Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

TDB: Heaven is Real: A Doctor's Experience With the Afterlife


AsburySkinsFan

Recommended Posts

How do we tell which phenomena we can investigate and which are beyond our comprehension?

Trial and error, I suppose. We can attempt to investigate things, but that doesn't always mean we're going to find the answers. Sometimes we can't find the answers because we don't have the resources or the minds to find the answers. Sometimes we can't find the answers because they are beyond the realm of our understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not with the cortex shut down, but I'm glad to hear that you apparently know more than this professor. I bet he'll be super embarassed when he reads that he's been up ended by someone on the internet. BTW, sometimes the authorities really do know more than you.

Professor: Here is what I think.

alexey: Why do you think so?

Professor: I had an experience.

alexey: What is the evidence?

Professor: My experience is the evidence.

alexey: I'm sorry but that is not good evidence.

Professor: I know more than you do. I am an authority.

alexey: I'm sure you are great but I need actual evidence.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 10:59 AM ----------

Trial and error, I suppose. We can attempt to investigate things, but that doesn't always mean we're going to find the answers. Sometimes we can't find the answers because we don't have the resources or the minds to find the answers. Sometimes we can't find the answers because they are beyond the realm of our understanding.

We have no way of knowing what is beyond the realm of our understanding and what is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DMT.........don't know what it is, look it up. The best answer and most logically scientific answer to all these "out of body" experiences. Basically DMT is the toxin that releases in your brain when you sleep that allows you to dream. When you are on the verge of death/dying, these toxins are pumped at a faster rate than normal and often (well close to 100%) of the time give the person vivid hallucinations. Hense the reason you hear people that have been on the verge of dying talking about how they "saw God" or saw their dead grandmother, family member, etc.

Because, as many of you know, when you dream, nothing is off limits and everything is up to the imagintion. If you are strong Christian and believe in God, go to Church, pray everyday, practice and preach the good word, than most likely you will have some vision of the afterlife as you are dying, because of how those views are engrained in your brain. There is a book called "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" that explains the advantages of DMT and it's many uses. "You don't find DMT, DMT finds you" So that "proof" of Heaven that the doctor talks about, may very well just have been a vivd hallucination, thanks to DMT. (almost sure that's exactly what it was)

/thread

Doesn't the neo-cortex have to be active to dream? If his was inactive as proven by CT and neurological exams, doesn't that rule DMT out?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professor: Here is what I think.

alexey: Why do you think so?

Professor: I had an experience.

alexey: What is the evidence?

Professor: My experience is the evidence.

alexey: I'm sorry but that is not good evidence.

Professor: I know more than you do. I am an authority.

alexey: I'm sure you are great but I need actual evidence.

And that ladies and gentlemen is what I like to call a strawman in script form. Thank you for that immaculate variant example of a common logical fallacy. Well done :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't explain with our current knowledge of the brain how he was able to have a vision even though his cortex was inactive.

Therefore, his vision was real and there is a God. (According to him and believers)

We can't explain with our current knowledge of meteorology why there are loud, booming sounds coming out of those storm clouds.

Therefore, Zues. (According to skeptics and non-believers)

An inability to explain an event does not mean divine intervention. It means we have an inability to explain an event. Maybe it IS divine intervention. Maybe it is something else. Stories like this just aren't proof of anything to me. *shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no way of knowing what is beyond the realm of our understanding and what is not.

Pretty much; but in a way, that's the fun of it, isn't it? It means we have the rest of time to come up with questions and search for the answers. If we knew everything, including our limitations, life would be really dull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the neo-cortex have to be active to dream? If his was inactive as proven by CT and neurological exams, doesn't that rule DMT out?

The cortex could have had the dream before going offline or right after coming back online.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 12:37 PM ----------

And that ladies and gentlemen is what I like to call a strawman in script form. Thank you for that immaculate variant example of a common logical fallacy. Well done :applause:

What are you talking about? I am merely refusing to believe what somebody says based on their authority. I am asking for evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much; but in a way, that's the fun of it, isn't it? It means we have the rest of time to come up with questions and search for the answers. If we knew everything, including our limitations, life would be really dull.

I think that is the fun of it, yes.... This is why I am against closing any line of inquiry. We should strive for knowledge and never believe that there are fundamentally unknowable things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? I am merely refusing to believe what somebody says based on their authority. I am asking for evidence.

No you are having an imaginary conversation with yourself in which you are pretending that the neurologist is going to answer you in the exact way that will allow you to win an argument. Sir, that IS a strawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that ladies and gentlemen is what I like to call a strawman in script form. Thank you for that immaculate variant example of a common logical fallacy. Well done :applause:

"I do not think it means what you think it means..." :)

That's actually not a straw man argument at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you are having an imaginary conversation with yourself in which you are pretending that the neurologist is going to answer you in the exact way that will allow you to win an argument. Sir, that IS a strawman.

I was trying to illustrate how a skeptic would approach an argument from personal experience.

I think that the mind emerges as a result of activity in the brain.

If you have any evidence that the mind can exist without a brain, please feel free to present it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...so from a scientific perspective, a couple of possibilities, perhaps.

1) There are hidden dimensions that our consciousness is transferred to when we die or are dying. We can't test for these dimensions (or whatever it is...just using his words). We have never experienced them. We have never seen any evidence for it. But somehow our neural patterns or something of that nature are imprinted or transferred there upon death.

2) What he experienced was neurological and we still have a long way to go in understanding the human brain, especially during the process of death.

The second option is less of a stretch to me. That certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of the first, but that one definitely involves and requires more assumptions and moving parts. Occam's razor and all.

And ASF, please don't come back with "Oh and you know more than a Harvard professor now! lol!" You've been using that appeal to authority the entire thread (and then jumping on alexey with the claim that he is using logical fallacies). It doesn't make a difference who he is. He wasn't doing any scientific study of himself, it was purely experiential and anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is extremely weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to illustrate how a skeptic would approach an argument from personal experience.

I think that the mind emerges as a result of activity in the brain.

If you have any evidence that the mind can exist without a brain, please feel free to present it.

I believe the pfrofessor just did...you rejected what he presented because you didn't experience it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

1) There are hidden dimensions that our consciousness is transferred to when we die or are dying. We can't test for these dimensions (or whatever it is...just using his words). We have never experienced them. We have never seen any evidence for it. But somehow our neural patterns or something of that nature are imprinted or transferred there upon death.

2) What he experienced was neurological and we still have a long way to go in understanding the human brain, especially during the process of death.

...

I'd like to offer a possibility that includes God:

3) Souls do not exist and neither does afterlife, but God created these experiences to give us a great final bang before complete annihilation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I do not think it means what you think it means..." :)

That's actually not a straw man argument at all.

creating a false argument in which to beat down is, which is what he did. Pretending that the professor would simply claim, "Hey I have a degree" and claim authority rather than working through the results of the CT scans and other neurological test results and then discussing how the brain works and why his experience flies in the face of what we thought about the brain. Obviously alexey would rather argue with a puppet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inability to scientifically explain an event doesn't confirm a supernatural explanation.

It's the most frustrating thing in the world when people feel the need to have to explain something and when they can't they make up an explanation that can't be tested in any measurable way.

People are going to believe what they're going to believe, evidence or not, but to title a book "Proof of Heaven" and then offer no real scientific proof other than an inability to explain what happened is dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...so from a scientific perspective, a couple of possibilities, perhaps.

1) There are hidden dimensions that our consciousness is transferred to when we die or are dying. We can't test for these dimensions (or whatever it is...just using his words). We have never experienced them. We have never seen any evidence for it. But somehow our neural patterns or something of that nature are imprinted or transferred there upon death.

2) What he experienced was neurological and we still have a long way to go in understanding the human brain, especially during the process of death.

The second option is less of a stretch to me. That certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of the first, but that one definitely involves and requires more assumptions and moving parts. Occam's razor and all.

Why do you believe that one is better suited based on Occam's razor and requires fewer assumptions?

What assumptions does the first require that supercede the ones inherent in the 2nd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the pfrofessor just did...you rejected what he presented because you didn't experience it yourself.

It is possible for me to have an experience which changes my brain in a way that causes me to accept professor's interpretation.

It does not matter what convictions my brain or professor's brains hold. What matters is evidence that we can present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the fun of it, yes.... This is why I am against closing any line of inquiry. We should strive for knowledge and never believe that there are fundamentally unknowable things.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss that possibility altogether. Yes, keep asking questions. Yes, keep searching for answers. All of those things are admirable and essential for the advancement of humanity. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant as to believe that there isn't at least the possibility of something that is beyond our comprehension at work in the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss that possibility altogether. Yes, keep asking questions. Yes, keep searching for answers. All of those things are admirable and essential for the advancement of humanity. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant as to believe that there isn't at least the possibility of something that is beyond our comprehension at work in the universe.

We should not dismiss a possibility that there are unknowable things and neither should we accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss that possibility altogether. Yes, keep asking questions. Yes, keep searching for answers. All of those things are admirable and essential for the advancement of humanity. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant as to believe that there isn't at least the possibility of something that is beyond our comprehension at work in the universe.

See, I agree with that. We can't prove or disprove it either way, so we leave it open. The problem is the man wrote a book titled "Proof of Heaven", to which he offers none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible for me to have an experience which changes my brain in a way that causes me to accept professor's interpretation.

It does not matter what convictions my brain or professor's brains hold. What matters is evidence that we can present which I will reject if they do not conform to my rules.

That's about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...