Do spiritual things exist?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid1.html
First, I am going to whine here about him concluding his speech by asserting the old "worldly atheist" myth. He was talking about how the belief that our lives are transient is going to make people materialistic, short-sighted, and inclined to live for the moment. This demonstrates to me that he has never actually taken time to truly come to terms with the idea, "I won't always be here."
Nothing puts a fire under your ass to find something other than yourself to live for more than the idea that, someday, you will be gone, and there will be no coming back. If your own existence is all that you live for, you might as well end it. There are a lot of fun and painless ways of doing it, too. Atheists are usually first to the podium to talk about "the future of our planet" or "the destiny of Mankind" because, if they are true humanists, they believe that the human race can do great things, and we ought to keep that dream strong. They're not living for themselves anymore, but they are devoted to trying to do something to play a part in human destiny. Classic sci-fi novels are the parables for our religion. The humanist dream is vast and majestic, enormous in scale. Someday, we could be like shimmering tainlong dancing across an alien sky, making children from another world wonder, "could there be someone out there?" There is actually a lot to be said for someone who truly takes the time to come to grips with the unavoidable reality of human mortality. It ultimately forces you to think outside of yourself, and it's really very exciting, even intoxicating, when you realize that there is a world of dreams and hopes beyond your own existence.
I actually think it's monstrous that religious people are so often determined to cast non-religious thinkers in the light he did. It's ignorant almost to the point of being vulgar. I've said my piece on that.
Now, I sat through his lecture, and I find it very praiseworthy that he is drawing attention here to the idea that we ought to take NDEs seriously and try to investigate them scientifically. However, I think there is a little wishful thinking in his idea that this is proof of "non-local consciousness."
For one thing, he really presented no concrete material for his more extraordinary claims, such as remote viewing or predicting the future. He discussed it, but I didn't seen any numbers on it.
Also, he made a big issue over the fact that anoxia only caused an NDE 13 percent of the time. I see the way he cast this as an inversion of the actual case. The way he cast it, it sounded like he was implying, "only 13 percent of NDEs are associated with anoxia," when the inverse is clearly the case. However, if his study did not find any such experiences that were not associated with anoxia, that means that 100 percent of his NDE cases suffered anoxia. You can make accurate numbers say just about anything you want to, at the end of the day.
Furthermore, there is a very strong association of elevated limbic CO2 levels with NDEs.
http://phys.org/news189887148.html
Also, I think that there is something more subtle behind the fact that we react to reports of NDE being euphoric with such surprise. The fact of the matter is that we are taught to link pain and death together in our heads, and we are taught to link sickness and death together in our heads. It's hard to release this idea that death must be unpleasant. We come to see death as being "kind of like pain, only more than you ever imagined, and it doesn't ever stop." Uhhh, it's not actually like that. The fact of the matter is that you can give yourself a high by cutting off the flow of oxygen to your brain, and there are actually many women who have a bizarre fetish for strangulation. If you are worried about death being terribly painful, it isn't. It's actually kind of trippy. The problem is that you can only do it once, and then you aren't usually around to remember it. I would find something else to do for a while, so you can sort of "save the best for last." Find something nice to do like saving the whales or something.
And another thing that I disagree with is this:
He says that trying to restrict our investigation of these phenomena to scientific investigation is too narrow-minded and restrictive. I can turn that around. A lot of people who believe in the "supernatural" are actually very closed-minded to any other possible explanation for their experience. It's truly a lot more closed-minded to assume that mystical forces must be behind things.
I'll get to the others in a few days.
Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 13 Jun 2012, 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is not one speck of empirical evidence that spiritual things exist.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
There is not one speck of empirical evidence that spiritual things exist.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
I agree, but I am interested in understanding better why some people do believe in these sorts of things.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
There is not one speck of empirical evidence that spiritual things exist.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
I agree, but I am interested in understanding better why some people do believe in these sorts of things.All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
Easy. They are afraid of death and dying. Once a person is reconciled to his non-existence in death he no longer needs "spiritual" crutches.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
There is not one speck of empirical evidence that spiritual things exist.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
Why do you argue so emphatically and with such absolute statements if you're not interested and think the argument is a waste of time?
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,523
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid1.html
I think if you'd rather spare the agony of long videos and want the crux of the argument before going on check out that 15 minute Greyson before United Nations video. I think that does an excellent job of really pointing out what's causing doctors to believe that there's more than hallucination, oxygen issues, etc.. Part of it is the verifiability of things and events seen out of body, the other part - there are 'shared death experiences' had by people neither near death, lacking oxygen, nor do they have any imminent sense that they're lives are in danger.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
SpiritBlooms wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
There is not one speck of empirical evidence that spiritual things exist.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
All the empirical evidence supports the proposition that all of existence is physical.
No gods, no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no spooks. Just matter and energy in time and space. That is all there is.
Why do you argue so emphatically and with such absolute statements if you're not interested and think the argument is a waste of time?
Jitro wrote:
Do spiritual things exist? How can we say that everything is physical? Is it any more possible to prove that than to prove that all life in the universe originated on Earth?
It's all a matter of perception. Perhaps everything exists but we cannot fathom it because we are limited by our senses. People still have little knowledge of what they are really surrounded by. How do you make something sensory free and is there really a point in it? Without senses, there is not a way to interpret anything. Perhaps the answer will come when we render ourselves sensory free. Or not. Sensory deprivation has been tried with non inspiring results. Perhaps spirituality is within the confines of the mind, only?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid1.html
I think if you'd rather spare the agony of long videos and want the crux of the argument before going on check out that 15 minute Greyson before United Nations video. I think that does an excellent job of really pointing out what's causing doctors to believe that there's more than hallucination, oxygen issues, etc.. Part of it is the verifiability of things and events seen out of body, the other part - there are 'shared death experiences' had by people neither near death, lacking oxygen, nor do they have any imminent sense that they're lives are in danger.
I disagree with his conclusions, but I think it's very heroic of Dr. Lommel to try to bring NDEs into the scope of valid scientific investigation. For far too long, NDEs have been the domain of kooks, witch doctors and toothless fakirs. If we are going to be true to science, reported NDEs ought to be taken seriously.
However, I find that the result of doing so is not generally going to be to the liking of people who are wedded to a specific set of religious views.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Jitro wrote:
Do spiritual things exist? How can we say that everything is physical? Is it any more possible to prove that than to prove that all life in the universe originated on Earth?
It's all a matter of perception. Perhaps everything exists but we cannot fathom it because we are limited by our senses. People still have little knowledge of what they are really surrounded by. How do you make something sensory free and is there really a point in it? Without senses, there is not a way to interpret anything. Perhaps the answer will come when we render ourselves sensory free. Or not. Sensory deprivation has been tried with non inspiring results. Perhaps spirituality is within the confines of the mind, only?
Our range of hearing is narrow compared to a dog's or cat's. Our range of night vision compared to a cat's, our running speed compared to a cheetah's, our flight maneuverability, even in a state of the art aircraft compared to a falcon's or an owl's. Migrating birds can SEE magnetic North. When you think about how narrow our range of perception and experience is, just among ranges we can measure, you begin to realize how little it's possible for us to know for certain, or to experience in a measurable way. We look back at people in the dark ages and think how primitive they were, how little they knew. Yet a thousand years from now our descendants may look back at us and consider us every bit as primitive and ignorant, if not more so. There's no end in sight to what there is to learn.
Empirical evidence is limited, for now, by what we are capable of observing or measuring using what we know today.
SpiritBlooms wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Jitro wrote:
Do spiritual things exist? How can we say that everything is physical? Is it any more possible to prove that than to prove that all life in the universe originated on Earth?
It's all a matter of perception. Perhaps everything exists but we cannot fathom it because we are limited by our senses. People still have little knowledge of what they are really surrounded by. How do you make something sensory free and is there really a point in it? Without senses, there is not a way to interpret anything. Perhaps the answer will come when we render ourselves sensory free. Or not. Sensory deprivation has been tried with non inspiring results. Perhaps spirituality is within the confines of the mind, only?
Our range of hearing is narrow compared to a dog's or cat's. Our range of night vision compared to a cat's, our running speed compared to a cheetah's, our flight maneuverability, even in a state of the art aircraft compared to a falcon's or an owl's. Migrating birds can SEE magnetic North. When you think about how narrow our range of perception and experience is, just among ranges we can measure, you begin to realize how little it's possible for us to know for certain, or to experience in a measurable way. We look back at people in the dark ages and think how primitive they were, how little they knew. Yet a thousand years from now our descendants may look back at us and consider us every bit as primitive and ignorant, if not more so. There's no end in sight to what there is to learn.
Empirical evidence is limited, for now, by what we are capable of observing or measuring using what we know today.
Another possible scenario is non linear progress. What if we actually go backward and slip into a period of stagnation and devolution.? If this happens, it will be due to human species running out of natural resources such as oil with nothing to fill the gap. That could send the human species into a period of decline for a while.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Jitro wrote:
Do spiritual things exist? How can we say that everything is physical? Is it any more possible to prove that than to prove that all life in the universe originated on Earth?
It's all a matter of perception. Perhaps everything exists but we cannot fathom it because we are limited by our senses. People still have little knowledge of what they are really surrounded by. How do you make something sensory free and is there really a point in it? Without senses, there is not a way to interpret anything. Perhaps the answer will come when we render ourselves sensory free. Or not. Sensory deprivation has been tried with non inspiring results. Perhaps spirituality is within the confines of the mind, only?
Our range of hearing is narrow compared to a dog's or cat's. Our range of night vision compared to a cat's, our running speed compared to a cheetah's, our flight maneuverability, even in a state of the art aircraft compared to a falcon's or an owl's. Migrating birds can SEE magnetic North. When you think about how narrow our range of perception and experience is, just among ranges we can measure, you begin to realize how little it's possible for us to know for certain, or to experience in a measurable way. We look back at people in the dark ages and think how primitive they were, how little they knew. Yet a thousand years from now our descendants may look back at us and consider us every bit as primitive and ignorant, if not more so. There's no end in sight to what there is to learn.
Empirical evidence is limited, for now, by what we are capable of observing or measuring using what we know today.
Another possible scenario is non linear progress. What if we actually go backward and slip into a period of stagnation and devolution.? If this happens, it will be due to human species running out of natural resources such as oil with nothing to fill the gap. That could send the human species into a period of decline for a while.
That is a possibility - perhaps more likely the less we're able to accept that there are possibilities we haven't considered, and that we don't know everything. Our own arrogance may kill us or send us further back into ignorance. Peak oil seems to raise that threat very near in the future. So does climate change.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,523
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
I disagree with his conclusions, but I think it's very heroic of Dr. Lommel to try to bring NDEs into the scope of valid scientific investigation. For far too long, NDEs have been the domain of kooks, witch doctors and toothless fakirs. If we are going to be true to science, reported NDEs ought to be taken seriously.
It definitely helps part the smokescreen, yes. The fewer kook hideouts we have the better. That makes the "Yes, they're real" or "No they're convincing but hallucinated" much more authoritative when that time comes.
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
However, I find that the result of doing so is not generally going to be to the liking of people who are wedded to a specific set of religious views.
Not to mention that most people who have a very vivid or deep NDE come back not only more spiritual and less religious (ie. less interested in 'organized' doctrine) but also have little or no fear of death. In that sense - yes, powers that be who like their power can't find much of anything about this to smile at.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
However, I find that the result of doing so is not generally going to be to the liking of people who are wedded to a specific set of religious views.
Not to mention that most people who have a very vivid or deep NDE come back not only more spiritual and less religious (ie. less interested in 'organized' doctrine) but also have little or no fear of death. In that sense - yes, powers that be who like their power can't find much of anything about this to smile at.SpiritBlooms wrote:
Our range of hearing is narrow compared to a dog's or cat's. Our range of night vision compared to a cat's, our running speed compared to a cheetah's, our flight maneuverability, even in a state of the art aircraft compared to a falcon's or an owl's. Migrating birds can SEE magnetic North. When you think about how narrow our range of perception and experience is, just among ranges we can measure, you begin to realize how little it's possible for us to know for certain, or to experience in a measurable way. We look back at people in the dark ages and think how primitive they were, how little they knew. Yet a thousand years from now our descendants may look back at us and consider us every bit as primitive and ignorant, if not more so. There's no end in sight to what there is to learn.
Empirical evidence is limited, for now, by what we are capable of observing or measuring using what we know today.
Empirical evidence is limited, for now, by what we are capable of observing or measuring using what we know today.
A cat's range of night vision is nothing compared with the Hubble space telescope. We can see magnetic north with a magnet. Not as far as I know any other animals can see neutrinos or the atomic structure of a crystal.
Empirical evidence may be limited but going woos is a surer way to lead to falsehood.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
WHAT IF... The Moon Didn't Exist? |
21 Dec 2024, 6:46 am |
If only peer pressure didn't exist |
09 Jan 2025, 8:37 pm |
new things |
04 Nov 2024, 9:28 pm |
How do I take things less personally? |
04 Jan 2025, 9:34 pm |