Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
I got a good deal more out of Anita Moorjani's book on her NDE - mainly I think because she was just saying - here is what happened to me, not trying to prove it happened. And it was impressive that her cancer cleared within weeks of the experience. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:57 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Whoops - this was meant for Salyavin808. Â This book was interesting to me, not with respect to proving or disproving the phenomena of NDE's, but rather, the way it forced him to completely re-evaluate his assumptions as a scientist and the efforts he went to to reconcile his beliefs about the world and life with his experience. Â It's a great little story for many reasons, not just the obvious. Â Re-evaluating assumptions is always a good excerise, the NDE seems to generate a lot of positive energy in people. I guess they interpret it in much the same way I think the TM experience is interpreted - that it is a world beyond this one - and not just a change in the way the brain organises it's many contributory parts in making the picture of the world that we frequently mistake for the world itself. TM did it for me, as did LSD. I'm sure that if was a previous non-experiencer in any of the mind expanding shit I've been into and had an NDE during an accident or any health crisis, I would be much more likely to put extra weight on the experience being a foretelling of what is to come rather than the neural reshuffling I rather suspect it is. As I say, there isn't much in what I've read about the NDE that I haven't experienced before but I would still like to try an NDE, if only they could be induced without the near-death part! Bit I bet that would take a lot of the impact away from it. And what of the small percentage of people who don't have a happy trip to heaven. It seems a few have a vision of endless painful torment and instead of the sort of life affirming positive changes that most go through, they dread dying, being convinced they are going to hell! Maybe it's all true, that'd be a turn up! Might be worth a deathbed conversion
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
So what did everyone think about the concept of God telling him that evil has to exist for us to have free will? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:05 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: The title is the worse part of the book.  Did you read it?  The point of the book isn't actually his NDE.  Yup. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  Hi Emily, Hi five for bringing new material. I grabbed it at the library as soon as its catnip (for me) title had its effect. I had to read some of the critiques to understand the scientific issues with his claims. Evaluating this book is a great education in how we need to approach the flood of popular books from scientists or doctors without a background in the field. Scientific understanding is a collaborative process filled with outliers expanding the edges of the known as well as people who are just a bit off. It taught me a lot about how complex determining death is in the short run. In the long run it becomes more obvious! Neurosurgeons are as naive as anyone else concerning the issues with being confident of our knowledge if they have not studied epistemology. He makes a few fatal errors in his assumptions. Having had the kind of experiences he recounts in the altered states produced by lots of meditation, I understand the compelling nature of what the brain can produce. I suspect under the extreme conditions his was under are even more compelling. His title is fascinating: Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife. It makes us feel as if we should take his claim more seriously because of his background doesn't it? It worked on me. But in the end we have a subjective account with no scientific way to know when exactly he had these experiences as his brain powered down and up. So we are left with another account that uses the tantalizing concept of near death which sounds more like death than not death in the same way that barely legal porn gets more Internet porn hits than legal porn. (Or so I am told having no first hand knowledge in this area.) Our minds are amazing and the collaborative effect of minds trying to get to the bottom of life's deepest questions is fascinating. I will always respond to the catnip of the outliers, but wont be surprised when, after more study, they don't quite deliver what they promised. I always learn from taking the ride. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Read the book Xeno and then I would love to have a discussion with you.it was written by a neuroscientist after all.  And he addresses exactly what you discuss below in the context of medical science.  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: This is a beautiful picture.  Can you believe I just finished this book?  Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of this book - he addresses this supposition of hallucination specifically by making the very real point that his neocortex was not functioning, amongst other things.  How would he, in that state, know whether he even had a neocortex? Someone had to feed him this information. Neurologists point out that even in states where the patient seems to be in cardiac arrest, there is some slight activity that keeps a small amount of blood flow to the brain. In these emergency situations, there is no electroencephalographic monitoring of the brain, though that might be introduced as additional controls someday. No one has figured out just when a patient has the NDE in these situations as they cannot point out they are having an experience, so currently there are a lot of unknowns about these experiences. Those that believe in NDEs assume the brain is not functioning, but this is unknown except in the case where the patient does not revive, and then of course they do not report an NDE. These kinds of experiences often occur under very specific circumstances where a patient or a subject is not in a life threatening situation such as cardiac arrest, which is why scientists very substantially question whether they have any 'supernatural' component at all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
Read the book and get back to me...your research is perhaps not comprehensive enough..There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. - Soren Kierkegaard From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:55 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: This is a beautiful picture.  Can you believe I just finished this book?  Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of this book - he addresses this supposition of hallucination specifically by making the very real point that his neocortex was not functioning, amongst other things.  How would he, in that state, know whether he even had a neocortex? Someone had to feed him this information. Neurologists point out that even in states where the patient seems to be in cardiac arrest, there is some slight activity that keeps a small amount of blood flow to the brain. In these emergency situations, there is no electroencephalographic monitoring of the brain, though that might be introduced as additional controls someday. No one has figured out just when a patient has the NDE in these situations as they cannot point out they are having an experience, so currently there are a lot of unknowns about these experiences. Those that believe in NDEs assume the brain is not functioning, but this is unknown except in the case where the patient does not revive, and then of course they do not report an NDE. These kinds of experiences often occur under very specific circumstances where a patient or a subject is not in a life threatening situation such as cardiac arrest, which is why scientists very substantially question whether they have any 'supernatural' component at all. In the first big study of NDE's it was discovered that of the people who meet relatives only two thirds meet the already deceased. The rest meet people who are still alive, which underlines the wholly subjective nature of the phenomenon. And there isn't much in it that I haven't experienced from meditation let alone hallucinogen experiments. It's all in the mind guys... ___ From: Yifu yifuxero@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  Allegory of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Pat Devonas: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/2/10741.jpg Dr. Michael Shermer attempts to rebut Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE as being genuinely out of body and supernatural. (Alexander is a neurosurgeon who had an NDE. Claims he traveled out of the body into supernatural dimensions in which he met deceased relatives, and listened to the OM.) ... Shermer in Scientific American, Apr 2013, 86, essentially uses a similarity argument coupled with Occam's Razor. Shermer states: Migraine headaches also produce halluncinations, which Sacks [neurologist Oliver Sacks] himself has experienced as a longtime sufferer, including a 'shimmering light' that was 'dazzlingly bring' etc, etc, clouds, blah, blah. Then Shermer goes on to make the comparison: Compare Sack's experience with that of Alexander's trip to heaven, where he was in a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up sharply against the deep blue-black sky. Higher than the clouds - immeasurably higher - flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamerlike lines behind them.. ... Then Shermer says In any case, there is a reason they are called 'near'-death experiences: the people who have then are not actually dead. Also he inquires how Alexander could have a memory of the experiences. . Finally, Dr. Shermer states To me, this evidence is proof of hallucination, not heaven. . [his arguments on the whole are similar to those of Sam Harris].
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
Read the book Xeno and then I would love to have a discussion with you.it was written by a neuroscientist after all. And he addresses exactly what you discuss below in the context of medical science. From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: This is a beautiful picture.  Can you believe I just finished this book?  Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of this book - he addresses this supposition of hallucination specifically by making the very real point that his neocortex was not functioning, amongst other things.  How would he, in that state, know whether he even had a neocortex? Someone had to feed him this information. Neurologists point out that even in states where the patient seems to be in cardiac arrest, there is some slight activity that keeps a small amount of blood flow to the brain. In these emergency situations, there is no electroencephalographic monitoring of the brain, though that might be introduced as additional controls someday. No one has figured out just when a patient has the NDE in these situations as they cannot point out they are having an experience, so currently there are a lot of unknowns about these experiences. Those that believe in NDEs assume the brain is not functioning, but this is unknown except in the case where the patient does not revive, and then of course they do not report an NDE. These kinds of experiences often occur under very specific circumstances where a patient or a subject is not in a life threatening situation such as cardiac arrest, which is why scientists very substantially question whether they have any 'supernatural' component at all. From: Yifu yifuxero@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  Allegory of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Pat Devonas: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/2/10741.jpg Dr. Michael Shermer attempts to rebut Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE as being genuinely out of body and supernatural. (Alexander is a neurosurgeon who had an NDE. Claims he traveled out of the body into supernatural dimensions in which he met deceased relatives, and listened to the OM.) ... Shermer in Scientific American, Apr 2013, 86, essentially uses a similarity argument coupled with Occam's Razor. Shermer states: Migraine headaches also produce halluncinations, which Sacks [neurologist Oliver Sacks] himself has experienced as a longtime sufferer, including a 'shimmering light' that was 'dazzlingly bring' etc, etc, clouds, blah, blah. Then Shermer goes on to make the comparison: Compare Sack's experience with that of Alexander's trip to heaven, where he was in a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up sharply against the deep blue-black sky. Higher than the clouds - immeasurably higher - flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamerlike lines behind them.. ... Then Shermer says In any case, there is a reason they are called 'near'-death experiences: the people who have then are not actually dead. Also he inquires how Alexander could have a memory of the experiences. . Finally, Dr. Shermer states To me, this evidence is proof of hallucination, not heaven. . [his arguments on the whole are similar to those of Sam Harris].
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
Somehow.it's an amazing thing, the soul:) From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander I have been in the presence of someone who regularly suffered intense migraines, and someone else just after they had an NDE. The obvious difference in both was the sense of peace and acceptance experienced during the NDE, though superficial aspects of the experiences may sound similar. The assumption by Shermer is that the physical existence he experiences is the constant, with any existence beyond that, unknowable. This is the view of life, with death as its foundation. The alternative, that of life as its own foundation, is living the soul within to be the reality, and watching as it takes on a temporary vehicle, currently this body, aligns to it, and sets up a dynamic of Self awareness. Then after a hundred years or so, this body wears out, and the soul shimmers out of it, and continues its journey of self knowledge, somehow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Allegory of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Pat Devonas: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/2/10741.jpg Dr. Michael Shermer attempts to rebut Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE as being genuinely out of body and supernatural. (Alexander is a neurosurgeon who had an NDE. Claims he traveled out of the body into supernatural dimensions in which he met deceased relatives, and listened to the OM.) ... Shermer in Scientific American, Apr 2013, 86, essentially uses a similarity argument coupled with Occam's Razor. Shermer states: Migraine headaches also produce halluncinations, which Sacks [neurologist Oliver Sacks] himself has experienced as a longtime sufferer, including a 'shimmering light' that was 'dazzlingly bring' etc, etc, clouds, blah, blah. Then Shermer goes on to make the comparison: Compare Sack's experience with that of Alexander's trip to heaven, where he was in a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up sharply against the deep blue-black sky. Higher than the clouds - immeasurably higher - flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamerlike lines behind them.. ... Then Shermer says In any case, there is a reason they are called 'near'-death experiences: the people who have then are not actually dead. Also he inquires how Alexander could have a memory of the experiences. . Finally, Dr. Shermer states To me, this evidence is proof of hallucination, not heaven. . [his arguments on the whole are similar to those of Sam Harris].
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
The title is the worse part of the book. Did you read it? The point of the book isn't actually his NDE. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander Hi Emily, Hi five for bringing new material. I grabbed it at the library as soon as its catnip (for me) title had its effect. I had to read some of the critiques to understand the scientific issues with his claims. Evaluating this book is a great education in how we need to approach the flood of popular books from scientists or doctors without a background in the field. Scientific understanding is a collaborative process filled with outliers expanding the edges of the known as well as people who are just a bit off. It taught me a lot about how complex determining death is in the short run. In the long run it becomes more obvious! Neurosurgeons are as naive as anyone else concerning the issues with being confident of our knowledge if they have not studied epistemology. He makes a few fatal errors in his assumptions. Having had the kind of experiences he recounts in the altered states produced by lots of meditation, I understand the compelling nature of what the brain can produce. I suspect under the extreme conditions his was under are even more compelling. His title is fascinating: Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife. It makes us feel as if we should take his claim more seriously because of his background doesn't it? It worked on me. But in the end we have a subjective account with no scientific way to know when exactly he had these experiences as his brain powered down and up. So we are left with another account that uses the tantalizing concept of near death which sounds more like death than not death in the same way that barely legal porn gets more Internet porn hits than legal porn. (Or so I am told having no first hand knowledge in this area.) Our minds are amazing and the collaborative effect of minds trying to get to the bottom of life's deepest questions is fascinating. I will always respond to the catnip of the outliers, but wont be surprised when, after more study, they don't quite deliver what they promised. I always learn from taking the ride. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Read the book Xeno and then I would love to have a discussion with you.it was written by a neuroscientist after all.  And he addresses exactly what you discuss below in the context of medical science.  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: This is a beautiful picture.  Can you believe I just finished this book?  Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of this book - he addresses this supposition of hallucination specifically by making the very real point that his neocortex was not functioning, amongst other things.  How would he, in that state, know whether he even had a neocortex? Someone had to feed him this information. Neurologists point out that even in states where the patient seems to be in cardiac arrest, there is some slight activity that keeps a small amount of blood flow to the brain. In these emergency situations, there is no electroencephalographic monitoring of the brain, though that might be introduced as additional controls someday. No one has figured out just when a patient has the NDE in these situations as they cannot point out they are having an experience, so currently there are a lot of unknowns about these experiences. Those that believe in NDEs assume the brain is not functioning, but this is unknown except in the case where the patient does not revive, and then of course they do not report an NDE. These kinds of experiences often occur under very specific circumstances where a patient or a subject is not in a life threatening situation such as cardiac arrest, which is why scientists very substantially question whether they have any 'supernatural' component at all. From: Yifu yifuxero@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  Allegory of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Pat Devonas: http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/2/10741.jpg Dr. Michael Shermer attempts to rebut Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE as being genuinely out of body and supernatural. (Alexander is a neurosurgeon who had an NDE. Claims he traveled out of the body into
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
“The infidelity of the Gentile world, and that more especially of men of rank and learning in it, is resolved into a principle which, in my judgment, will account for the inefficacy of any argument, or any evidence whatever, viz. contempt prior to examination.” William Paley From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Read the book and get back to me...your research is perhaps not comprehensive enough..There are two ways to be fooled.  One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. - Soren Kierkegaard I've no doubt it's a wonderful story but I've read those before. Unless you can *unprove* that people meet relatives who are still alive (remember it was the experiencers who claim this) all you do is add to the mythos. So why would I need to read *another* book about something when the first objective one demonstrated that the experience wasn't what people thought it was? This is how you have to treat claims of the paranormal, first you see if there is a signal above the noise - something you can't account for any other way. In the NDE there isn't. But research is being carried out in hospitals and it's inconclusive to say the least. Most Out of Body Experiences are explainable by taking the timing of anaesthetic withdrawal into account, because people are paying attention to this and collating statements from care staff there is less chance of someone saying but I was clinically dead so it *can't* be my brain. In several cases things people have spookily witnessed could be accounted for by what was occurring around them when medical procedures were taking place. Obviously people aren't always as out of it as was thought. Maybe that explains why so few have NDE's? Another good study taking place is objects being placed on high shelves so that people who are floating out of their bodies can report what they cannot have seen any other way. The idea for this came about because someone having a claimed OBE allegedly saw a training shoe outside on a window sill that he couldn't have seen from where he was. The plural of anecdote is not data though and no one has yet followed up with a hit on whatever these objects are. That's the way with paranormal research, early hope turns into disappointment when data gets stronger. Nail down the variables, like how long it takes to come off anaesthetic, and the amount of undeniably unexplainable experiences diminishes rapidly. It was always thus. I suspect the NDE belief will run and run as peoples desire to have confirmation of life after death is going to be good at papering over any cracks as you demonstrated in dismissing my point about seeing living relatives as well as dead ones. To the objective mind that's a clincher. So please don't assume that my placing NDE's in the Bollocks file means it was put there because it simply doesn't fit in with the way I see the world. The way I see things came about because the mystical world failed to make a good enough case for itself. Here is an example of someone being gracious and taking the time to explain clearly and concisely, without rudeness, why they feel like they feel. A couple people might want to take note and try and see how nice it is to read viewpoints when they are expressed without slamming what someone else believes. That is all class, your are dismissed. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:55 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: This is a beautiful picture.  Can you believe I just finished this book?  Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of this book - he addresses this supposition of hallucination specifically by making the very real point that his neocortex was not functioning, amongst other things.  How would he, in that state, know whether he even had a neocortex? Someone had to feed him this information. Neurologists point out that even in states where the patient seems to be in cardiac arrest, there is some slight activity that keeps a small amount of blood flow to the brain. In these emergency situations, there is no electroencephalographic monitoring of the brain, though that might be introduced as additional controls
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
Whoops - this was meant for Salyavin808. This book was interesting to me, not with respect to proving or disproving the phenomena of NDE's, but rather, the way it forced him to completely re-evaluate his assumptions as a scientist and the efforts he went to to reconcile his beliefs about the world and life with his experience. It's a great little story for many reasons, not just the obvious. From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander “The infidelity of the Gentile world, and that more especially of men of rank and learning in it, is resolved into a principle which, in my judgment, will account for the inefficacy of any argument, or any evidence whatever, viz. contempt prior to examination.” William Paley From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Read the book and get back to me...your research is perhaps not comprehensive enough..There are two ways to be fooled.  One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. - Soren Kierkegaard I've no doubt it's a wonderful story but I've read those before. Unless you can *unprove* that people meet relatives who are still alive (remember it was the experiencers who claim this) all you do is add to the mythos. So why would I need to read *another* book about something when the first objective one demonstrated that the experience wasn't what people thought it was? This is how you have to treat claims of the paranormal, first you see if there is a signal above the noise - something you can't account for any other way. In the NDE there isn't. But research is being carried out in hospitals and it's inconclusive to say the least. Most Out of Body Experiences are explainable by taking the timing of anaesthetic withdrawal into account, because people are paying attention to this and collating statements from care staff there is less chance of someone saying but I was clinically dead so it *can't* be my brain. In several cases things people have spookily witnessed could be accounted for by what was occurring around them when medical procedures were taking place. Obviously people aren't always as out of it as was thought. Maybe that explains why so few have NDE's? Another good study taking place is objects being placed on high shelves so that people who are floating out of their bodies can report what they cannot have seen any other way. The idea for this came about because someone having a claimed OBE allegedly saw a training shoe outside on a window sill that he couldn't have seen from where he was. The plural of anecdote is not data though and no one has yet followed up with a hit on whatever these objects are. That's the way with paranormal research, early hope turns into disappointment when data gets stronger. Nail down the variables, like how long it takes to come off anaesthetic, and the amount of undeniably unexplainable experiences diminishes rapidly. It was always thus. I suspect the NDE belief will run and run as peoples desire to have confirmation of life after death is going to be good at papering over any cracks as you demonstrated in dismissing my point about seeing living relatives as well as dead ones. To the objective mind that's a clincher. So please don't assume that my placing NDE's in the Bollocks file means it was put there because it simply doesn't fit in with the way I see the world. The way I see things came about because the mystical world failed to make a good enough case for itself. Here is an example of someone being gracious and taking the time to explain clearly and concisely, without rudeness, why they feel like they feel. A couple people might want to take note and try and see how nice it is to read viewpoints when they are expressed without slamming what someone else believes. That is all class, your are dismissed. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:55 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: This is a beautiful picture.  Can you believe I just finished this book?  Eben Alexander refutes all
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
Finally, someone who read the book. Given that this book is a recounting of his experience and a rudimentary attempt to reconcile his beliefs or lack thereof, as the case may be, what do you think are the key fatal errors in his assumptions? What did you get out of the book, if anything? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:05 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: The title is the worse part of the book.  Did you read it?  The point of the book isn't actually his NDE.  Yup. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  Hi Emily, Hi five for bringing new material. I grabbed it at the library as soon as its catnip (for me) title had its effect. I had to read some of the critiques to understand the scientific issues with his claims. Evaluating this book is a great education in how we need to approach the flood of popular books from scientists or doctors without a background in the field. Scientific understanding is a collaborative process filled with outliers expanding the edges of the known as well as people who are just a bit off. It taught me a lot about how complex determining death is in the short run. In the long run it becomes more obvious! Neurosurgeons are as naive as anyone else concerning the issues with being confident of our knowledge if they have not studied epistemology. He makes a few fatal errors in his assumptions. Having had the kind of experiences he recounts in the altered states produced by lots of meditation, I understand the compelling nature of what the brain can produce. I suspect under the extreme conditions his was under are even more compelling. His title is fascinating: Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife. It makes us feel as if we should take his claim more seriously because of his background doesn't it? It worked on me. But in the end we have a subjective account with no scientific way to know when exactly he had these experiences as his brain powered down and up. So we are left with another account that uses the tantalizing concept of near death which sounds more like death than not death in the same way that barely legal porn gets more Internet porn hits than legal porn. (Or so I am told having no first hand knowledge in this area.) Our minds are amazing and the collaborative effect of minds trying to get to the bottom of life's deepest questions is fascinating. I will always respond to the catnip of the outliers, but wont be surprised when, after more study, they don't quite deliver what they promised. I always learn from taking the ride. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Read the book Xeno and then I would love to have a discussion with you.it was written by a neuroscientist after all.  And he addresses exactly what you discuss below in the context of medical science.  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: This is a beautiful picture.  Can you believe I just finished this book?  Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of this book - he addresses this supposition of hallucination specifically by making the very real point that his neocortex was not functioning, amongst other things.  How would he, in that state, know whether he even had a neocortex? Someone had to feed him this information. Neurologists point out that even in states where the patient seems to be in cardiac arrest, there is some slight activity that keeps a small amount of blood flow to the brain. In these emergency situations, there is no electroencephalographic monitoring of the brain, though that might be introduced as additional controls someday. No one has figured out just when a patient has the NDE in these situations as they cannot point out they are having an experience, so currently there are a lot of unknowns about these experiences. Those that believe in NDEs assume the brain is not functioning, but this is unknown except in the case where the patient does not revive, and then of course they do not report an NDE. These kinds of experiences often occur under very specific circumstances where a patient or a subject
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
Alright, I will do that. I read it without having been subject to the reviews or media or marketing blitz that, having looked at those a bit, took a lot away from what is a very interesting little book on many levels. I did immerse myself on the ride to attempt to feel the experience he was trying to recount and his need to want to reconcile it with his science background. But, I have to go now and attend to some of life's little details. Have a good day. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander Why don't you tell me what you got out of it. I think the book has impressed you more than it did me. I already mentioned his biggest problem I remember in his reasoning in what I wrote. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Finally, someone who read the book.  Given that this book is a recounting of his experience and a rudimentary attempt to reconcile his beliefs or lack thereof, as the case may be, what do you think are the key fatal errors in his assumptions?  What did you get out of the book, if anything? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:05 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: The title is the worse part of the book.  Did you read it?  The point of the book isn't actually his NDE.  Yup. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  Hi Emily, Hi five for bringing new material. I grabbed it at the library as soon as its catnip (for me) title had its effect. I had to read some of the critiques to understand the scientific issues with his claims. Evaluating this book is a great education in how we need to approach the flood of popular books from scientists or doctors without a background in the field. Scientific understanding is a collaborative process filled with outliers expanding the edges of the known as well as people who are just a bit off. It taught me a lot about how complex determining death is in the short run. In the long run it becomes more obvious! Neurosurgeons are as naive as anyone else concerning the issues with being confident of our knowledge if they have not studied epistemology. He makes a few fatal errors in his assumptions. Having had the kind of experiences he recounts in the altered states produced by lots of meditation, I understand the compelling nature of what the brain can produce. I suspect under the extreme conditions his was under are even more compelling. His title is fascinating: Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife. It makes us feel as if we should take his claim more seriously because of his background doesn't it? It worked on me. But in the end we have a subjective account with no scientific way to know when exactly he had these experiences as his brain powered down and up. So we are left with another account that uses the tantalizing concept of near death which sounds more like death than not death in the same way that barely legal porn gets more Internet porn hits than legal porn. (Or so I am told having no first hand knowledge in this area.) Our minds are amazing and the collaborative effect of minds trying to get to the bottom of life's deepest questions is fascinating. I will always respond to the catnip of the outliers, but wont be surprised when, after more study, they don't quite deliver what they promised. I always learn from taking the ride. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Read the book Xeno and then I would love to have a discussion with you.it was written by a neuroscientist after all.  And he addresses exactly what you discuss below in the context of medical science.  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: This is a beautiful picture. ÃÆ'‚ Can you believe I just finished this book? ÃÆ'‚ Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of this book - he addresses this
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander
Ha ha ha ha. Barry, this first paragraph is hysterical.it's all about you, my friend, all about you and don't you forget it. Of course it's meaningless to you, it's not about you - thanks for weighing in again on that. And, then, what is even funnier is your second paragraph - re: the wish to find out. But, sweetie, you have zero interest. I didn't read the book with any expectations or pre-conceived ideas - simply with the desire to experience what the author was saying. Probably why it had such an impact on me. It wasn't about fitting his experience into my belief system, or not, as the case may be. Still, the book contains much more than just his recounting of the hallucinogenic aspects (or not) of his NDE and the conclusion that there is life after death, for me anyhow. I'm not that concerned with life after death - I'm more concerned with life. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander Good rap, Curtis. For me, as I said earlier, any exhortation to read the book and then we can talk is meaningless *if I have zero interest in the subject matter of the book*. Reading it just isn't going to happen. In this particular instance, I have zero interest in people's subjective experience of NDEs. On a slightly higher level, however, I see this discussion (and some of the antipathy it has gener- ated) as an extension of my favorite quote from the FFL Home Page: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out. For some of us (you, me, Salyavin, Paligap, etc.), I think it is safe to class us as Wish to find out-ers. We are not committed to any particular belief or set of beliefs re (in this instance) life after death. Therefore when we encounter claims either pro or con about its existence, our PROCESS is simply to wish to find out. We don't approach any data we gather along the way as either confirming or denying something we believe in, cuz we (or in this case maybe just me) don't HAVE any fixed beliefs in this regard. For believers, those who DO have an investment in a belief (in this instance in life after death), when they encounter data that seems to contradict their beliefs, they perceive this as a challenge, or even as an insult. Their PROCESS in my opinion is often to search for data that *validates* or seems to prove their existing beliefs. So they glom onto subjective reports as if they were proof. When someone suggests that they're NOT proof, they sometimes get uppity because the contrary data is perceived as a challenge to their beliefs. Me, I roll with wish to find out. With regard to this particular instance, I tend to actually *have* beliefs in reincarnation and life after death, based on subjective experiences of my own. But I'm not attached to them. And I don't consider them anything *more* than beliefs. They are NOT truth or fact or anything approaching it. They are just theories that I've developed to explain my subjective experiences. So when I find data that seems to contradict these theories, it doesn't raise my hackles at all. Nothing is challenging a belief that I've invested in, and I can just as easily accept no life after death as I can accept life after death. Just my opinion... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Hi Emily, Hi five for bringing new material. I grabbed it at the library as soon as its catnip (for me) title had its effect. I had to read some of the critiques to understand the scientific issues with his claims. Evaluating this book is a great education in how we need to approach the flood of popular books from scientists or doctors without a background in the field. Scientific understanding is a collaborative process filled with outliers expanding the edges of the known as well as people who are just a bit off. It taught me a lot about how complex determining death is in the short run. In the long run it becomes more obvious! Neurosurgeons are as naive as anyone else concerning the issues with being confident of our knowledge if they have not studied epistemology. He makes a few fatal errors in his assumptions. Having had the kind of experiences he recounts in the altered states produced by lots of meditation, I understand the compelling nature of what the brain can produce. I suspect under the extreme conditions his was under are even more compelling. His title is fascinating: Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife. It makes us feel as if we should take his claim more seriously because of his background doesn't it? It worked on me. But in the end we have a subjective account with no scientific way to know when exactly he had these experiences as his brain powered down and up. So we are left with
