Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[Me Myself]

None. If he ever did use the term 'irrefutable' then I would disagree.

Let´s ditch the term irrefutable then. What is the scientific evidence?

 

[George-ananda]

I'm not sure what distinction is meant by "broad science" and "narrow science", but science just investigates questions.

The philospher I was quoting was Ken Wilber. Wikipedia explains more eloquently than I:

Wilber describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions). What he calls "broad science" would include evidence from logic, mathematics, and from the symbolic, hermeneutical, and other realms of consciousness. Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners. Wilber's own conception of science includes both narrow science and broad science, e.g., using electroencephalogram machines and other technologies to test the experiences of meditators and other spiritual practitioners, creating what Wilber calls "integral science".[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed

 

[George-ananda]

Let´s ditch the term irrefutable then. What is the scientific evidence?

That he had vivid life-changing experiences he feels certain was real while there was no detectable brain activity.

It's strong but not 'irrefutable' and we know the refutations by now.

 

[Me Myself]

That he had vivid life-changing experiences he feels certain was real while there was no detectable brain activity..

The bolded part cannot be evidenced.

Have you ever had a dream that felt like hours when it was less than a minute? how can it be evidenced that he did not experienced all that he described in the second after gaining brain activity and before opening his eyes?

Because it is 100% possible with dreams.

 

[George-ananda]

The bolded part cannot be evidenced.

Have you ever had a dream that felt like hours when it was less than a minute? how can it be evidenced that he did not experienced all that he described in the second after gaining brain activity and before opening his eyes?

Because it is 100% possible with dreams.

In the state his brain was in for quite some time it does not seem reasonable that he had a dream as we know it (as dreams require noticeable brain activity). And upon waking we know our dreams were dreams. He feels certain his experience was of something real above the physical level.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The New York Times is concerned with what respectable scientists are doing (in the editor's minds). The scientists on their staff are too respectable and serious to cover psuedo-science (as they call it). They would lose the respect of 'real' scientists then.

Not true. Susan Blackmore, for example, has done research on the paranormal and out-of-body experiences and she is highly respected. It's the quality of the research which earns respect. If there was quality research demonstrating a supernatural aspect to OBEs it would make a huge splash.

Because 99% of the 'signals' do die and don't talk later.

I'm talking about the part of the signal that does talk later. Even then, there's no reason not to have a big, unmistakable signal, if the phenomenon is real.

 

[Me Myself]

In the state his brain was in for quite some time it does not seem reasonable that he had a dream as we know it (as dreams require noticeable brain activity). And upon waking we know our dreams were dreams. He feels certain his experience was of something real above the physical level.

Please re-read the post you quoted, I am not sure you got it, but if any part of it seemed unclear I can explain it again

I am telling you that there is no evidence he didn´t had the dream in some in-between state from his complete unactivity to the activity of an awake mind.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That he had vivid life-changing experiences he feels certain was real while there was no detectable brain activity.

The bolded part cannot be evidenced.

Exactly. Call the next witness.

 

[George-ananda]

Not true. Susan Blackmore, for example, has done research on the paranormal and out-of-body experiences and she is highly respected. It's the quality of the research which earns respect. If there was quality research demonstrating a supernatural aspect to OBEs it would make a huge splash.

Susan Blackmore is someone I'm familiar with. She is usually the name dropped by skeptics only really interested in their side of the coin. In fact a couple weeks ago, I saw an internet article on her and an interview with her. She admitted she hasn't touched the NDE subject in a couple decades and was still touting arguements long dismissed. The interviewer was obviously on the pro-side and she came across very poorly.

The point the interviewer made in his comments was that she is the leading name dropped by skeptics and consequently she has been given more noteriety than her work was worth.

I'm talking about the part of the signal that does talk later. Even then, there's no reason not to have a big, unmistakable signal, if the phenomenon is real.

I think you misunderstood my quote (and it may well have been because of my poor wording). My quote was:
Because 99% of the 'signals' do die and don't talk later.

What I was trying to say is that 99% of the time NDEs do become DEs. So there are very few talkers left.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think you misunderstood my quote (and it may well have been because of my poor wording). My quote was:
Because 99% of the 'signals' do die and don't talk later.

What I was trying to say is that 99% of the time NDEs do become DEs. So there are very few talkers left.

Right. And, out of the talkers who are left, how many do we expect to be able to recall details which would falsify the null hypothesis? It should be most of them, if the phenomenon is real, not just a few. Even on this thread we can see the noise blurring out the signal, we have a doctor making claims about his NDE which cannot be verified.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right. And, out of the talkers who are left, how many do we expect to be able to recall details which would falsify the null hypothesis? It should be most of them, if the phenomenon is real, not just a few. Even on this thread we can see the noise blurring out the signal, we have a doctor making claims about his NDE which cannot be verified.

Silly Spinky! The proof of NDEs is an argument from authority (they're doctors), not from scientific method.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Wilber describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions). What he calls "broad science" would include evidence from logic, mathematics, and from the symbolic, hermeneutical, and other realms of consciousness. Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners.

And born-again Christians? Their testimony would be allowable evidence in some type of science?

I don't see how that can be. There are people who hallucinate (at least the rest of us can't sense what they sense.) Will the testimony of those people also be accepted as scientific evidence?

If not, why not? How is their testimony different from that of the meditator?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually I agree with George-ananda, the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners should be included in our science of the mind. And, it seems to me, it is included. The science does not demonstrate a paranormal explanation for the mystical experiences of meditators and spiritual practitioners, that's all. They are still strange phenomena and valid subjects of study.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually I agree with George-ananda, the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners should be included in our science of the mind. And, it seems to me, it is included. The science does not demonstrate a paranormal explanation for the mystical experiences of meditators and spiritual practitioners, that's all. They are still strange phenomena and valid subjects of study.

And the testimony of born-again Christians?

I find their witness somewhat interesting, but only in the same way as I find descriptions of intoxication to be interesting. I guess we could say that testimony of intoxicated people should be included in our science of the mind. Maybe all testimony should be included, including my poetic trances during nature walks.

 

[McBell]

Maybe all testimony should be included, including my poetic trances during nature walks.

Good idea.
Perhaps opening it up will present some facts other than mere claims...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And the testimony of born-again Christians?

I find their witness somewhat interesting, but only in the same way as I find descriptions of intoxication to be interesting. I guess we could say that testimony of intoxicated people should be included in our science of the mind. Maybe all testimony should be included, including my poetic trances during nature walks.

Exactly. Consider, for example, the testimony of addicts going through withdrawal. If they all independently report seeing, feeling, and sincerely believing that bugs are crawling all over their skin, that is a real phenomenon. Understanding how/why these experiences occur is a valid subject of study. Now, does this mean we assume the feeling of invisible bugs requires the existence of invisible bugs to explain? Of course not. The same is true of out-of-body experiences, etc.

Yes the testimony of born-again Christians should be admitted as evidence. The evidence may not indicate what born-again Christians think it indicates, but no matter.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Exactly. Consider, for example, the testimony of addicts going through withdrawal. If they all independently report seeing, feeling, and sincerely believing that bugs are crawling all over their skin, that is a real phenomenon. Understanding how/why these experiences occur is a valid subject of study. Now, does this mean we assume the feeling of invisible bugs requires the existence of invisible bugs to explain? Of course not. The same is true of out-of-body experiences, etc.

I'm OK with that. Maybe I was just confused by talk of 'broad' science, as if George were describing some other way of doing science, rather than simply a more inclusive reporting of data. So far as I know, brain science would currently welcome any sort of reporting about mental sensations, experiences, etc.

 

[Magic Man]

I can understand that. But that does tell me you are comfortable with your world-view and would be comfortable if nothing changes. For some people. maybe zero times; maybe once; maybe twice in a lifetime there is a world-view paradigm tipping point. Something internal makes you hungry for and accepting of change. But these are not common events.

Of course I'm comfortable. I'm open to new ideas, but so far my worldview fits the reality I experience.

What you've been asking me for is what I would call EUREKA cases. Where everyone of reason must be stunned. No such thing I keep trying to say.when human testimony and subjective experience is involved.

In other words, you think there can't be such solid examples, and yet you believe anyway. I take that to mean you're comfortable in your worldview and are comfortable with it not changing.

I'm not asking for "Eureka" cases. I'm asking for cases that at least point to a supernatural explanation being more likely than a natural one.
　

Above I expressed my opinion again on 'smoking-gun' stories. These things, because of there against-the-grain and unfashionable position in modern science are side articles in society. Put it on the cover of Newsweek and Newsweek is under attack.

It's not that they're unfashionable in modern science. It's that there's no reason to take the phenomenon seriously at this point.

Well, I would consider your opinions as coming from one comfortable with a particular world-view and would prefer his world-view unchanged. This is the way with 99% of us.

I wouldn't "prefer" it unchanged. I'm comfortable with it as it is, but I'm fine with it being changed. If an NDE story came along that was really solid and held up to questioning, I'd embrace it. I could accuse you of the same thing, though. You believe in NDEs and you don't want that to change, which is why you don't question the stories the way some of us do.

 

[Magic Man]

In the state his brain was in for quite some time it does not seem reasonable that he had a dream as we know it (as dreams require noticeable brain activity). And upon waking we know our dreams were dreams. He feels certain his experience was of something real above the physical level.

The bold part should read "it does not seem reasonable to me". You want to believe his experience was really what he says it was, so you deny that it being a dream is reasonable. Looking at it objectively, it is perfectly reasonable that it was just a dream. There is nothing in his story that gives evidence otherwise. The only reason to think it wasn't a dream is because he doesn't think it was. That's not exactly convincing.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm OK with that. Maybe I was just confused by talk of 'broad' science, as if George were describing some other way of doing science, rather than simply a more inclusive reporting of data. So far as I know, brain science would currently welcome any sort of reporting about mental sensations, experiences, etc.

Yeah, I think George was trying to imply that "narrow science" was closed-minded science that isn't interested in paranormal explanations because they automatically dismiss them because they're closed-minded. As opposed to "broad science" which is open to every and any idea under the sun, because that's the only way to be open-minded. Which of course ignores the fact that all science is open to any idea out there. Most scientists might choose not to test certain ideas because they don't seem to have any merit, but not because they're closed-minded.