Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[KWED]

Also the conclusion of the paper which supports my statement:

Among children who report memories of a previous
life, gender nonconformity is strongly associated
with a purported life as a member of a
different sex. This association may offer insights
into contributors to gender nonconformity in
children who do not express such memories. In
clinical settings, when past-life memories are present
in conjunction with GNC, it may be beneficial
to address this connection in focused
psychotherapy. It is possible that currently
unidentified hormonal or neurochemical factors
could predispose affected children to both phenomena,
or as Stevenson and Keil (2005) suggested,
perhaps a previously unrecognized factor
of consciousness may be involved.

Not only does that quote not provide any evidence to support a supernatural source for the "past life memories", it actually suggests that the memories may have a natural origin ("unidentified hormonal or neurochemical factors").

It is interesting that Ian Stevenson, the person whose work is referenced by all supporters of PLMs left a coded lock and he would pass the code onto others from the other side. It still remains locked 15 years later.

 

[Lekatt]

It has been my experience that for some there will never be enough evidence to change their beliefs. Those who hold certain religion as true and the same for those who hold science as true. I don't try to change anyone's beliefs, I do believe you can read and study contrary beliefs without changing your own. In the long run everyone will come to believe in different things than they once did. Everyone will lean new ideas and ways of life.

My beliefs have changed many times in my life. I now believe in a spiritual existence that includes reincarnation.

Science studying the brain will finally come to the conclusion that nothing is stored there. What we are is beyond the brain.

 

[leroy]

No it isn't.
Circular reasoning is where you begin with the conclusion you are trying to arrive at. (eg. "The afterlife exists because our soul goes there")

Rejecting the supernatural by default, (because you don’t have prior evidence for the supernatural) is circular reasoning, it´s impossible top have “prior evidence” if any given evidence would be rejected.

Claims for the supernatural are not rejected because claims for the supernatural are rejected. They are rejected because they provide no evidence to support them.

The hypothetical evidence was given, remember, “observing the man above and describe his t-shirt accurately”

Bu that's not how it works. We don't assign a 50/50 probability to every event for which there is no certain outcome.

If you have to alternatives and you don’t present good reasons for accepting one over the other, then giving each a 50% seems fair.

We have no evidence for anything happening by magic.

Because all the evidence is rejected by default.

Your argument is basically "Magic exists because if magic existed, it would be the best explanation for stuff that happens by magic".

No my argument is

- Magic is possible (given that nobody has proven magic to be impossible)

- We made an observation that would be explained by magic and cant be explained by natural mechanisms

- Therefore magic is the best alternative.


If you provide a good reason for why magic is impossible (or highly unlikely) my argument would collapse, if you provide a better alternative naturalistic explanation for the black t-shirt my argument would collapse.

Could you give an example of a "scientific mystery" has been solved by invoking another "mystery"?

I just did
Claiming that a man was infected by a virus is solving mystery with another mystery, because the questions of “where the virus came from” or “how did it infected the man” remain as mystery.

But no one makes a big deal out of it. It´s ok to solve a mystery with another mystery , usually knowledge leads to more questions.

Given enough evience One could argue that a man had an OBE even if you can’t answer how did it happened

 

[KWED]

Rejecting the supernatural by default, (because you don’t have prior evidence for the supernatural) is circular reasoning, it´s impossible top have “prior evidence” if any given evidence would be rejected.

You seem confused about this issue.
The supernatural isn't rejected "by default". It is rejected because there is no evidence or rational argument to support it. Any claims in support of the supernatural are considered and then accepted or rejected on their strengths or weaknesses. Sceptics do not refuse to look at or ignore claims of "evidence" or arguments. That is the religionist's approach.

Look at it this way...
A judge does not dismiss a case on the first morning because no evidence has been presented. The court looks at the evidence and arguments and then decides if if they stand up to scrutiny.
Basically you are saying that a jury is displaying circular logic when it decides that a witnesses evidence is unreliable. By your argument, they would have to assume every witness was telling only the truth.

The hypothetical evidence was given, remember, “observing the man above and describe his t-shirt accurately”

And it has been explained to you, repeatedly, why that does not prove that it was an OBE as there are other. more reasonable explanations available.
Yes, it is an hypothesis, but an hypothesis that can be rejected in favour of better hypotheses.

If you have to alternatives and you don’t present good reasons for accepting one over the other, then giving each a 50% seems fair.

OK.
You can't find your keys in their usual place. One person says you have put them somewhere else. Another says a ghost moved them.
Do you really think each has a 50% chance of being correct?

Because all the evidence is rejected by default.

No. It is rejected because it does not stand ups to examination.
As with the case of your shirt, there is no way to verify that the information was gained during and actual OBE, but there are other ways that it could have been obtained that do not require an extra layer of unsupported assumption.

If you claim your dog ate your homework, your teacher is going to want to know if you actually have a dog.

No my argument is
- Magic is possible (given that nobody has proven magic to be impossible)

Yes. Despite all the evidence suggesting that there is no "magic", it cannot be entirely ruled out.

- We made an observation that would be explained by magic and cant be explained by natural mechanisms

Wrong. There is an event where magic is one possibility, but there are other possibilities that do not require the assumption of the thing you are trying to demonstrate (that is circular reasoning).

- Therefore magic is the best alternative.

That is what is known as a "non sequitur" (Latin for "does not follow").
If we have explanations that do not require the assumption of something that has not been demonstrated, then they are, by default, better explanations.

Your argument is essentially this...
- Ghosts might exist.
- My keys are missing, and I didn't move them.
- Therefore ghosts are the best explanation.

If you provide a good reason for why magic is impossible (or highly unlikely) my argument would collapse, if you provide a better alternative naturalistic explanation for the black t-shirt my argument would collapse.

I don't need to show that it is impossible, only that it is unnecessary.
I have already given you a list of explanations that do not require the assumption of the thing that you are trying to demonstrate (circular reasoning).
Yes you seem to regard circular reasoning as such a flaw in an argument, that alone should be enough for you to reject your own argument.

Me: How do you know ghosts exist?
You: Because they stole my keys!

I just did
Claiming that a man was infected by a virus is solving mystery with another mystery, because the questions of “where the virus came from” or “how did it infected the man” remain as mystery.

WTF?
Viruses are not a mystery. How viruses spread is not a mystery.
And viral infection is not "a claim". It is something that can be shown through repeated, independent testing.

But no one makes a big deal out of it. It´s ok to solve a mystery with another mystery , usually knowledge leads to more questions.

Using your analogy, your position is like a man coming into ER suffering from anaemia and photosensitivity after a holiday in Romania, and you claiming that as vampires haven't been disproved, he has therefore been bitten by a vampire.

Given enough evience One could argue that a man had an OBE even if you can’t answer how did it happened

Yes, but such evidence has, as yet, not been presented.
Look, I get that you really want OBEs and an afterlife to be real. Unfortunately, there is simply not enough evidence to support such claims, and the anecdotes presented have better explanations.
But hey, feel free to believe in them if you want. It's a free country.

 

[KWED]

I now believe in a spiritual existence that includes reincarnation.

What did you "read and study" that convinced you that a spiritual existence that includes reincarnation is actually a reality? What was the evidence that convinced you that the claims made about experiences had actually happened?

Science studying the brain will finally come to the conclusion that nothing is stored there. What we are is beyond the brain.

This merely shows that you are not approaching things objectively or reasonably.
You have arrived at your conclusion by assumption and are insisting that it is right and stating that no evidence or argument will persuade you otherwise. Kinda ironic really.

 

[Lekatt]

What did you "read and study" that convinced you that a spiritual existence that includes reincarnation is actually a reality? What was the evidence that convinced you that the claims made about experiences had actually happened?

What happened to me was a near death experience. I did not read or study, I experienced the spiritual dimension and learned there about what I believe. I did read many NDEs of other people after that and found them to be basically the same in the core experience. I know it is not what a scientist wants as evidence. It is OK if you don't believe, I found this amazing NDE by a nurse. It told so much about spiritual things I think it is worth watching. Sill no need for you to believe anything, information only.

 

[KWED]

What happened to me was a near death experience. I did not read or study, I experienced the spiritual dimension and learned there about what I believe.

I have also experienced hallucinations that seemed absolutely real at the time.

I did read many NDEs of other people after that and found them to be basically the same in the core experience. I know it is not what a scientist wants as evidence. It is OK if you don't believe, I found this amazing NDE by a nurse. It told so much about spiritual things I think it is worth watching. Sill no need for you to believe anything, information only.

So someone claims to have met god while in a coma, and that is sufficient for you?
Fair enough.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What happened to me was a near death experience. I did not read or study, I experienced the spiritual dimension and learned there about what I believe. I did read many NDEs of other people after that and found them to be basically the same in the core experience. I know it is not what a scientist wants as evidence. It is OK if you don't believe, I found this amazing NDE by a nurse. It told so much about spiritual things I think it is worth watching. Sill no need for you to believe anything, information only.

I used to have these crazy experiences during/after sleep that I had no explanation for ...

I would be in what felt like a dream, but one of those dreams where you know you're dreaming. So I would try to force myself awake. When that happened, I would hear this really loud swooshing noise in my ears and seemingly coming from all over the place. I would see lights swirling around the room in a circular direction and I would feel like I was travelling down a long, dark tunnel. I could not move a single muscle or even speak. Sometimes I'd feel like someone/something was sitting on my chest or rolling over top of me. Other times, I'd feel like I couldn't breathe. After all that passed, I'd be left lying in my bed in a quiet room with the overwhelming feeling that somebody or something sinister was watching me, though I couldn't see it anywhere. This terrified me and I had no idea what was happening to me. Was there someone there with me? I had to know.

So I started Googling. I got all kinds of hits on people who had experienced what sounded like the exact same thing or as you put it, "basically the same in the core experience." Some claimed these were "out-of-body" experiences where our souls were leaving out body. Some claimed that they were being abducted by aliens. Others claimed that it must be a demon or a dark force visiting them. And yet others claimed that it was ghost. I can see how any of those interpretations could have been reached from this mysterious experience. Then finally one day, I came upon an academic site that described these experiences as "sleep paralysis." I found descriptions of almost the exact same experience that I had. Only these people were carrying out a study. So I joined the study. When I participated in the study, the physical processes involved were not only explained, but demonstrated to me. What was happening is that my brain was "waking up" before the rest of my body. During REM sleep our skeletal muscles are paralyzed probably to keep us from acting out or dreams and potentially hurting ourselves. So what was happening was that my brain was waking up before my paralyzed body was waking up - a sort of disconnect was occurring between my brain and my body, which caused my brain to go into a sort of panic mode, which is why everything around me seemed so scary and threatening. And it was also why I couldn't move any of my muscles. I underwent extensive sleep therapy where we worked out some solutions as to how I could make this stop. And it worked.

My point in telling this story is that I can easily see from my experience with sleep paralysis, how a person could interpret the experience as something other than what it actually was. I can see how people could attribute the experience to ghosts, if they already tended to believe in ghosts, or in "out-of-body experiences" if someone was predisposed to believe that. Or demons, or whatever.
But it was none of those things. Instead, there was a perfectly rational and natural explanation for what was happening to me. I just wasn't aware of it at the time and so I couldn't turn to it as an answer. I think a lot of people, when faced with something like this where they just don't know, mistakenly attribute it to all kinds of things, because we want to have explanations and answers. It's more comforting or easier to say "It must be ghosts because I can't explain it any other way" than "I don't know what is happening." Not knowing is a real drag. But just because you declare that "it's ghosts" doesn't mean that it is ghosts, or that you've demonstrated it's ghosts. Especially if you haven't shown that ghosts can even exist in the first place. Something isn't true or real just because you can imagine it. You have to actually demonstrate it, as the researchers did for me with my sleep paralysis.

And just because something isn't impossible, doesn't make it probable.

 

[Lekatt]

I have also experienced hallucinations that seemed absolutely real at the time.

o someone claims to have met god while in a coma, and that is sufficient for you?
Fair enough.

You don't have to believe, just for information. I had an NDE not an hallucination. It changed my life, allowed me to be myself..

 

[Lekatt]

To SkepticThinker

Your account was very interesting. It is true many people have similar experiences. But the brain does not wake up before the body because it controls the body. So what happened?

You were in a lucid dream state, knowing you were dreaming. Your spirit which leaves your body momentarily during lucid dreaming had not yet fully returned. So that is why you were paralyzed, the controller of your brain was not in your body. You and everyone is aware of themselves and surroundings at all times, in or out of the body.

Now that you found yourself in a dark tunnel, trying to breath is caused by fear of death, that would be my opinion. People usually experience love or fear in these circumstances. This love or fear in tied to beliefs systems. What I am doing is giving my opinion of what happened to you. We humans are too complicated to know, it could have been a hundred different things. You could be remembering a movie or something.

Do you have a fear of death. Maybe some early teachings of hell. I was so fearful of death and hell as a child I would openly start crying about it. But I have overcome it. if none of this means anything to you just forget it, speculation on my part. Wish you all the best.

 

[KWED]

You don't have to believe, just for information. I had an NDE not an hallucination.

You believe that you did not have an hallucination. You have no way of knowing that it wasn't. However, we know that under physical and psychological stress the brain can produce hallucinations that seem completely real to the person.
So all in all, more likely to be an hallucination than an actual experience of your consciousness leaving your body, etc.

It changed my life, allowed me to be myself..

People's lives can change utterly after all sorts of very real, natural events. Imaginary magic is not necessary.

 

[KWED]

Do you have a fear of death. Maybe some early teachings of hell. I was so fearful of death and hell as a child I would openly start crying about it.

And you believe this has prepared you to objectively and rationally assess your own experiences in relation to consciousness and death?
Fair enough.

 

[Lekatt]

You believe that you did not have an hallucination. You have no way of knowing that it wasn't. However, we know that under physical and psychological stress the brain can produce hallucinations that seem completely real to the person.
So all in all, more likely to be an hallucination than an actual experience of your consciousness leaving your body, etc.

Of course I have a way of knowing. Just read about the two experiences and it don't take a rocket scientist to see they are vastly different.

 

[KWED]

Of course I have a way of knowing.

How?

Just read about the two experiences

Where?

and it don't take a rocket scientist to see they are vastly different.

Why would two hallucinations being different necessarily mean that one of them is real?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This detected brain function when there was none, not detecting no brain function when there was some.

Yes. The relevance here was that your criterion was not stringent enough. That is, it is not enough to ask

how do we know there is any brain function when no brain function can be detected?

This is what I meant by "wrong question". The problem is that you are not asking for enough evidence. Detection itself can be problematic in the extreme, which was the entire point of running a dead fish through a standard experimental design or protocol used in many, many neuroimaging studies. The real-world always includes noise, so it is simply not asking enough to demand that some empirical methodology be employed to detect something like brain functioning. One must also ask, as your amended statement uppermost has it, the detection or measurement scheme employed actually test what it is intended to (and, additionally, the construct validity of the measurand in question- among other things).

So, the experiment merely highlighted the need for controlled testing.

Correct. So, again, my point in posting it was not to disagree with you that the author I quoted was making unsubstantiated claims. Rather, it was to point out that in order to substantiate claims we would need more than to experiments in which we measure or detect brain function as it is often or even typically detected or measured. We would need to ensure that the signals we refer to as brain function are indeed somehow of the kind of function we mean when we talk about brain function in this manner.

This is question begging. It is assuming that the experience memory occurred during a period of no brain activity.

No, it isn't question begging. It is you misunderstanding. I am saying that using standard measures and empirical methods common in the neurosciences we can "detect" too often what are really artefacts or "noise" misinterpreted as proxies for cognitive processes and specific ones at that.
The larger point concerns the very real, very problematic tendency to employ "detection" or measurement schemes to study phenomenon without a theory to explain it (which is, for instance, behind some recent work on the capacity of plants to communicate in ways they don't). It is why the dead fish experiment was performed. If we think we are detecting something about brain function in neuroimaging experiments, and these same experiments "work" on dead fish, then we were wrong about what we thought we were measuring.
The point was that detection independent of a theory which would explain how we could have seen what we supposedly detected is of very limited value. That's why the researchers performed an experiment on a dead fish. Neuroscientists don't believe dead fish can respond to visual stimuli, because we have nothing even remotely resembling a plausible theoretical basis for such a phenomena. Thus the "detection" is not any good.
Likewise, your proposal of brain function tests runs into the same issues. Here, the larger point is about the ability for completely brain dead individuals to possess the necessary chemical properties and indeed neurophysiological properties to have detectable brain function in the wider sense of neuronal activity in the manner it is often detected (e.g., through the electrophysiology of neuronal assemblies and at a quantum level the averaged spin orientation of hydrogen atoms or other proxies for cognitive function).
More simply, we could distinguish between cognitive functions and brain functions as the former are too often poor proxies for the latter. Which is one reason why the following statement is not really true:

We know a fair amount about how NDEs occur.

We don't. We actually don't even know as much as we think we do about the neuroimaging experiments and similar empirical tests intended to mimic NDE experiences to better understand them. But what we do know is that we have nothing like a remotely plausible explanation for how individuals with no functional brain activity could experience anything consciously or even encode memories of some form in the neuronal structures they would have to in order to later recall them.
Thus the measurement of brain functions is a non-starter in many ways. As with dead fish, it might help show how our instruments are misleading us. But it can't show us that people who have no actual, functional brain activity underlying cognitive processes could experience anything like NDEs. Of course, if we could establish the connection between proxy measures of NDEs, or could do the unthinkably unethical kind of experiments that would involve actual near-death and death of individuals subjected to controlled conditions involving neuroimaging technology and experimental designs. then we would be better able to explain what was actually happening for those individuals who experience these.

 

[leroy]

Look at it this way...
A judge does not dismiss a case on the first morning because no evidence has been presented. The court looks at the evidence and arguments and then decides if if they stand up to scrutiny.
Basically you are saying that a jury is displaying circular logic when it decides that a witnesses evidence is unreliable. By your argument, they would have to assume every witness was telling only the truth.E]

But that doesn’t seem to be what you are doing,

What you are doing is

1 establish that there are possible naturalistic explanations

2 conclude that nature did it, “no matter what”

Which means that “supernatural” losses by default because there will always be possible naturalistic explanations, it will always be possible that something happened due to an unknown natural mechanism.

And it has been explained to you, repeatedly, why that does not prove that it was an OBE as there are other. more reasonable explanations available.
Yes, it is an hypothesis, but an hypothesis that can be rejected in favour of better hypotheses.

Ok but in that case you would have to show that other hypothesis are better, you don’t simply assume that a hypothesis is better just because it is “natural”

No. It is rejected because it does not stand ups to examination.
As with the case of your shirt, there is no way to verify that the information was gained during and actual OBE, but there are other ways that it could have been obtained that do not require an extra layer of unsupported assumption.

What about the unsupported assumptions in your hypothesis?

1 you are assuming without evidence that the man knew about the t-shirt, despite all the evidence to the contrary

2 you are assuming that the man lied for some mysterious reasons despite the fact that he had nothing to win with that lie

These are big assumptions at least in some scenarios these assumptions would be less likely than a real OBE.

Yes. Despite all the evidence suggesting that there is no "magic", it cannot be entirely ruled out.

granted , if you do have evidence agaisnt magic, then
You should prefer a natural explanation over a supernatural explanation

Your argument is essentially this...
- Ghosts might exist.
- My keys are missing, and I didn't move them.
- Therefore ghosts are the best explanation.

No what I am saying is that if see a nebulous image of something that looks like my dead grand pa and says “boo I will take your keys” and if there is another witness who saw the same thing . the ghost hypothesis would be the best explanation.

Sure there are other naturalistic explanation, maybe my neighbor is a crazy scientist with alien technology and he is making a joke, but the “ghost hypothesis” would be better----

WTF?
Viruses are not a mystery. How viruses spread is not a mystery.
And viral infection is not "a claim". It is something that can be shown through repeated, independent testing.

But the origin of viruses is a mystery, and that doesn’t seem to be a big of a deal, “viral infection” is often the best explanation despite the fact that you are solving a mystery with an other mystery.

Yes, but such evidence has, as yet, not been presented.
Look, I get that you really want OBEs and an afterlife to be real. Unfortunately, there is simply not enough evidence to support such claims, and the anecdotes presented have better explanations.
But hey, feel free to believe in them if you want. It's a free country.

here is simply not enough evidence

That is not the point, the point is that hypothetically there could be evidence for OBEs and as I said earlier the t-shirt example would be an example of “evidence”

 

[KWED]

What you are doing is
1 establish that there are possible naturalistic explanations
2 conclude that nature did it, “no matter what”
Which means that “supernatural” losses by default because there will always be possible naturalistic explanations, it will always be possible that something happened due to an unknown natural mechanism.

*sigh*
No. Once again... we look at the possible explanations, assess the evidence and arguments for and against them, and then decide which is the best explanation.
At the start of the process, the claimed supernatural explanation is a possibility, and if there was sufficient evidence it would be the best explanation.
However, the supernatural explanation always suffers from a lack of supporting evidence compared to all the natural explanations. That is why one is favoured over the other. It is not because the explanation is supernatural, it is because it isn't very good.

Ok but in that case you would have to show that other hypothesis are better, you don’t simply assume that a hypothesis is better just because it is “natural”

As I explained earlier, if the two explanations for your keys not being in their usual place is either "a ghost moved them", or "you forgot that you put them somewhere else", then until you have shown that ghosts exist, forgetting is the better explanation.
If we knew that ghosts exist and there has been previous cases of them moving keys, then it would be a reasonable explanation.
Understand?

What about the unsupported assumptions in your hypothesis?

Remember I said "an extra layer"?
All the possible means of them knowing the shirt colour that I proposed require just the single assumption, that X happened. And X is something that we know happens, we have evidence of X happening on a regular basis.
Your's requires the extra assumption that the consciousness can leave the physical brain and operate independently - and that is something that we have no evidence for.

These are big assumptions at least in some scenarios these assumptions would be less likely than a real OBE.

This is where you are question begging. The object is to show that OBEs are real rather than just imagined. You are claiming that OBEs are real as part of your argument that they are real.

granted , if you do have evidence agaisnt magic, then
You should prefer a natural explanation over a supernatural explanation

There is lots of evidence against magic. Therefore claiming that magic is as reasonable an answer as deception is wrong.

No what I am saying is that if see a nebulous image of something that looks like my dead grand pa and says “boo I will take your keys” and if there is another witness who saw the same thing . the ghost hypothesis would be the best explanation.

Sure there are other naturalistic explanation, maybe my neighbor is a crazy scientist with alien technology and he is making a joke, but the “ghost hypothesis” would be better----

Poor analogy. It is more like your keys not being in their usual place and you having a dream than your dead relative moved them, and then insisting that "ghost" is a better explanation than "mistake".

But the origin of viruses is a mystery, and that doesn’t seem to be a big of a deal,

It's not really any more of a mystery than the origin of any other life form. Once we go far enough back, it all gets a bit hazy.

“viral infection” is often the best explanation despite the fact that you are solving a mystery with an other mystery.

But where is the "mystery"?
Someone displays symptoms of illness (mystery). A virus is detected (mystery over). The diagnosis and prognosis are then made.
By your argument, finding the perpetrator of a murder is just "solving a mystery with a mystery" because we don't know how life originated on earth.

That is not the point, the point is that hypothetically there could be evidence for OBEs and as I said earlier the t-shirt example would be an example of “evidence”

Yes, and I gave you an example of the sort of thing that might provide proper evidence.

There are two separate issues here:
1. Are OBEs real, or are they tricks of the mind? (Answer, there is no evidence they are real and good reason to think they are tricks of the mind).
2. Could it be possible to construct experiments that could properly test whether OBEs are real? (Answer, yes. Some attempts have been made but they have all produced negative results. More sophisticated experiments have not been done).

When we look at 1 & 2 together, it seems that OBEs are tricks of the mind, but more sophisticated and extensive testing would give us a better idea. Do you agree?

 

[gnostic]

Rejecting the supernatural by default, (because you don’t have prior evidence for the supernatural) is circular reasoning, it´s impossible top have “prior evidence” if any given evidence would be rejected.

It is quite clear that you don’t know, nor understand what “circular reasoning” is.

Circular reasoning is where you make a claim about something, like you having experienced NDE, for example, and expecting to be accepted as true on that claim alone.

A claim made, isn’t evidence.

You are only just making claim, that’s all, without verifying with logic, without evidence or both “without logic & evidence”.

Evidence are not about making claims.

And it has become clear that you don’t what “evidence” is. Like your earlier reply, below:

If the NDE are vague and ambiguous as you claim then I would reject them as evidence. If the descriptions are detailed and accurate like apologetics claim I would accept them as evidence.

This is another example of you don’t understand what evidence. You are confusing “claims” as evidence.

It doesn’t matter if you have made “claim” that are

(A) clear, unambiguous, vivid and detailed, or

(B) vague or ambiguous.​

Any claim made, regardless if it is A or B, the claim by itself, are just words that haven’t been verified or can’t be verified.

A claim cannot verify itself.

What you are doing is circular reasoning, not evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To SkepticThinker
Your account was very interesting. It is true many people have similar experiences. But the brain does not wake up before the body because it controls the body. So what happened?

What happened is what I explained. My consciousness woke up before my brain was able to wake up my central nervous system. Our brains shut down to a certain extent while we are sleeping you know. This is all demonstrable. I literally was able to watch my own brain scans that were taken while I was asleep.

You were in a lucid dream state, knowing you were dreaming. Your spirit which leaves your body momentarily during lucid dreaming had not yet fully returned. So that is why you were paralyzed, the controller of your brain was not in your body. You and everyone is aware of themselves and surroundings at all times, in or out of the body.

No, I was paralyzed for the reason I discussed. This is demonstrable, unlike your claim.

When has anyone shown that there are spirits even exist in the first place? And when did you show that they can or do leave bodies?

Now that you found yourself in a dark tunnel, trying to breath is caused by fear of death, that would be my opinion.

It wasn't a dark tunnel. It was a tunnel with swirling lights in it and loud whooshing noises.

While I thank you for your opinion, But I'm not really interested in opinions. I'm interested in facts and evidence.

People usually experience love or fear in these circumstances. This love or fear in tied to beliefs systems. What I am doing is giving my opinion of what happened to you. We humans are too complicated to know, it could have been a hundred different things. You could be remembering a movie or something.

It could have been the very thing I said it was, given that there's ample evidence for it and given that I participated in a study that provided me with brain scans, videos of myself sleeping, etc. You know, evidence.

Do you have a fear of death. Maybe some early teachings of hell. I was so fearful of death and hell as a child I would openly start crying about it. But I have overcome it. if none of this means anything to you just forget it, speculation on my part. Wish you all the best.

I don't want to die any time soon but I don't spend a ton of time thinking about death. And I definitely don't fear hell, as I think it is imaginary.

I was hoping my story would illustrate my point about misattributing causes and characteristics to things we don't fully understand and can't demonstrate, but alas, I fear it hasn't worked.
All the best to you.

 

[Lekatt]

To SkepticThinker

Fair enough.

I live in a spiritual world, but others do not.