking any of them as a t

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-09 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:44 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> > Nature/Science have no magical powers to verify if experiments were
>> > performed correctly.
>
>
> Like anything else they are not perfect and are subject to error from time
> to time, but I can't think of any other human institution that has a better
> track record, their judgement has stood the test of time remarkably well.

That's terribly hard to verify, partly because the datasets are
proprietary and cost a huge amount of money. I have a friend who works
in scientometrics and he got a 1 million dollar grant just to buy full
access to the abstract repositories. That's one of the problems that
open access aims to address.

But I bet you're right. There's place for different levels of caution.
Nature/Science go for the highly conservative and highly generalist
range. They are valuable, but if only this range existed a lot of good
stuff would get thrown away with the bath water.

>> > A lot of good research does not get published there because it's in a
>> > very specific niche.
>
>
> To me "Very specific niche" sounds a lot like "not very important". Could
> the editors make a mistake about what is important and what is not? Sure.
> Looking back with the perspective that time gives you have the editors made
> a lot of mistakes about what is important and what is not? No.

That's just silly. Things are built on top of other things. For
example, I'm interested in evolutionary computation. Evolutionary
computation can be used to address a number of problems, for example
protein folding. Maybe amazing new drugs will be developed using this
technique. That will be a result with generic appeal that will
probably be published in Nature. Meanwhile this was made possible by
people toiling on uncountable variations and details of evolutionary
computation that are of little interest to people outside the field.
Should the evolutionary computation people decide that they are losers
and give up because most of their work is "not very important"?

>
>> >Most of the articles I read are not from Science or Nature, because they
>> > do not cater sufficiently (by any stretch of the imagination) to my niches.
>
>
> So is your niche interest like after death or flying saucers or ESP or cold
> fusion or perpetual motion or Atlantis?

No. I'm a bit scattered but I work with evolutionary computation
(mostly genetic programming), complex network analysis and more
recently knowledge graphs and NLP.

>>
>> > It's also very nasty towards a lot of people that worked hard on honest
>> > research. It took them years of their lives to produce that research.
>
>
> I don't care how hard they worked on it I only care if it's right. Blondlot
> worked  hard on "N rays" and Pons and Fleishman worked hard on "cold fusion"
> but that didn't prevent their work being crap.

The problem with labels like "crap" is that it leads to public shaming
of people who try something weird. They were wrong, that's all.

> And none of their crap was
> published in Nature or Science by the way.

Indeed, it was rejected by people who read the articles.

>>
>> > You didn't even read the article.
>
>
> True and I have no intention of doing so. Many thousands of scientific
> articles are published every month and I have time to read only a very few
> of them and I don't see why one of them should be from PLoS when there are
> thousands of articles in hundreds of journals that are almost certainly of
> higher quality.

Cool, we all have our heuristics. But then it's irrational to express
a strong opinion about something of which you know nothing.

>> > People that follow the science of religion instead of being actually
>> > scientific
>
>
>  Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard
> that one before, at least not before the sixth grade.
>
>>
>> > like to ignore these things, including their own consciousness
>
>
> I wouldn't know how to ignore my consciousness even if I wanted to, however
> it is true that I don't like to talk about consciousness a lot because I
> have much much more wisdom on this subject than most on this list;
> I know
> that I have nothing new or interesting to say about consciousness but most
> people around here mistakenly believe that they do.

Maybe.

>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote:

I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because  
the 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a  
compendium

of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena.
When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes  
back to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long  
time partner in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still  
cannot explain those miraculous experiences (saved my life once)  
coming allegedly from 'dead' benefactors I knew before they died.

I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100  
publications, some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it  
is 'click-stuff' and refereed by well selected (opinionated)  
scientists mostly.

I agree. "impact factor" and "big name" leads to self-sustained  
argument per authority.

However the reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g.  
with certain (peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger politician.

I agree very much. Despite I was inclined to believe that Obama might  
make some progressive change, I find absurd to give a price before  
seeing him doing anything.
I will ask for the Nobel prize in medicine and I will promised to the  
work after :)

Since then Obama has signed the NDAA bill, which is a mysterious  
frightening fact, and since he is in power, he has killed many  
civilians by using the drones in an unprecedented manner, may be there  
should be something like a withdrawal of price (that happened to me,  
BTW!).

Even in sciences it occurred that hypothetical and fantasy-based  
ideas were awarded the Prize

Indeed. But that's OK. Big genius are the one saying big stupidities.

(e.g. circumstances of the Big Bang etc.). Not to mention the  
questionable lit.

What does an agnostic like myself believe? that we don't know 'it'.

Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike. Anyone,  
with a few practice, can see by itself.

I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD  
experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy of  
you on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy, despite  
being fully conscious all the time, get your memory back slowly, so  
that the copy feels becoming "you", but "you" can see your "original  
self" staying there. This is frequent in the salvia reports (the copy  
effect, or the max effect as I call it in the entheogen.net forum).

With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be  
described as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the  
normal logic of the self-referentially correct machine (there are cul- 
de-sac accessible from any state). In a sense, life is a near death  
experience all along. What is still amazing, and might contradict  
comp, is that we can live NDE or DE and come back with some realist  
memories of the event.

The crash investigation reports gives interesting reports on third  
person person NDE. You can see the beneficial effect on some people.

Good to stay agnostic. The fun consists in trying theories and testing  
them, not in taking any of them as a truth, ever.

Bruno

John M

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, John Clark   
wrote:

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> Dull in what way?

Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of  
typed onto a obscure website about experimental results that would  
revolutionize not just science but the entire world if true are dull.

> You didn't read the article I guess

I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something  
like that shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters.

  John K Clark

--
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.

--
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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 eve

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 06 Apr 2013, at 06:38, Richard Ruquist wrote:

There is no hell

Ah?

In which theory? You derive this from CY?

In which theology? What is your definition of hell?

Bruno

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Craig Weinberg  
 wrote:

On Friday, April 5, 2013 3:39:52 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because  
the 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a  
compendium

of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena.
When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes  
back to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long  
time partner in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still  
cannot explain those miraculous experiences (saved my life once)  
coming allegedly from 'dead' benefactors I knew before they died.

Someone brought a OUIJA board to school in fourth grade and I was  
using it with a friend. Unimpressed, another fourth girl that  
neither of us knew very well said we should ask a question that  
nobody would know. She asked what the name of her bird was. As the  
word LANCELOT was spelled out, she was dumbstruck. This was a very  
studious 10 year old Asian girl in a highly gifted program - we  
covered a lot of science in class and I think it is safe to say that  
she was scientifically oriented. If she had some secret pact with  
the girl I was doing the board with, she certainly didn't seem very  
happy about it and she didn't seem like a very good actress. She  
seemed confused and worried and did not want any more to do with the  
board.

Craig

I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100  
publications, some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it  
is 'click-stuff' and refereed by well selected (opinionated)  
scientists mostly. However the reference to the Nobel prize lost its  
credibility e.g. with certain (peace)Prize assignment going to a war- 
monger politician. Even in sciences it occurred that hypothetical  
and fantasy-based ideas were awarded the Prize (e.g. circumstances  
of the Big Bang etc.). Not to mention the questionable lit.

What does an agnostic like myself believe? that we don't know 'it'.

John M

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> Dull in what way?

Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of  
typed onto a obscure website about experimental results that would  
revolutionize not just science but the entire world if true are dull.

> You didn't read the article I guess

I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something  
like that shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters.

  John K Clark

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.

--
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.

--
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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-09 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> Nature/Science have no magical powers to verify if experiments were
> performed correctly.

Like anything else they are not perfect and are subject to error from time
to time, but I can't think of any other human institution that has a better
track record, their judgement has stood the test of time remarkably well.

> A lot of good research does not get published there because it's in a
> very specific niche.

To me "Very specific niche" sounds a lot like "not very important". Could
the editors make a mistake about what is important and what is not? Sure.
Looking back with the perspective that time gives you have the editors made
a lot of mistakes about what is important and what is not? No.

>Most of the articles I read are not from Science or Nature, because they
> do not cater sufficiently (by any stretch of the imagination) to my niches.
>

So is your niche interest like after death or flying saucers or ESP or cold
fusion or perpetual motion or Atlantis?

> > It's also very nasty towards a lot of people that worked hard on honest
> research. It took them years of their lives to produce that research.

I don't care how hard they worked on it I only care if it's right. Blondlot
worked  hard on "N rays" and Pons and Fleishman worked hard on "cold
fusion" but that didn't prevent their work being crap. And none of their
crap was published in Nature or Science by the way.

> > You didn't even read the article.

True and I have no intention of doing so. Many thousands of scientific
articles are published every month and I have time to read only a very few
of them and I don't see why one of them should be from PLoS when there are
thousands of articles in hundreds of journals that are almost certainly of
higher quality.

> People that follow the science of religion instead of being actually
> scientific

 Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard
that one before, at least not before the sixth grade.

> > like to ignore these things, including their own consciousness

I wouldn't know how to ignore my consciousness even if I wanted to, however
it is true that I don't like to talk about consciousness a lot because I
have much much more wisdom on this subject than most on this list; I know
that I have nothing new or interesting to say about consciousness but most
people around here mistakenly believe that they do.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-09 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:13 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> > What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:
>> A) Science the method of inquiry
>> from
>> B) Science the human institution
>
>
>
> And I am saying is you do not understand that only one of the following is
> true:
>
> A) Science can sometimes make predictions better than the law of averages
> would allow.
>
> B) Science is the only way to make predictions better than the law of
> averages would allow.

Assuming we can agree that only A is true, why do you assume I don't
understand that? And what's your point?

> And it is physically impossible for me to personally perform every
> experiment that I'd like to, so I have no choice but to look to the human
> institution of science to help me out, but that would be useless to me
> unless I have reason to trust that the experiment was actually performed as
> described,

Agreed.

> and that's where the web of trust comes in that you get from
> journals like Nature and Science.

The web of trust comes from PhDs from accredited Universities. That is
the deal that everyone accepts. The Nature/Science restriction is a
bizarre extreme that I have never hear anyone profess apart from you.

Nature/Science have no magical powers to verify if experiments were
performed correctly. Their target is "research with generic appeal". A
lot of good research does not get published there because it's in a
very specific niche. Most of the articles I read are not from Science
or Nature, because they do not cater sufficiently (by any stretch of
the imagination) to my niches. It's not worse or less credible. I
still don't think you understand what Science/Nature are.

> When I read about some shit that somebody
> I've never heard of typed onto a obscure part of the internet that I've also
> never heard of about

This is getting tiresome, but I feel you should not get away with
repeating this lie. It's also very nasty towards a lot of people that
worked hard on honest research. It took them years of their lives to
produce that research. It takes you 30 sec to attack their characters
gratuitously. Maybe this research is wrong or flawed. Maybe it is
dishonest. That's always a possibility. Nobody has magical powers to
prevent that. You really like status, that's all.

About PLoS:

- PageRank 8/10
- Wikipedia page in 12 languages
- Citation index > 4 (way way above average)
- Nobel laureates yada yada (and no, they don't send them trivial
notes. They send them real articles about real shit like curing AIDS)
- Listed in 14 major scientific databases including PubMed, Scopus and
Web of Science

It turns out that NYTimes just published an article about pseudo-academia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html

Here's what they have to say about PLoS:
"Open access got its start about a decade ago and quickly won
widespread acclaim with the advent of well-regarded, peer-reviewed
journals like those published by the Public Library of Science, known
as PLoS. Such articles were listed in databases like PubMed, which is
maintained by the National Library of Medicine, and selected for their
quality."

This is not an obscure website by any stretch of the imagination. Or
maybe NY Times is also an obscure website, I don't know.

> revolutionary experimental results that would change
> everything if true

No they would not. You didn't even read the article. It's about weird
cognitive phenomena that take place when you're about to die. That's
all. They don't draw any extraordinary conclusions. There are no
ghosts or life after death claims. But they point at stuff that cannot
really be explained by current theory. There's a lot of stuff like
that. People that follow the science of religion instead of being
actually scientific like to ignore these things, including their own
consciousness -- the only thing they can really be sure about.

Another thing is that we don't really need to maintain a perfect
network of binary beliefs in our heads. We can entertain conflicting
possibilities. Our brains are equipped to deal with that. I suspect
creativity becomes impossible if you don't allow for this.

> there is no web of trust and thus I am not in the least
> impressed because I know how to type too.

You will be a whole lot happier if your worry less about impressing
and being impressed.

Cheers
Telmo.

>John K Clark
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscri

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-08 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:
> A) Science the method of inquiry
> from
> B) Science the human institution
>

And I am saying is you do not understand that only one of the following is
true:

A) Science can sometimes make predictions better than the law of averages
would allow.

B) Science is the only way to make predictions better than the law of
averages would allow.

And it is physically impossible for me to personally perform every
experiment that I'd like to, so I have no choice but to look to the human
institution of science to help me out, but that would be useless to me
unless I have reason to trust that the experiment was actually performed as
described, and that's where the web of trust comes in that you get from
journals like Nature and Science. When I read about some shit that somebody
I've never heard of typed onto a obscure part of the internet that I've
also never heard of about revolutionary experimental results that would
change everything if true there is no web of trust and thus I am not in the
least impressed because I know how to type too.

   John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-08 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> > Last week PLoS ONE received its first impact factor — a stunning 4.351.
>
>
> Stunning?  Nature = 51.15  Science = 47.72; and you're bragging about a
> 4.351?
>
>>  > This puts the open access journal in the top 25th percentile of ISI’s
>> “Biology”
>
>
> There are many thousands of science journals, so that means there are many
> hundreds that are better than PLoS ONE; thus nobody, absolutely positively
> nobody, would publish an article in PLoS ONE that they thought was important
> if they could get it published in a better journal.
>
>>
>> > where nobel laureates submit articles to.
>
>
> I imagine that Nobel laureates have posted lots of stuff on the internet to
> many different message boards over the years, but the question to ask is how
> many of those Nobel laureates received their prize for stuff posted to PLoS
> ONE? Zero. In contrast although I haven't counted it out I would estimate
> that 60% of all the Nobel Prizes given out since 1945 in physics or
> chemistry or medicine was for articles published in just 4 journals, Nature,
> Science, Physical Review Letters, and The New England journal of Medicine.
>
>> > PLoS ONE is the best known journal of the open-access movement,
>
>
> That's like being the most virile eunuch in the harem.

This is getting comically Freudian. :)

>
>> >I never even mentioned religion in this discussion.
>
>
>>   "I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are
>> about Science with a capital S."
>
>
>   Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard
> that one before, at least not before the sixth grade.
>
>>> >> Well if you're that confident then this is a simple no risk way for
>>> >> you to make $1000, hey I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds it's easy money!  So 
>>> >> are
>>> >> you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
>>
>>
>> > No, I agree with you on the odds.
>
>
> But why do you agree with the odds? If a very low ranking journal got
> astonishingly lucky and published a paper of HUGE transcendental importance
> before much higher ranked journals then it's just a matter of time before
> the much higher ranked journals catch on and start publishing articles on
> that subject of their own. But I'll tell you what, because I like you for a
> limited time only I'm willing to increase the odds to 100 to 1; if you
> accept this bet before noon tomorrow on the east coast of the USA and if
> Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article
> about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $10,000, if none
> of them do you only have to give me $100. But wait there's more! As a
> special bonus if you win not only will I give you $10,000 but I will also
> kiss your ass and give you 10 minutes to gather a crowd. Operators are
> standing by, don't delay.
>
>> > You don't understand what I'm saying at all.
>
>
> True, but the question is do you understand what you're saying at all?

What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:

A) Science the method of inquiry

from

B) Science the human institution

You put both in the same bag. By doing that you fail to apply A to B
and even A to A. This creates a blind spot. As for the scientific
journals, Russel was way more eloquent than me.

Telmo.

>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-07 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Last week PLoS ONE received its first impact factor — a stunning 4.351.
>

Stunning?  Nature = 51.15  Science = 47.72; and you're bragging about a
4.351?

 > This puts the open access journal in the top 25th percentile of ISI’s
> “Biology”

There are many thousands of science journals, so that means there are many
hundreds that are better than PLoS ONE; thus nobody, absolutely positively
nobody, would publish an article in PLoS ONE that they thought was
important if they could get it published in a better journal.

> > where nobel laureates submit articles to.

I imagine that Nobel laureates have posted lots of stuff on the internet to
many different message boards over the years, but the question to ask is
how many of those Nobel laureates received their prize for stuff posted to
PLoS ONE? Zero. In contrast although I haven't counted it out I would
estimate that 60% of all the Nobel Prizes given out since 1945 in physics
or chemistry or medicine was for articles published in just 4 journals,
Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters, and The New England journal of
Medicine.

> PLoS ONE is the best known journal of the open-access movement,

That's like being the most virile eunuch in the harem.

>I never even mentioned religion in this discussion.
>

  "I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are
> about Science with a capital S."
>

  Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard
that one before, at least not before the sixth grade.

>> Well if you're that confident then this is a simple no risk way for you
>> to make $1000, hey I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds it's easy money!  So are you
>> willing to put your money where your mouth is?
>>
>
> > No, I agree with you on the odds.

But why do you agree with the odds? If a very low ranking journal got
astonishingly lucky and published a paper of HUGE transcendental importance
before much higher ranked journals then it's just a matter of time before
the much higher ranked journals catch on and start publishing articles on
that subject of their own. But I'll tell you what, because I like you for a
limited time only I'm willing to increase the odds to 100 to 1; if you
accept this bet before noon tomorrow on the east coast of the USA and if
Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article
about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $10,000, if none
of them do you only have to give me $100. But wait there's more! As a
special bonus if you win not only will I give you $10,000 but I will also
kiss your ass and give you 10 minutes to gather a crowd. Operators are
standing by, don't delay.

> You don't understand what I'm saying at all.
>

True, but the question is do you understand what you're saying at all?

 John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-06 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> >this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed
>> > journal with a high impact factor (> 4).
>
>
> I confess I've never heard of PLoS ONE, but maybe that is  just my a
> reflection of my ignorance, so I looked up the top 10 most cited (respected)
> journals in the field of Neuroscience and Behavior and this is what I got:
>
> 1 Nature
> 2 Science
> 3 Neuron
> 4 Nature Neuroscience
> 5 PNAS
> 6 Journal of Neuroscience
> 7 Annals of Neurology
> 8 Brain
> 9 Biological Psychiatry
> 10   Cerebral Cortex
>
> Dear me PLoS ONE doesn't seem to be there, but maybe its on the list of
> overall most cited journals.
>
> 1 Journal of Biological Chemistry
> 2 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
> 3 Nature
> 4 Science
> 5 Physical Review Letters
> 6 Cell
> 7 J. American Chemical Society
> 8 Physical Review
> 9 Journal of Immunology
> 10   New England Journal of Medicine
>
> Not there either. Top 10 Physics journals maybe?
>
> 1 Science
> 2 Nature
> 3 Physical Review Letters
> 4 Nuclear Physics
> 5 PNAS
> 6 Physics Letters
> 7 Physical Review D
> 8 Europ. Physical J. C
> 9 Applied Physics Letters
> 10   Nuclear Fusion
>
> Nope. How about Chemistry?
>
> 1 Nature
> 2 Science
> 3 PNAS
> 4 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
> 5 J. Amer. Chem. Soc.
> 6 Analytical Chemistry
> 7 J. Medicinal Chemistry
> 8 Electrophoresis
> 9 Chemistry-European J.
> 10   J. Combinatorial Chem.
>
> I still don't see PLoS ONE but let me know when any of the above journals
> publishes something about NDE.

Wow...
So before you were saying:

"...reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed onto a obscure website..."

Now it turns out that the "obscure website" is a proper peer-reviews
journal with a well above-median impact factor, where nobel laureates
submit articles to. Not good enough because you did a bunch of
searches on web of knowledge and discovered that it is not on the top
ten.

PLoS ONE is the best known journal of the open-access movement, that
aims to make scientific results publicly accessible for free. It's
very recent (2006), so it couldn't possible have built an impact
factor or page rank or whatever to rank on top ten lists. It is,
however, quite impressive:

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/06/21/plosone-impact-factor-blessing-or-a-curse/

"Last week PLoS ONE received its first impact factor — a stunning
4.351.  This puts the open access journal in the top 25th percentile
of ISI’s “Biology” category, a group of journals that sports a median
impact factor of just 1.370."

So impressive that Nature got a bit scared and created an open-access
journal itself, called "Scientific Reports".


>
>> > Nobel laureates have published there.
>
>
> Did they say anything of importance there?

You be the judge:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001975

> A Nobel laureate once sent me a
> note of little consequence, so what?

???

>> > with a high impact factor (> 4).
>
>
> And for whatever its worth Nature has a "impact factor" of 31 and
> Physiological Reviews of 37; and if a more advanced and detailed  ranking
> method is used that makes use of recursion and gives more weight to
> citations from higher weight journals than lower ones (for example, I'm sure
> PLoS ONE has cited Nature many times but I'll bet Nature has seldom if ever
> cited PLoS ONE)
> then Nature is the highest rank journal in the world with a
> 51.15 follow by Science with a 47.72. And you're bragging about a 4?

Degree distributions in citation graphs follow power laws. It's a
"rich get richer" dynamic, so a 4 is actually quite impressive. Doubly
so for such a recent publication.

>
>> > It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability.
>
>
> Nobody, absolutely nobody would publish in PLoS ONE if they could publish in
> Nature or Science,

http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/mit-faculty-open-access-policy-faq/

> but they can't because those journals recognize junk
> science when they see it; and they won't even publish articles from past
> Nobel Prize winners unless they have something new and important to say.
>
>> > PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal.
>
>
> That has never published anything important.

How could you possibly know that?

>> > The problem with this "incredible claim" meme is that there is no way to
>> > objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an
>>
>> euphemism for the status quo.
>
>
> It is not at all unreasonable to demand a very very high level of proof
> before believing  a experimental result that if correct would mean that
> thousands of experiments performed over the last couple of centuries were
> incorrect.

Agreed in that case.

>> > I invite you t

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-06 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed
> journal with a high impact factor (> 4).
>

I confess I've never heard of PLoS ONE, but maybe that is  just my a
reflection of my ignorance, so I looked up the top 10 most cited
(respected) journals in the field of Neuroscience and Behavior and this is
what I got:

1 Nature
2 Science
3 Neuron
4 Nature Neuroscience
5 PNAS
6 Journal of Neuroscience
7 Annals of Neurology
8 Brain
9 Biological Psychiatry
10   Cerebral Cortex

Dear me PLoS ONE doesn't seem to be there, but maybe its on the list of
overall most cited journals.

1 Journal of Biological Chemistry
2 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
3 Nature
4 Science
5 Physical Review Letters
6 Cell
7 J. American Chemical Society
8 Physical Review
9 Journal of Immunology
10   New England Journal of Medicine

Not there either. Top 10 Physics journals maybe?

1 Science
2 Nature
3 Physical Review Letters
4 Nuclear Physics
5 PNAS
6 Physics Letters
7 Physical Review D
8 Europ. Physical J. C
9 Applied Physics Letters
10   Nuclear Fusion

Nope. How about Chemistry?

1 Nature
2 Science
3 PNAS
4 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
5 J. Amer. Chem. Soc.
6 Analytical Chemistry
7 J. Medicinal Chemistry
8 Electrophoresis
9 Chemistry-European J.
10   J. Combinatorial Chem.

I still don't see PLoS ONE but let me know when any of the above journals
publishes something about NDE.

> Nobel laureates have published there.
>

Did they say anything of importance there? A Nobel laureate once sent me a
note of little consequence, so what?

> with a high impact factor (> 4).
>

And for whatever its worth Nature has a "impact factor" of 31 and
Physiological Reviews of 37; and if a more advanced and detailed  ranking
method is used that makes use of recursion and gives more weight to
citations from higher weight journals than lower ones (for example, I'm
sure PLoS ONE has cited Nature many times but I'll bet Nature has seldom if
ever cited PLoS ONE) then Nature is the highest rank journal in the world
with a 51.15 follow by Science with a 47.72. And you're bragging about a 4?

> It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability.
>

Nobody, absolutely nobody would publish in PLoS ONE if they could publish
in Nature or Science, but they can't because those journals recognize junk
science when they see it; and they won't even publish articles from past
Nobel Prize winners unless they have something new and important to say.

> PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal.
>

That has never published anything important.

> The problem with this "incredible claim" meme is that there is no way to
> objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an
>
euphemism for the status quo.
>

It is not at all unreasonable to demand a very very high level of proof
before believing  a experimental result that if correct would mean that
thousands of experiments performed over the last couple of centuries were
incorrect.

> I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are about
> Science with a capital S.

 Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard
that one before, at least not before the sixth grade.

 > Except for consciousness, of course. How do you explain that one? (still
> waiting for your TOE, btw)
>

If I had a TOE I'd be writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech right now
and not be blabbing on the Everything list; and a good honest "I don't
know" is a far preferable answer to a question than a bullshit response.

>> if so then you should accept the following bet: If Science or Nature or
>> Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article about life after death
>> before April 5 2014 I will give you $1000, if none of them do you only have
>> to give me $100. Do we have a bet?
>>
>
> > Notice that if you make the bet less arbitrary, let's say "any
> respectable journal with a high impact factor and articles authored by
> Nobel laureates", I would already have won.
>

Well if you're that confident then this is a simple no risk way for you to
make $1000, hey I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds it's easy money!  So are you
willing to put your money where your mouth is?

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 04 Apr 2013, at 18:11, meekerdb 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

"Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed  
by Steven Laureys) and the University of Liège's Cognitive  
Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart 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.


OK. I missed that. It makes no more much sense.




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.


OK.

Bruno





Brent



In fact, from the usual work on dreams, by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement  
and Hobson, for example, what is striking, is the remarkable  
similarity of the REM brain states and the awake brain states, for  
diverse tasks (computing, singing, walking, moving arms, seeing  
color, etc.).



Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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/eve

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread meekerdb


On 4/5/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

There is no hell


"The hell there isn't!"
--- Billy Sunday

--
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:38:16 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> There is no hell
>

I wouldn't know, but there are stories out there of hellish NDEs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/08/is-hell-real-people-who-went-there-say-yes.html

"Working with Greyson, Bush identified several types of what she 
calls “distressing” near-death experiences. Some have the same features as 
heavenly experiences—bright lights, life flashing before your eyes, 
etc.—but the person simply interprets them negatively. Another type 
featured a “void” like Matthew Botsford’s overwhelming blackness or some 
other type of absolute sensory deprivation. And yet another class, by far 
the most varied, involved visions of actual hell.

[..]

"Hell experiences further complicate matters for religious believers, 
because they have no discernable relation to what kind of life a person has 
lived. In other words, being a good person who goes to church is no 
guarantee that you won’t get into a terrible car accident and suddenly find 
yourself experiencing what feels, in a very real sense, like hell. As Bush 
has seen, “What we think people deserve has nothing to do with whether they 
have a glorious experience or a terrible one.”"

Craig

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 5, 2013 3:39:52 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because the 
>>> 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a compendium 
>>> of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena. 
>>> When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes back 
>>> to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long time partner 
>>> in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still cannot explain those 
>>> miraculous experiences (saved my life once) coming allegedly from 'dead' 
>>> benefactors I knew before they died. 
>>>
>>
>> Someone brought a OUIJA board to school in fourth grade and I was using 
>> it with a friend. Unimpressed, another fourth girl that neither of us knew 
>> very well said we should ask a question that nobody would know. She asked 
>> what the name of her bird was. As the word LANCELOT was spelled out, she 
>> was dumbstruck. This was a very studious 10 year old Asian girl in a highly 
>> gifted program - we covered a lot of science in class and I think it is 
>> safe to say that she was scientifically oriented. If she had some secret 
>> pact with the girl I was doing the board with, she certainly didn't seem 
>> very happy about it and she didn't seem like a very good actress. She 
>> seemed confused and worried and did not want any more to do with the board.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>> I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100 
>>> publications, some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it is 
>>> 'click-stuff' and refereed by well selected (opinionated) scientists 
>>> mostly. However the reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g. 
>>> with certain (peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger politician. Even 
>>> in sciences it occurred that hypothetical and fantasy-based ideas were 
>>> awarded the Prize (e.g. circumstances of the Big Bang etc.). Not to mention 
>>> the questionable lit.
>>>
>>> What does an agnostic like myself believe? that we don't know 'it'. 
>>>
>>> John M
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

 > Dull in what way?
>

 Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed 
 onto a obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize 
 not just science but the entire world if true are dull. 

 > You didn't read the article I guess 


 I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like 
 that shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters. 

   John K Clark 

  -- 
 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-li...@**googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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
 .
  
  

>>>
>>>  -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Richard Ruquist

There is no hell


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 3:39:52 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>>
>> I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because the
>> 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a compendium
>> of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena.
>> When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes back
>> to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long time partner
>> in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still cannot explain those
>> miraculous experiences (saved my life once) coming allegedly from 'dead'
>> benefactors I knew before they died.
>>
>
> Someone brought a OUIJA board to school in fourth grade and I was using it
> with a friend. Unimpressed, another fourth girl that neither of us knew
> very well said we should ask a question that nobody would know. She asked
> what the name of her bird was. As the word LANCELOT was spelled out, she
> was dumbstruck. This was a very studious 10 year old Asian girl in a highly
> gifted program - we covered a lot of science in class and I think it is
> safe to say that she was scientifically oriented. If she had some secret
> pact with the girl I was doing the board with, she certainly didn't seem
> very happy about it and she didn't seem like a very good actress. She
> seemed confused and worried and did not want any more to do with the board.
>
> Craig
>
>
>> I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100
>> publications, some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it is
>> 'click-stuff' and refereed by well selected (opinionated) scientists
>> mostly. However the reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g.
>> with certain (peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger politician. Even
>> in sciences it occurred that hypothetical and fantasy-based ideas were
>> awarded the Prize (e.g. circumstances of the Big Bang etc.). Not to mention
>> the questionable lit.
>>
>> What does an agnostic like myself believe? that we don't know 'it'.
>>
>> John M
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dull in what way?

>>>
>>> Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed
>>> onto a obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize
>>> not just science but the entire world if true are dull.
>>>
>>> > You didn't read the article I guess
>>>
>>>
>>> I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like
>>> that shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters.
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>>  --
>>> 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-li...@**googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  --
> 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.
>
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:01:12 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, John Clark > 
> wrote: 
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> > > 
>
> > wrote: 
> > 
> >> 
> >> > wait for the Nobel prizes ceremony. That way you can be assured to 
> only 
> >> > hear about the most respectable Scientific endeavours. 
> >> Anything else would be a waste of your time. 
> > 
> > 
> > This isn't a mathematical proof where I have all the information needed 
> to 
> > judge its quality, this is a report of the results of a experiment and 
> as 
> > such is only of value to me if I believe that he is a competent 
> scientist 
> > and actually performed the experiment as described, and in this case I 
> have 
> > no reason to do so. I usually believe what I read in Science or Nature 
> even 
> > if I have not personally done the experiment because over the decades 
> those 
> > publications have established a web of trust between the authors and the 
> > readers and the experiment has been repeated or at least examined by 
> > somebody I trust; 
> > but in this case its just crap somebody posted on the web. 
>
> No, this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a 
> peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor (> 4). Nobel laureates 
> have published there. 
>
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057620 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_ONE 
>
> It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability. 
>
> > I'm more than willing to look at evidence provided it really is 
> evidence, 
> > however I'm not willing to look at the "evidence" posted on a website by 
> > somebody I've never heard of 
>
> This is a problem because you will never have heard of most active 
> scientists. The human population is now 7 billion. There are hundreds 
> of thousands of scientists. This is not the Victorian era anymore. 
>
> > because there is no web of trust between me the 
> > reader and the originator of this "evidence" as there is in a legitimate 
> > Scientific journal. 
>
> PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal. 
>
> > As a result the only thing stuff like this is really 
> > evidence for is that somebody knows how to type. 
>
> Like everything else, really. Scientific experiments are very rarely 
> replicated. You live in fantasy land. 
>
> >> > Ideas of consequence are rarely -- if ever -- produced outside the 
> >> > bossom of the establishment. 
> > 
> > 
> > Bullshit. And speaking of Nobel Prize ceremonies, nobody predicted X 
> Rays 
> > before Rontgen discovered them and neither he nor anybody else had a 
> theory 
> > to explain them until many decades later, but he became the most 
> lionized 
> > physicist of his day and received the very first Nobel Prize in Physics 
> just 
> > a few years after he discovered them. Rontgen was making an incredible 
> claim 
>
> The problem with this "incredible claim" meme is that there is no way 
> to objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an 
> euphemism for the status quo. 
>

> > but the scientific community believed him because he had incredible good 
> > evidence, a photograph of the bones in his wife's hand, there is nothing 
> > equivalent to that in NDE. 
>
> I know very little about NDEs to have an opinion one way or the other. 
>
> > And even Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which has about as much emotion 
> and 
> > prejudice aimed against it as it's possible for a Scientific theory to 
> have, 
> > was accepted by the mainstream scientific community in less than a 
> decade, 
> > and when he died Darwin was given a hero's funeral and buried in 
> Westminster 
> > Abbey right next to Newton. 
>
> You really seem to care a lot about this sort of thing. I don't. I 
> prefer how Everett requested for his ashes to be put in the garbage. 
> He's my kind of guy. But none of this has anything to do with science, 
> one way or the other.  
>

> > People have been telling each other ghost stories and babbling about 
> life 
> > after death for thousands of years but Science doesn't believe a word of 
> it, 
>
> I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are 
> about Science with a capital S. 
>
> I love science, and I show my love by not taking it too seriously. 
> Reverence for science is a mockery of science. 
>

> > not because it upsets scientists preconceived notions about how things 
> work 
> > (in fact that's how you make your reputation in Science) but because the 
> > closer you look at the "evidence" for such things the more it just fades 
> > away. 
>

That's why this study was interesting. It does not make extraordinary 
claims, it is a straightforward comparison of people's ability to report 
details from NDE memories compared with other types of memories and the 
results very straightforwardly suggest that the assumption of NDE = an 
ordinary dream or hallucination is unsupported. They did not say "Therefore 
Heaven iz real",

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > wait for the Nobel prizes ceremony. That way you can be assured to only
>> > hear about the most respectable Scientific endeavours.
>> Anything else would be a waste of your time.
>
>
> This isn't a mathematical proof where I have all the information needed to
> judge its quality, this is a report of the results of a experiment and as
> such is only of value to me if I believe that he is a competent scientist
> and actually performed the experiment as described, and in this case I have
> no reason to do so. I usually believe what I read in Science or Nature even
> if I have not personally done the experiment because over the decades those
> publications have established a web of trust between the authors and the
> readers and the experiment has been repeated or at least examined by
> somebody I trust;
> but in this case its just crap somebody posted on the web.

No, this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a
peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor (> 4). Nobel laureates
have published there.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057620
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_ONE

It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability.

> I'm more than willing to look at evidence provided it really is evidence,
> however I'm not willing to look at the "evidence" posted on a website by
> somebody I've never heard of

This is a problem because you will never have heard of most active
scientists. The human population is now 7 billion. There are hundreds
of thousands of scientists. This is not the Victorian era anymore.

> because there is no web of trust between me the
> reader and the originator of this "evidence" as there is in a legitimate
> Scientific journal.

PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal.

> As a result the only thing stuff like this is really
> evidence for is that somebody knows how to type.

Like everything else, really. Scientific experiments are very rarely
replicated. You live in fantasy land.

>> > Ideas of consequence are rarely -- if ever -- produced outside the
>> > bossom of the establishment.
>
>
> Bullshit. And speaking of Nobel Prize ceremonies, nobody predicted X Rays
> before Rontgen discovered them and neither he nor anybody else had a theory
> to explain them until many decades later, but he became the most lionized
> physicist of his day and received the very first Nobel Prize in Physics just
> a few years after he discovered them. Rontgen was making an incredible claim

The problem with this "incredible claim" meme is that there is no way
to objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an
euphemism for the status quo.

> but the scientific community believed him because he had incredible good
> evidence, a photograph of the bones in his wife's hand, there is nothing
> equivalent to that in NDE.

I know very little about NDEs to have an opinion one way or the other.

> And even Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which has about as much emotion and
> prejudice aimed against it as it's possible for a Scientific theory to have,
> was accepted by the mainstream scientific community in less than a decade,
> and when he died Darwin was given a hero's funeral and buried in Westminster
> Abbey right next to Newton.

You really seem to care a lot about this sort of thing. I don't. I
prefer how Everett requested for his ashes to be put in the garbage.
He's my kind of guy. But none of this has anything to do with science,
one way or the other.

> People have been telling each other ghost stories and babbling about life
> after death for thousands of years but Science doesn't believe a word of it,

I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are
about Science with a capital S.

I love science, and I show my love by not taking it too seriously.
Reverence for science is a mockery of science.

> not because it upsets scientists preconceived notions about how things work
> (in fact that's how you make your reputation in Science) but because the
> closer you look at the "evidence" for such things the more it just fades
> away.

Maybe. Except for consciousness, of course. How do you explain that
one? (still waiting for your TOE, btw)

> But maybe you believe that it's me that is full of Bullshit and not ghost
> stories,

I never mentioned ghost stories. You argue like a politician.

> if so then you should accept the following bet: If Science or
> Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive articel about life
> after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $1000, if none of them do
> you only have to give me $100. Do we have a bet?

Notice that if you make the bet less arbitrary, let's say "any
respectable journal with a high impact factor and articles authored by
Nobel laureates", I would already have won.

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, April 5, 2013 3:39:52 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because the 
> 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a compendium 
> of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena. 
> When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes back 
> to tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long time partner 
> in OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still cannot explain those 
> miraculous experiences (saved my life once) coming allegedly from 'dead' 
> benefactors I knew before they died. 
>

Someone brought a OUIJA board to school in fourth grade and I was using it 
with a friend. Unimpressed, another fourth girl that neither of us knew 
very well said we should ask a question that nobody would know. She asked 
what the name of her bird was. As the word LANCELOT was spelled out, she 
was dumbstruck. This was a very studious 10 year old Asian girl in a highly 
gifted program - we covered a lot of science in class and I think it is 
safe to say that she was scientifically oriented. If she had some secret 
pact with the girl I was doing the board with, she certainly didn't seem 
very happy about it and she didn't seem like a very good actress. She 
seemed confused and worried and did not want any more to do with the board.

Craig


> I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100 publications, 
> some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it is 'click-stuff' and 
> refereed by well selected (opinionated) scientists mostly. However the 
> reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g. with certain 
> (peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger politician. Even in sciences 
> it occurred that hypothetical and fantasy-based ideas were awarded the 
> Prize (e.g. circumstances of the Big Bang etc.). Not to mention the 
> questionable lit.
>
> What does an agnostic like myself believe? that we don't know 'it'. 
>
> John M
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, John Clark 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>>
>> > Dull in what way?
>>>
>>
>> Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed 
>> onto a obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize 
>> not just science but the entire world if true are dull. 
>>
>> > You didn't read the article I guess 
>>
>>
>> I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like 
>> that shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters. 
>>
>>   John K Clark 
>>
>>  -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread John Mikes

I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because the
'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a compendium
of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena.
When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (= death) nobody comes back to
tell the stories. This comes from a 'participant' and long time partner in
OUIJA-board sessions of honest friends. I still cannot explain those
miraculous experiences (saved my life once) coming allegedly from 'dead'
benefactors I knew before they died.

I do not support the reference to the BIG journals (had ~100 publications,
some in such, then was editor of a 'smaller' one) - it is 'click-stuff' and
refereed by well selected (opinionated) scientists mostly. However the
reference to the Nobel prize lost its credibility e.g. with certain
(peace)Prize assignment going to a war-monger politician. Even in sciences
it occurred that hypothetical and fantasy-based ideas were awarded the
Prize (e.g. circumstances of the Big Bang etc.). Not to mention the
questionable lit.

What does an agnostic like myself believe? that we don't know 'it'.

John M

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
> > Dull in what way?
>>
>
> Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed onto
> a obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize not
> just science but the entire world if true are dull.
>
> > You didn't read the article I guess
>
>
> I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like
> that shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>  --
> 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.
>
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> > wait for the Nobel prizes ceremony. That way you can be assured to only
> hear about the most respectable Scientific endeavours.
> Anything else would be a waste of your time.

This isn't a mathematical proof where I have all the information needed to
judge its quality, this is a report of the results of a experiment and as
such is only of value to me if I believe that he is a competent scientist
and actually performed the experiment as described, and in this case I have
no reason to do so. I usually believe what I read in Science or Nature even
if I have not personally done the experiment because over the decades those
publications have established a web of trust between the authors and the
readers and the experiment has been repeated or at least examined by
somebody I trust; but in this case its just crap somebody posted on the
web.

I'm more than willing to look at evidence provided it really is evidence,
however I'm not willing to look at the "evidence" posted on a website by
somebody I've never heard of because there is no web of trust between me
the reader and the originator of this "evidence" as there is in a
legitimate Scientific journal. As a result the only thing stuff like this
is really evidence for is that somebody knows how to type.

> Ideas of consequence are rarely -- if ever -- produced outside the bossom
> of the establishment.
>

Bullshit. And speaking of Nobel Prize ceremonies, nobody predicted X Rays
before Rontgen discovered them and neither he nor anybody else had a theory
to explain them until many decades later, but he became the most lionized
physicist of his day and received the very first Nobel Prize in Physics
just a few years after he discovered them. Rontgen was making an incredible
claim but the scientific community believed him because he had incredible
good evidence, a photograph of the bones in his wife's hand, there is
nothing equivalent to that in NDE.

And even Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which has about as much emotion and
prejudice aimed against it as it's possible for a Scientific theory to
have, was accepted by the mainstream scientific community in less than a
decade, and when he died Darwin was given a hero's funeral and buried in
Westminster Abbey right next to Newton.

People have been telling each other ghost stories and babbling about life
after death for thousands of years but Science doesn't believe a word of
it, not because it upsets scientists preconceived notions about how things
work (in fact that's how you make your reputation in Science) but because
the closer you look at the "evidence" for such things the more it just
fades away.

But maybe you believe that it's me that is full of Bullshit and not ghost
stories, if so then you should accept the following bet: If Science or
Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive articel about life
after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $1000, if none of them do
you only have to give me $100. Do we have a bet?

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, April 5, 2013 4:50:29 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> I have a explanation of NDE experiences that is incomplete because it is 
> based on evolution, and the evolution of a trait rarely obey a single cause 
> not even a set of causes , because natural selection is holistic. Although 
> some of these causes may be the main ones in the evolution of a certain 
> trait. And second, evolution is materialistic, and because it shares the 
> positivistic metaphisics, it is a incomplete study of reality.
>  
> NDE may be a mechanism for the reorientation of the behavior and 
> psychology to a expectancy of a short lifespan.  Usually people with a 
> short lifespan expectancy at childhood take higher risks. This is in 
> agreement with which was expected if the risky behavior is related in 
> showing dominance, short term skill (such are fighting abilities or any 
> trickery for lying, robbing etc) and gang/tribal attachment that could 
> assure power in a core group and risky sexual behavior that could assure 
> offspring in the short term. in contrast, these people show a disinterest 
> for the acquisition of skills that have a longer return of investment, such 
> is formal education, school attendance, to learn a job etc.
>  
> But what happens when an educated, long term oriented person suffers a 
> trauma such is an accident, a stroke etc? Some symptoms of aftershock 
> stress disorder are: risk behavior, higher volume of sperm, increase of 
> sexual (men) or romantic (woman) desire and nightmares or hallucinations 
> which repeat the scene of the trauma. The first ones are clearly a 
> realignment of the behavior for a short term lifespan, in order to have 
> offspring as soon as possible, as said above.  The latter may be probably a 
> way to negatively reinforce the actions that ended up in the traumatic 
> experience, just to avoid the repetition of it.
>  
> But there are also some symptoms that may be inexplicable: Some people 
> enlist in charity organization or give money to them. Or they change its 
> religion, get involved in politics and so on. This, can be explained as a 
> short term strategy in terms of inclusive fitness: since the humans share 
> much of their genetics, for the self preservation of the genes in the 
> short term, it may be better, depending on the circunstances, to help other 
> people or the society as a whole than to enter in risky behavior. 
>  
> The NDE may help in this short term reorientation, producing risk 
> acceptance and the orientation to help others in some way: Many reported 
> experiences are related with these outcomes: they report that since then, 
> "I have no fear" and "I feel that I have a mission in earth to do" and so 
> on. Just like many people that did not have NDE experiences but have a 
> trauma may feel. The family whose child died in leukemia that devote its 
> life to fight against this illness is another closely related example of 
> what realingnmet of behavior could produce due to the similarity of human 
> genetics (that makes this strategy of realignment stable)
>  
> NDE could be a more radical way for producing this reorientation by means 
> of a mythopoetic faculty of the mind that switch the archetypes to imitate 
> or emulate. Where there where Mick Jagger of Justin Bieber or Bradd Pitt or 
> Donald Trump on the top of the personal pantheon, after the experience they 
> are Jesus Christ, Ghandi etc. This also demonstrates how much the mind 
> determines the reality. It is not true that NDE experiences are 
> hallucinations, unless we admit that we hallucinate everyday, every moment. 
> The mind configure the reality. The only difference between reality and 
> hallucinations is the shared nature of the first.
>


That's interesting, maybe true. I don't like to speculate too much on the 
human psychology, but in this case I could imagine that invoking the kind 
of short-time 
Eros. It makes sense as an archetypal reaction against either the Thanatos 
of the shortness of a life foreshadowed by either life circumstances which 
are dangerous or an NDE. In the case of an NDE it seems like the obvious 
cliche (obvious cliches carry some weight in private physics) that the 
experience is for the person to feel that they have been given a 'second 
chance' at life. This could either be a segue within one's personal 
experience to steer them toward a different time of their life, or just a 
probabilistic event - one of the things that can happen to a person like 
getting queened as a pawn.

Thanks
Craig

 
>  
>
>
> 2013/4/5 Craig Weinberg >
>
>> Like
>>
>> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM, John Clark  wrote: 
>>> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> >> > Dull in what way? 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed 
>>> onto a 
>>> > obscure website about experimental results that would revolu

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-05 Thread Alberto G. Corona

I have a explanation of NDE experiences that is incomplete because it is
based on evolution, and the evolution of a trait rarely obey a single cause
not even a set of causes , because natural selection is holistic. Although
some of these causes may be the main ones in the evolution of a certain
trait. And second, evolution is materialistic, and because it shares the
positivistic metaphisics, it is a incomplete study of reality.

NDE may be a mechanism for the reorientation of the behavior and psychology
to a expectancy of a short lifespan.  Usually people with a short lifespan
expectancy at childhood take higher risks. This is in agreement with which
was expected if the risky behavior is related in showing dominance, short
term skill (such are fighting abilities or any trickery for lying, robbing
etc) and gang/tribal attachment that could assure power in a core group and
risky sexual behavior that could assure offspring in the short term. in
contrast, these people show a disinterest for the acquisition of skills
that have a longer return of investment, such is formal education, school
attendance, to learn a job etc.

But what happens when an educated, long term oriented person suffers a
trauma such is an accident, a stroke etc? Some symptoms of aftershock
stress disorder are: risk behavior, higher volume of sperm, increase of
sexual (men) or romantic (woman) desire and nightmares or hallucinations
which repeat the scene of the trauma. The first ones are clearly a
realignment of the behavior for a short term lifespan, in order to have
offspring as soon as possible, as said above.  The latter may be probably a
way to negatively reinforce the actions that ended up in the traumatic
experience, just to avoid the repetition of it.

But there are also some symptoms that may be inexplicable: Some people
enlist in charity organization or give money to them. Or they change its
religion, get involved in politics and so on. This, can be explained as a
short term strategy in terms of inclusive fitness: since the humans share
much of their genetics, for the self preservation of the genes in the
short term, it may be better, depending on the circunstances, to help other
people or the society as a whole than to enter in risky behavior.

The NDE may help in this short term reorientation, producing risk
acceptance and the orientation to help others in some way: Many reported
experiences are related with these outcomes: they report that since then,
"I have no fear" and "I feel that I have a mission in earth to do" and so
on. Just like many people that did not have NDE experiences but have a
trauma may feel. The family whose child died in leukemia that devote its
life to fight against this illness is another closely related example of
what realingnmet of behavior could produce due to the similarity of human
genetics (that makes this strategy of realignment stable)

NDE could be a more radical way for producing this reorientation by means
of a mythopoetic faculty of the mind that switch the archetypes to imitate
or emulate. Where there where Mick Jagger of Justin Bieber or Bradd Pitt or
Donald Trump on the top of the personal pantheon, after the experience they
are Jesus Christ, Ghandi etc. This also demonstrates how much the mind
determines the reality. It is not true that NDE experiences are
hallucinations, unless we admit that we hallucinate everyday, every moment.
The mind configure the reality. The only difference between reality and
hallucinations is the shared nature of the first.

2013/4/5 Craig Weinberg 

> Like
>
> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Dull in what way?
>> >
>> >
>> > Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed
>> onto a
>> > obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize not
>> just
>> > science but the entire world if true are dull.
>> >
>> >> > You didn't read the article I guess
>> >
>> >
>> > I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like
>> that
>> > shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters.
>>
>> Or better yet, wait for the Nobel prizes ceremony. That way you can be
>> assured to only hear about the most respectable Scientific endeavours.
>> Anything else would be a waste of your time. Ideas of consequence are
>> rarely -- if ever -- produced outside the bossom of the establishment.
>> Prestige is almost a synonym with Science, don't let anyone tell you
>> otherwise.
>>
>> >   John K Clark
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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-li...@**googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.c

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg

Like

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM, John Clark > 
> wrote: 
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> >> > Dull in what way? 
> > 
> > 
> > Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed 
> onto a 
> > obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize not 
> just 
> > science but the entire world if true are dull. 
> > 
> >> > You didn't read the article I guess 
> > 
> > 
> > I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like 
> that 
> > shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters. 
>
> Or better yet, wait for the Nobel prizes ceremony. That way you can be 
> assured to only hear about the most respectable Scientific endeavours. 
> Anything else would be a waste of your time. Ideas of consequence are 
> rarely -- if ever -- produced outside the bossom of the establishment. 
> Prestige is almost a synonym with Science, don't let anyone tell you 
> otherwise. 
>
> >   John K Clark 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@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. 
> > 
> > 
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>> > Dull in what way?
>
>
> Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed onto a
> obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize not just
> science but the entire world if true are dull.
>
>> > You didn't read the article I guess
>
>
> I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like that
> shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters.

Or better yet, wait for the Nobel prizes ceremony. That way you can be
assured to only hear about the most respectable Scientific endeavours.
Anything else would be a waste of your time. Ideas of consequence are
rarely -- if ever -- produced outside the bossom of the establishment.
Prestige is almost a synonym with Science, don't let anyone tell you
otherwise.

>   John K Clark
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:02:06 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> > these hallucinations appear to to be real visitations to other worlds. 
>
>  
> Did you learn that from astrology or numerology?
>
>
http://www.nachtkabarett.com/ihvh/img/three_monkeys_see_hear_speak_no_evil.jpg

 

>   John K Clark 
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 3:56:57 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> > Dull in what way?
>>
>
> Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed onto 
> a obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize not 
> just science but the entire world if true are dull. 
>
> > You didn't read the article I guess 
>
>
> I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like 
> that shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters. 
>

http://www.nachtkabarett.com/ihvh/img/three_monkeys_see_hear_speak_no_evil.jpg 


Craig
 

>
>   John K Clark 
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> these hallucinations appear to to be real visitations to other worlds.


Did you learn that from astrology or numerology?

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> Dull in what way?
>

Dull in the way that reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed onto
a obscure website about experimental results that would revolutionize not
just science but the entire world if true are dull.

> You didn't read the article I guess

I have not read it nor do I intend to; let me know when something like that
shows up in Science or Nature or Physical Review letters.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:46:50 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  Sure it can.  The anesthesologist ensures that you get enough oxygen to 
> avoid brain damage, but that doesn't mean he ensures you get the normal 
> amount.  And some surgery involves lowering the body temperature so that 
> the body needs/uses less oxygen.
>

"* But in brief–NDE cannot be explained away as caused by lack of oxygen to 
the brain.  Quite simply when the brain is deprived of oxygen or is exposed 
to any abnormal accumulation of chemicals, the perceived memories are 
fragmentary, distorted or nonexistent at best.  Read reports of NDE.  They 
are incredibly coherent and the details of the experience never fade.  They 
also result in life altering transformations for those who have had them.  
I have reported on such from this blog site. They also are perceived as 
being intensely real–more so than any dream, hallucination, or even daily 
perception.  They also reveal information that could not be known by normal 
cognition.  Does this seem like a false experience, an oxygen deprived 
hallucination? Hardly. " - *Steven E. Hodes, M.D. 
http://meta-md.com/2012/07/debunking-the-paranormal-nothing-new-still-wrong/

Craig


*
* 

>
> Brent
>
> On 4/4/2013 11:27 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>  
> NDE during surgery cannot be due to lack of oxygen
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:18 PM, meekerdb 
> > wrote:
>
>>   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 
>>> >> 
>>> >> "Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by 
>>> Steven Laureys) 
>>> >> and the University of Liï¿½ge's Cognitive Psychology Research 
>>> (Professor Serge Brï¿½dart 
>>> >> 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 t

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:32:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 4/4/2013 11:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:53:42 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>> Near death experiences are real, they exist, and they are very dull.
>
>
> Dull in what way?
>  
>  
>> When the brain is deprived of oxygen some people have hallucinations and 
>> other experiences, and some of which can be pleasurable hence the 
>> popularity of the dangerous practice of autoerotic asphyxia, taking LSD 
>> would be much safer. 
>>
>
> You didn't read the article I guess. The whole point of the experiment is 
> that it shows that scientifically, memories of NDEs do not look like 
> memories of hallucinations.
>  
>
> That's not what it says.  It says they don't look like imagined memories 
> of things that didn't happen.
>

Either way, they look less like what we would expect for private fantasy 
and much more like what we would expect for public realism. 


>  
>> The thing that makes NDE so dull is that "N" stands for "near". Die and 
>> decay in your grave for a couple of years and then come back and tell me 
>> what it was like, now THAT would be interesting. 
>>
>
> Sure, but its still odd that these hallucinations appear to to be real 
> visitations to other worlds. LSD trips have lots of different forms and 
> effects. NDEs are much more clearly defined. It doesn't mean that there is 
> a personal afterlife in heaven or hell, but neither is it possible that the 
> NDE phenomenon is what you want it to be.
>  
>
> No, it means people have memories of things which can be vivid, 
> particularly when the brain isn't having to deal with any perceptions.  
> Haven't you noticed that very old people, or those just developing 
> Alzheimers, have exceptionally detailed memory of events in their distant 
> past and childhood, even though they can't remember their address or phone 
> number.
>

Detailed memory of events which actually happened, not of dreams where they 
met Peter Pan. You'll have to argue with the people who ran the 
experiments, because it is their results which directly contradict your 
assumptions - which are completely anecdotal and arbitrary.

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>
>  
> Craig
>
>  
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>  -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>  
>  
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3162/6223 - Release Date: 04/03/13
>
>
>  

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread meekerdb

Sure it can.  The anesthesologist ensures that you get enough oxygen to avoid brain 
damage, but that doesn't mean he ensures you get the normal amount.  And some surgery 
involves lowering the body temperature so that the body needs/uses less oxygen.


Brent

On 4/4/2013 11:27 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

NDE during surgery cannot be due to lack of oxygen


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:18 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


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
>>
>> "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 mem

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:18:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  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 
>> >> 
>> >> "Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by 
>> Steven Laureys) 
>> >> and the University of Liï¿½ge's Cognitive Psychology Research 
>> (Professor Serge Brï¿½dart 
>> >> 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. 
>

Only if the events were real. A delirium could be very emotional but not 
very memorable.
 

> 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? 
>

The experience does not correspond to the events of dying in a hospital bed 
t

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread meekerdb


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



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:53:42 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

Near death experiences are real, they exist, and they are very dull.


Dull in what way?

When the brain is deprived of oxygen some people have hallucinations and 
other
experiences, and some of which can be pleasurable hence the popularity of 
the
dangerous practice of autoerotic asphyxia, taking LSD would be much safer.


You didn't read the article I guess. The whole point of the experiment is that it shows 
that scientifically, memories of NDEs do not look like memories of hallucinations.


That's not what it says.  It says they don't look like imagined memories of things that 
didn't happen.




The thing that makes NDE so dull is that "N" stands for "near". Die and 
decay in
your grave for a couple of years and then come back and tell me what it was 
like,
now THAT would be interesting.


Sure, but its still odd that these hallucinations appear to to be real visitations to 
other worlds. LSD trips have lots of different forms and effects. NDEs are much more 
clearly defined. It doesn't mean that there is a personal afterlife in heaven or hell, 
but neither is it possible that the NDE phenomenon is what you want it to be.


No, it means people have memories of things which can be vivid, particularly when the 
brain isn't having to deal with any perceptions.  Haven't you noticed that very old 
people, or those just developing Alzheimers, have exceptionally detailed memory of events 
in their distant past and childhood, even though they can't remember their address or 
phone number.


Brent



Craig


  John K Clark

--
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.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3162/6223 - Release Date: 04/03/13



--
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

NDE during surgery cannot be due to lack of oxygen


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:18 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  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
>> >>
>> >> "Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by
>> Steven Laureys)
>> >> and the University of Liï¿½ge's Cognitive Psychology Research
>> (Professor Serge Brï¿½dart
>> >> 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

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread meekerdb


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

>>
>> "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 du

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:05:01 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> Even for materialists: why when the brain is in stress conditions do 
> appear vivid hallucinations that probably need a high dose of 
> energy  instead of seeing for example a fixed image with "malfunction, we 
> are on it. please relax" ???
>

Exactly. Although in reality, psychedelic hallucinations appear with 
decreased brain activity, which is an indication to me that brain activity 
indicates public facing attention, not consciousness itself.

 
> What I know is that there are a growing number of effects in human 
> anatomy, behavior and psychology that are contemptuous considered as 
> genetic drift, side effects, spandrels that really are adaptations. I can 
> name a lot of them, but I don´t want to distract attention.
>  
>  The contempt is only an expression of ignorance, most of the time. 
>

Agree. As long as we continue to view the placebo effect as a 
disqualification, we are losing the larger understanding of medicine.

Craig
 

>
>
> 2013/4/4 John Clark >
>
>> Near death experiences are real, they exist, and they are very dull. When 
>> the brain is deprived of oxygen some people have hallucinations and other 
>> experiences, and some of which can be pleasurable hence the popularity of 
>> the dangerous practice of autoerotic asphyxia, taking LSD would be much 
>> safer. 
>>
>> The thing that makes NDE so dull is that "N" stands for "near". Die and 
>> decay in your grave for a couple of years and then come back and tell me 
>> what it was like, now THAT would be interesting. 
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>  -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Alberto. 
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:53:42 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> Near death experiences are real, they exist, and they are very dull.

Dull in what way?

> When the brain is deprived of oxygen some people have hallucinations and 
> other experiences, and some of which can be pleasurable hence the 
> popularity of the dangerous practice of autoerotic asphyxia, taking LSD 
> would be much safer. 
>

You didn't read the article I guess. The whole point of the experiment is 
that it shows that scientifically, memories of NDEs do not look like 
memories of hallucinations.

>
> The thing that makes NDE so dull is that "N" stands for "near". Die and 
> decay in your grave for a couple of years and then come back and tell me 
> what it was like, now THAT would be interesting. 
>

Sure, but its still odd that these hallucinations appear to to be real 
visitations to other worlds. LSD trips have lots of different forms and 
effects. NDEs are much more clearly defined. It doesn't mean that there is 
a personal afterlife in heaven or hell, but neither is it possible that the 
NDE phenomenon is what you want it to be.

Craig

>   John K Clark
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Even for materialists: why when the brain is in stress conditions do appear
vivid hallucinations that probably need a high dose of energy  instead of
seeing for example a fixed image with "malfunction, we are on it. please
relax" ???

What I know is that there are a growing number of effects in human anatomy,
behavior and psychology that are contemptuous considered as genetic drift,
side effects, spandrels that really are adaptations. I can name a lot of
them, but I don´t want to distract attention.

 The contempt is only an expression of ignorance, most of the time.


2013/4/4 John Clark 

> Near death experiences are real, they exist, and they are very dull. When
> the brain is deprived of oxygen some people have hallucinations and other
> experiences, and some of which can be pleasurable hence the popularity of
> the dangerous practice of autoerotic asphyxia, taking LSD would be much
> safer.
>
> The thing that makes NDE so dull is that "N" stands for "near". Die and
> decay in your grave for a couple of years and then come back and tell me
> what it was like, now THAT would be interesting.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>
>
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



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 
> >> 
> >> "Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by 
> Steven Laureys) 
> >> and the University of Liï¿½ge's Cognitive Psychology Research 
> (Professor Serge Brï¿½dart 
> >> 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.

Craig
 

>
> Brent 
>
> > 
> > In fact, from the usual work on dreams, by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement and 
> Hobson, for 
> > example, what is striking, is the remarkable similarity of the REM brain 
> states and the 
> > awake brain states, for diverse tasks (computing, singing, walking, 
> moving arms, seeing 
> > color, etc.). 
> > 
> > 
> > Bruno 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>
>

-- 
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://gr

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:35:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Apr 2013, at 15:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 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 Liège's Cognitive   
> > Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart 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),


I don't think that Comp tells us that we know the physical is a construct, 
I think that it just tells us that certain computations imply the same 
kinds of functions that we have derived from physics. Or else you are 
saying that Comp = the assumption of arithmetic physics by definition.
 

> 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. 
>

No, the sensory is not matter. Carbon is a token which plays a role in the 
molecular stories. Human stories evolved from other animal stories, which 
evolved from biochemical stories, and so on. Silicon could have easily been 
the token which led to organic stories, but it so happens that this time it 
was not, and it may be that there can be only one organic story per 
universe (because of the nature of significance as consolidation of 
aesthetic superlatives. All competing branches on the tree must be cut for 
the ultimate stories to be told). 


>
>
>
>
>
> > 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. 


I don't mind that you insist that comp is true (or insist that it has not 
been falsified), but I find it sad that you don't see the sensory-motive 
basis of computation.

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. 
>

I would expect that physics can be derived from arithmetic, but aesthetics 
cannot be. Presence and participation cannot be.
 

>
> 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". 
>
> In fact, from the usual work on dreams, by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement and   
> Hobson, for example, what is striking, is the remarkable similarity of   
> the REM brain states and the awake brain states, for diverse tasks   
> (computing, singing, walking, moving arms, seeing color, etc.). 
>

That makes sense in my view as the brain is the public inte

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread John Clark

Near death experiences are real, they exist, and they are very dull. When
the brain is deprived of oxygen some people have hallucinations and other
experiences, and some of which can be pleasurable hence the popularity of
the dangerous practice of autoerotic asphyxia, taking LSD would be much
safer.

The thing that makes NDE so dull is that "N" stands for "near". Die and
decay in your grave for a couple of years and then come back and tell me
what it was like, now THAT would be interesting.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread meekerdb

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

"Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by Steven Laureys)
and the University of Liège's Cognitive Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart
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.

Brent

In fact, from the usual work on dreams, by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement and Hobson, for
example, what is striking, is the remarkable similarity of the REM brain states and the
awake brain states, for diverse tasks (computing, singing, walking, moving arms, seeing
color, etc.).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 04 Apr 2013, at 15:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:


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 Liège's Cognitive  
Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart 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".


In fact, from the usual work on dreams, by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement and  
Hobson, for example, what is striking, is the remarkable similarity of  
the REM brain states and the awake brain states, for diverse tasks  
(computing, singing, walking, moving arms, seeing color, etc.).



Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

54 matches

Mail list logo