Hoover Institute video on Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know what you are referring to when you mention what a ghost might look like.

We know what people claim a ghost is, but we have no evidence of ghosts to have a proper definition or to know that they exist as defined. What we think are ghosts might be tourists from the future enjoying an excursion into the past that results in them being slightly visible to us. That explanation is just as valid as ghosts being the disembodied spirits of the dead. When you have little or no evidence for a claim, it largely exists on our ignorance and not on evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Amazing, not a biologist in the bunch.

Why should I believe for a second they have any business talking about biology?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You should have read subjective descriptions and then confirmations of those descriptions by others present who were conscious.
I see no reasonable answer to that evidence other than out of body consciousness, whatever that might mean I don't know.
All I need is the evidence to see the obvious conclusion (without eliminating every other possible answer from the "thousands" of possibilities.) The compilers of the reports of course do not come to a conclusion about OBEs being real, that would be a claim that is outside science and would need much more study for science to say that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even if it is the obvious answer.

The fact is we don't know what NDE's and OBE's are and there is no evidence to support any sort of rational conclusion or fanciful one. The best we can do is relate to the physical nature of the brain and existing knowledge of it to conclude it is likely to be described and explained on that basis.

 

[Brian2]

That reports of witnesses are carried out by a careful, rigorous and systematic method is not in itself evidence in support of the claims captured in those witness statements. It would be a false association to do so, whether intentionally or accidentally.

With so little information, the possible explanations are limited only by the imagination. What we do know from out study of brains is that minds operate electrochemically through a medium of physical tissue. That perturbations of this chemistry can have distinct, often characteristic responses to perception. LSD effects the same parts of the brain that operate when you rub your eyes and see stars, for instance.

Is it more likely that these experiences have a reasonable explanation in the natural, physical and chemical state of the brain under stress or is it more likely that explanations rest on unverified claims of spirits and undemonstrated functions like extracranial navigation.

If we downgrade the verification of the reports of the OBEers then that might allow for the imagination of the OBEers, with a minimum of input from senses, to give a reasonable answer.
If some reports are true, that a number on top of an operating room machine was remembered, that the report of the OBEers was of events in another room, then that would make it hard imo to downgrade the verification.
But I suppose Occam's Razor can be a sharp and a blunt instrument when it comes to eliminating those things that are hard to explain.

 

[Brian2]

If the conclusion is obvious, then why is it that people that study these things don't see it? Why do neurologists not see it given that they spend more time studying the brain than you or I do.

Calling your desired answer the "obvious" answer is a false association resting squarely on your personal bias and not on any evidence.

I don't know what the answer is. You can certainly tell us what you believe it is. But doing that in public lays you open to challenge if you want to claim what you believe are also the facts. I'm just trying to get that point across.

Neurologists with a naturalistic methodology and who are studying the whole of NDEs and not just the OBEs might come up with neurological explanations, but not for the OBEs from what I am told.
My desired answer is obvious to me. It's one of those subjective things, it is an obvious but subjective conclusion.
Others it seems have their own obvious but subjective conclusions about the evidence. They have no scientific evidence behind their conclusions either, as science does not know the answer.
But they are quite forceful in their presentation.

 

[Brian2]

The fact is we don't know what NDE's and OBE's are and there is no evidence to support any sort of rational conclusion or fanciful one. The best we can do is relate to the physical nature of the brain and existing knowledge of it to conclude it is likely to be described and explained on that basis.

Considering the resistance to any explanation beyond the physical it is likely that a physical explanation will be sought and put forth. Hasn't worked so far after many years of trying.
I guess the next step is to try to get uncontested evidence and have good methods for that and then if necessary, to say that any evidence before that was wrong (if the uncontested approach ends up denying OBEs)
I wonder if it is possible for science to actually conclude that OBEs are real, and if so, how long would it take and how many studies.

 

[Brian2]

We know what people claim a ghost is, but we have no evidence of ghosts to have a proper definition or to know that they exist as defined. What we think are ghosts might be tourists from the future enjoying an excursion into the past that results in them being slightly visible to us. That explanation is just as valid as ghosts being the disembodied spirits of the dead. When you have little or no evidence for a claim, it largely exists on our ignorance and not on evidence.

I don't mind having a subjective view that you call an argument from ignorance. And views on this topic are arguments from ignorance really if mine is.
But really my argument is not that a natural explanation has not been found so a consciousness outside the body is correct.
My argument is that consciousness outside the body is obviously correct if we accept the evidence we have.
That a natural explanation has not been found is just icing on the cake.

 

[Brian2]

Amazing, not a biologist in the bunch.

Why should I believe for a second they have any business talking about biology?

Are they talking about biology? They sound like they are talking about theological implications in biology.
There is nothing biological in there which a layman could not understand probably.
They are not theologians either, so why bother listening to them on theology.
Then again, why bother listening to any theologian when they disagree.

 

[gnostic]

Considering the resistance to any explanation beyond the physical it is likely that a physical explanation will be sought and put forth. Hasn't worked so far after many years of trying.
I guess the next step is to try to get uncontested evidence and have good methods for that and then if necessary, to say that any evidence before that was wrong (if the uncontested approach ends up denying OBEs)
I wonder if it is possible for science to actually conclude that OBEs are real, and if so, how long would it take and how many studies.

Because it is people, like “you” for example, who think there are “evidence” for OBE in NDE, when there are no such evidence to support them.

You are the who keeps bringing up NDE & OBE in the first place.

And you also brought up consciousness and mind being separate from the “physical body” and “physical brain”, but cannot show evidence for what you claimed. For instance, you again make claim of there being evidence:

My argument is that consciousness outside the body is obviously correct if we accept the evidence we have.

What evidence?

Evidence are sometimes physical that you can show, something that you can demonstrate and measure.

But as always, the “claims of evidence”, are nothing more than empty claims - YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE for “consciousness outside the body”.

Anecdotes don’t count as evidence, they are merely claims of experiences, which are no better than unsubstantiated personal opinions or personal belief.

I don’t doubt people who are clinically dead, can revive after period of time, but what they supposedly saw or hear in their otherworldly experiences, are what I have doubts about their experience being real.

I am quite sure there have been a number of people who died and revived, and experiences nothing of the sorts, eg OBE, visitations of dead family members or other entities, etc.

I used to be interested in the whole NDE & OBE, back in the days when I was in my late teens & in my 20s, when I believe in all sorts of nonsense.

Anyway, don’t claim you have evidence, when you don’t have any to present, because otherwise we would consider that you are lying to us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If we downgrade the verification of the reports of the OBEers then that might allow for the imagination of the OBEers, with a minimum of input from senses, to give a reasonable answer.
If some reports are true, that a number on top of an operating room machine was remembered, that the report of the OBEers was of events in another room, then that would make it hard imo to downgrade the verification.
But I suppose Occam's Razor can be a sharp and a blunt instrument when it comes to eliminating those things that are hard to explain.

It really boils down to a phenomenon that we don't have enough information to conclude something other than natural causes that we are familiar with in trying to describe it objectively.

I can't tell you what it is or isn't, but I don't have any way to declare it to be the expression of something that itself is not objectively verifiable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Neurologists with a naturalistic methodology and who are studying the whole of NDEs and not just the OBEs might come up with neurological explanations, but not for the OBEs from what I am told.
My desired answer is obvious to me. It's one of those subjective things, it is an obvious but subjective conclusion.
Others it seems have their own obvious but subjective conclusions about the evidence. They have no scientific evidence behind their conclusions either, as science does not know the answer.
But they are quite forceful in their presentation.

The difference between what a person believes and what can be demonstrated is a sobering realization.

If a valid, natural reason is found to explain and describe these phenomena, it won't change my personal beliefs. It will be just one more thing that I see as God giving us to better understand the world with minds I believe He gave us.

 

[Astrophile]

Heavier elements were produced by nuclear reactions in stars, and were then ejected into the interstellar medium, most of which is below 100 Kelvin (-210°C). It is in this cold interstellar medium, enriched with the heavy elements produced by stars, that we start getting interesting chemistry, of the sort that may have led to the origin of life.

This is wrong; 100 Kelvin is -173°C, not -210°C. Sorry for the mistake.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Read the article. The OBEers describe their resuscitations accurately and those with no NDEs do not. That sounds like a controlled study to me.

No, that's not what a controlled study is.

But even if it was, describing what happened in the room one is in, is not all that remarkable. Why do you think it is? And why do you think that such a thing indicates that "disembodied minds" can exist?

I'm curious as to what you think about actual controlled studies on this subject matter in which notes were placed in the room, out of the view of the patient to see if they could read them while supposedly "out of body." No one was able to recall any of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How did science progress before photography or recording machines? I guess people gave their anecdotes of what happened.

And that's how we ended up with a bunch of mythical "old wives' tales" that people just believe without evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is interesting, however, of those persons who i cited (Late Aussie businessman Kerry Packer and Greg Page from the Wiggles) who clinically died and came back, how do we reconcile their inability to recall anything during that period of death?

Their brains weren't completely shut down, because they weren't actually dead. Brain dead is dead.

I attached this link in another post I made on the subject. It's pretty interesting ...

Researchers were able to capture brain scans of a brain during the moments it was dying and right afterward. What they discovered were, "rhythmic brain wave patterns around the time of death that are similar to those occurring during dreaming, memory recall, and meditation."

First Scan of the Dying Brain Reveals a "Last Recall".

I guess what i am saying is that if there is evidence of brain activity for some, why do others not recall a single thing of the event? That suggests the theory from researching brain activity is not supported in all cases as it doesn't explain why some do not recall a thing. I think that casts significant doubt on the theory.

My grandfather is one of those people. His heart stopped during surgery, though he was never declared brain dead. What he told me was that it was just like sleeping - just darkness and no memory of anything.

I suppose the question now becomes, aside from the heart connection issue (ie the pump turns off), how long can the brain function without the body replenishing oxygen? I guess it becomes a bit of a chicken or the egg scenario...the heart may stop because of no brain activity, or it may stop because of a failure within the heart itself. makes it a bit hard to answer the dilemma i suppose...or perhaps it provides the answer?

That's a very interesting question. I think the link I provided above allows at least some illumination on the subject. Of course, we further study is needed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not mention an specific God.

Let's not play games here. You have a very specific God in mind.

I just used the available evidence and sound reasoning to end up with the conclusion that consciousness has been demonstrated to exist outside physical bodies at certain times.

What you did was an exercise in cherry-picking and confirmation bias. There is nothing sound about that reasoning.

How do you account for my grandfather's "near-death experience?" His heart stopped on the operating table. What did he see? Nothing. He said it was just like being asleep. So, how do you account for his account, and those like it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

NDE- Near Death Experience
How does a brain do what you are suggesting?

Did you not read the study I provided?

They were unconscious, brain anaesthetised, eyes closed.

So? That doesn't address my point.

You can take away all but the first conclusion.
-That consciousness is separable from the brain as a "disembodied mind."

So this one?

How did you determine that? Just from these cherry-picked reports alone?

-That there is some afterlife in which these disembodied minds live on (as 'spirits'?)
-This afterlife takes place in, and was created by the specific god of the Bible that you worship.
-That having an "OBE experience" is direct evidence for your religious beliefs.
-That a brain is at it's most lucid at the time it is dying.

So you claim to not to believe any of this, besides your assertions to the contrary?

-So you think that someone should be able to see a mind. What would that look like?

You're the one claiming that minds can exist without brains. I'm asking (apparently endless times) how you've demonstrated that.

I don't think minds exist outside of brains and I've seen no evidence to indicate they could. And I've given reasons and evidence to demonstrate that minds are tied to brains. You have provided virtually no response to those. You're the one claiming they are separable, so you're the one who needs to provide evidence of that. It's not up to me to provide evidence for something I don't accept.

So you are saying that these NDE OBEs are useless as evidence that minds can exist outside the body because there is no 'other' evidence that minds can exist outside the body....................

There is no evidence that the two things exist independently of each other. Including NDE or OBE experiences. Hence the reason I keep asking you to demonstrate that minds and bodies exist separately from each other.

so we'll ignore the OBE experiences as evidence and say the same thing when something else comes up that is evidence of minds outside the body.

You've yet to demonstrate that these experiences indicate that minds exist outside of brains. Never mind the rest of the baggage you believe stems from that.

-Because we don't know that a disembodied mind is going to function badly when separated from a broken brain, your end statement means nothing.

If anything these OBEs show that the mind when separated from the malfunctioning brain, works fine.

What it shows is what we already know about brains - that they attempt to piece together missing information after-the-fact, based on what it already knows about our environment. Our memories aren't photographic recalls of our experiences, you know.

But again., you don't just get to claim that minds are being separated from brains in so-called NDE experiences. That's not a demonstrable fact. That is your claim.

-Yes NDEs mean "Near" Death Experiences.
-Then dismiss the stories that have no basis in fact.
.
Yes it is an experience which many people have and it is a verifiable experience. Yet many people, including yourself, refuse to think that OBEs are possible.

Oh, I believe people actually experience something in this state of NDE. Just like they do when having dreams or hallucinations.
But you've yet to tie it into anything demonstrating that minds can exist outside of bodies.

That is the only thing I am concluding really, that OBEs are possible. That the evidence shows that.

It's not though. Your claim comes with a ton of baggage that you also can't demonstrate.

You already know the implications of this in relation to minds, spirits etc and it upsets your whole world view, hence the stubborn resistance to seeing the evidence.

And I say this is an exercise in psychological projection. You have no idea what my worldview is, and you're just trying to shirk your burden of proof.

I work in the field of psychology. So my view on this is based on what I understand about how brains work. How about you?
When you can demonstrate the existence of spirits and disembodied minds, please let me know, as that would be something I would be quite interested in. Despite what you think, I am deeply interested in anything having to do with the brain. We've still got a lot to learn.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK the verifications are of the reports that the OBEers have. I think I have said that all along, and I don't think I have said anything about any claim by the OBEers of an explanation.
So the reports of the OBEers and verified.
Assuming the whole thing is not a lot of OBEers and confirmers lying about things, what are some possible explanations?

Do you have an example we can discuss?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If we downgrade the verification of the reports of the OBEers then that might allow for the imagination of the OBEers, with a minimum of input from senses, to give a reasonable answer.
If some reports are true, that a number on top of an operating room machine was remembered, that the report of the OBEers was of events in another room, then that would make it hard imo to downgrade the verification.
But I suppose Occam's Razor can be a sharp and a blunt instrument when it comes to eliminating those things that are hard to explain.

Do you have an example of this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Considering the resistance to any explanation beyond the physical it is likely that a physical explanation will be sought and put forth. Hasn't worked so far after many years of trying.
I guess the next step is to try to get uncontested evidence and have good methods for that and then if necessary, to say that any evidence before that was wrong (if the uncontested approach ends up denying OBEs)
I wonder if it is possible for science to actually conclude that OBEs are real, and if so, how long would it take and how many studies.

Dude, we only just started seriously studying and learning about the brain like, halfway through the 20th Century. That we've haven't figured out every single thing about it yet isn't all that remarkable and it doesn't mean you can start drawing conclusions based on inconclusive (at best) data.