8 Million Americans have Near Death Experiences according to Gallup Poll

[Cheezle]

Cheezle, the problem with the whole "hallucination theory" is that the brain modulates consciousness. If you throw a hallucinen into the brain, of course it's going mess up the modulation of consciousness.

I am not sure modulation means what you think it means, but then I don't know what you think it means since you did not elaborate. I would say that and NDE could be evidence of a similar modulation of consiousness. There is one way to discover the truth. Take someone who has had an NDE and give them a dose of ketamine. Then have the person compare the experiences. I believe that this experiment will be done, maybe soon. There are several researchers that are trying ketamine in their experiments now because of the similarities.

I assume that you have never had an NDE or taken a hallucinogen. So you have little to say from either perspective. On the other hand I have had both experiences. In fact I have had an OOBE similar to some of those operating room examples while not under the influence of any substance. I also have had not a few 'experiences' in the Jimi Hendrix sense of the word. I can tell you that there are similarities as well as subtle differences. Not all types of hallucination alter your senses. Some only alter your interpretation of what your experience is. What ever your idea of modulation of consciousness is, it is way off base. Hallucinogens produce very odd effects, odder than you can imagine. Odd in a way that defies the explanation that a drug was involved. This is why some people turn to mysticism after their experiences. It isn't that they don't know the sensory data was altered.

Anyway, if the brain generates conscousness, then why can't we just copy how the brain does it, and make C3PO robots? Why can't we make IC chips that experience love and hate, pain and pleasure? Why can't we do that?

Perhaps these things are possible but our technology has not advanced far enough yet. There is some progress in all of these areas. It is slow progress but that is how things work. Give it some time.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I know that you think about what I say. As for dmoe and Q, I think they could be replaced with a computer program that picks insults at random.]

Mazulu, constantly repeating falsities does not make them real. Was your characterization of me, ^^above^^, picked at random?

I guess I have to explain where spirit comes from. There is plenty of dark matter out there I could borrow from. Technically, I don't need real particles, I can use virtual dark matter particles.]

So...now that you "guess" an explanation is needed - when will you provide said explanation?

So anthropormizing is bad, unless it defends against assertions that there is a soul??? Then it's good? Then the chip can say, "Ouch! Please don't do that." I thik you're trying to have it both ways.]

Mazulu...I honestly feel for you...sorry...but you really need more help than you can ever hope to find on these Forums.

8 million brave American reported it for the gallup pole. There are many more Americans who were not asked by the Gallup pole. There are other people around the world who are not Americans who also were not asked. There are also billions of people who died, historically speaking, before they had a chance to respond to this particular pole.]

I think you are still referring to a "Gallup Poll", If they were not Polled - how can you be so sure of their responses?

Maybe a soul is not made out of standard model particles. Therefore how could any controlled laboratory experiemtn detect it? Here is some bad humor. We could try sacrificing a theist at the LHC and see if we detect anything.

Mazulu, could you possibly try a controlled laboratory experiment to detect these "maybe non-standard model particles"?
I am not claiming any success would be had - but at least it is more scientific than "bad humor".

well, if a soul floats and isn't effected by gravity, then sacrificing a theist at the LHC is probably not going to reveal a soul. On the other hand, the theist will definitely know the answer.

Mazulu, if...you only would get help...sorry, but I am honestly trying to help...but you only see what you want... so...sorry...

 

[Mazulu]

I am not sure modulation means what you think it means, but then I don't know what you think it means since you did not elaborate. I would say that and NDE could be evidence of a similar modulation of consiousness. There is one way to discover the truth. Take someone who has had an NDE and give them a dose of ketamine. Then have the person compare the experiences. I believe that this experiment will be done, maybe soon. There are several researchers that are trying ketamine in their experiments now because of the similarities.

I assume that you have never had an NDE or taken a hallucinogen. So you have little to say from either perspective. On the other hand I have had both experiences. In fact I have had an OOBE similar to some of those operating room examples while not under the influence of any substance. I also have had not a few 'experiences' in the Jimi Hendrix sense of the word. I can tell you that there are similarities as well as subtle differences. Not all types of hallucination alter your senses. Some only alter your interpretation of what your experience is. What ever your idea of modulation of consciousness is, it is way off base. Hallucinogens produce very odd effects, odder than you can imagine. Odd in a way that defies the explanation that a drug was involved. This is why some people turn to mysticism after their experiences. It isn't that they don't know the sensory data was altered.



Perhaps these things are possible but our technology has not advanced far enough yet. There is some progress in all of these areas. It is slow progress but that is how things work. Give it some time.

Did you have a near death experience with all of the blood drained out of your brain? Did you have an NDE while no brain activity was recorded?

 

[Mazulu]

You can have hallucinations without having a mental illness. High stress situations can initiate hallucinations. I would imagine a near death experience would qualify as a rather high stress situation crq.

Do you have data to back that up? Every time I've had an "experience", I'm relaxed. I don't think stress (adrenalin) has anything to do with it.

 

[Cheezle]

Did you have a near death experience with all of the blood drained out of your brain? Did you have an NDE while no brain activity was recorded?

I can guarantee you that anyone who has had all of their blood drained out of their brain has afterwards not experienced anything ever again because they would be dead. Same with no brain activity. NDEs occur under lots of different circumstances, but not those ones you mentioned. Near death is not equal to death.

 

[Mazulu]

I can guarantee you that anyone who has had all of their blood drained out of their brain has afterwards not experienced anything ever again because they would be dead. Same with no brain activity. NDEs occur under lots of different circumstances, but not those ones you mentioned. Near death is not equal to death.

To quote the article,

During part of the operation she had no brain-wave activity and no blood flowing in her brain, which rendered her clinically dead. She claimed to have made several observations during the procedure which later medical personnel reported to be accurate.

So what you're saying is that no brain-wave activity and no blood flow will cause hallucinations? Is that what you're arguing?

 

[Cheezle]

To quote the article,


So what you're saying is that no brain-wave activity and no blood flow will cause hallucinations? Is that what you're arguing?

Absolutely, that is what the article said. But the article was inaccurate and meant to get a geewiz reaction from people like you. I read the surgeons technical description of his technique. It did not say there was no blood in the brain or no brain activity. (Note: I was referring to your original quote that all blood was drained from the brain. There was no blood flow during the operation seems to be a true statement.) The EEG showed no response but this is a far field detection device known to be inaccurate at diagnosing death. The key to the surgeon's technique is giving the patient barbiturates, which lower brain cell metabolism so that they can survive while the heart is stopped. Large doses of barbiturates can fool doctor that brain death occurred when using an EEG. They had to carefully balance the brain cell metabolism with drugs and lowering of body temperature. At no time was the patient clinically dead. They monitored brain activity in several ways, not just an EEG. The patient was given barbiturates, narcotics, nitrous oxide and a few other drugs. The nitrous oxide is dissociative. But she was unlikely to be hallucinating during the operation. The combination of drugs leaves a hangover of memory impairment and confusion for a day or two. More than likely the NDE was a false memory perhaps triggered by expectations of a NDE. Perhaps she had read about NDEs and was primed to give a false positive. It was not a controlled experiment and so was proof of nothing other than a better way to do drastic dangerous brain surgery.

 

[James R]

Mazulu,

All the human brain does is store information in a neuronal connection network - memory locations that transmit electrical signals back and forth. So, what's the difference? Oh yes, humans have a soul and computers don't. And how do we know that? Because Mazulu says so.

What is the equation for love? If it's a chemical, then is the feeling of love happening at the receptor? Along the axon? Dendrite? Several neuronal networks? If so, then how do you get a bunch of chemicals to feel love (or feel anything)?

Suppose I take a photo of you with my digital camera and show it to you on the camera's screen. Where is the image of you happening? Is the image happening at the camera lens? Is it happening on the camera's light sensors? Is it happening inside the camera's computer chips? How do you get a bunch of computer chips to produce an image of Mazulu? How is it that I can capture the essence of Mazulu's image with this computerised device? Surely such a thing must be impossible.

You missed the point. How do you know other people have motives? Maybe they just act like they have motives and feel pain. If we made a computer to act the same way, would that mean the computer had a soul? How would you tell the difference?

I suppose if a computer had a soul, it might love its user and download all sorts of pictures it thinks expresses love.

If pixies had yellow waistcoats then we could all eat scones for tea.

How about you attempt to answer the questions I asked you rather than dodging them? Is it because you can't answer them, or you don't understand them?

What's wrong with my attempt to attribute consciousness to some kind of field we haven't discovered yet? Why do you reject it out of hand? Is there are logical reason to reject it? Or does it just upset your world view?

I haven't rejected it. Specifically, I asked you what scientific test could conceivably disprove the existence of your "consciousness field".

See, all good scientific theories are falsifiable. Is your consciousness field falsifiable? If not, then it's a scientifically useless idea.

About 120 million Americans will tell me that dinosaurs and human beings walked the Earth at the same time. (Hint: they didn't.)

Red herring.

You missed the point. The question of whether a soul exists can't be decided by a popularity poll. Suppose you're right and 8 million people believe souls exist. Then what? Does that show that souls exist? Not at all. It just shows what a bunch of people believe.

You can see how opinion polls can get things badly wrong with my example of dinosaurs.

I'd prefer to trust a handful of qualified neurologists and psychologists than 8 million unqualified people who have had an unusual experience and misinterpreted it.

That is your perogative.

Right.

And I would suggest that one difficulty you, Mazulu, labour under is that you trust too much in uniformed opinions you've heard or read. You should learn some science and, just as importantly, something about critical thinking. Then you wouldn't blindly accept so much nonsense, or convince yourself of the truth of some vague theory you just made up on the spot.

I guess I have to explain where spirit comes from. There is plenty of dark matter out there I could borrow from. Technically, I don't need real particles, I can use virtual dark matter particles.

Fine.

When you've learned about dark matter and have a testable model of the dark-matter nature of "spirit" that will (potentially) allow your theory to be disproven, get back to me with the details. In the meantime, all you have is a "guess", like you say.

Now you're getting it! You're right. It is the claimant's burden to show that a circuit board is conscious. And it's your burden to show that soul exists. Because that's your claim. See?

So anthropormizing is bad, unless it defends against assertions that there is a soul??? Then it's good? Then the chip can say, "Ouch! Please don't do that." I thik you're trying to have it both ways.

You missed the point again.

The point is that the burden of proof is traditionally on the person making a claim, particular where that claim goes against the knowledge accepted by a majority of people. Thus, if you claim that a soul exists, you have the burden of providing appropriate evidence to support your claim. It is not up to other people to prove that souls don't exist.

How do you know what billions of people have seen when they haven't reported it?

8 million brave American reported it for the gallup pole. There are many more Americans who were not asked by the Gallup pole. There are other people around the world who are not Americans who also were not asked. There are also billions of people who died, historically speaking, before they had a chance to respond to this particular pole.

I don't think you understand how polls work. 8 million people weren't interviewed individually. What polls do is to take a random sample of, say, 100 people. Provided the sample is random enough, the survey questions are fair, and the sample is representative, it can be reasonable to extrapolate the numbers to the national level.

Here, your claim is that billions of people have seen souls (even though they are usually considered to be invisible, as I understand it). That means you're talking at least 2/7 of the world's population. But you also claim that these people haven't reported seeing souls. So, the question is: how do you know what 2 billion people have or haven't seen?

Or are you still just guessing and making stuff up?

Maybe a soul is not made out of standard model particles. Therefore how could any controlled laboratory experiemtn detect it?

Are you saying, then, that there's no scientific experiment that we can possibly do that will detect a soul, even though "billions" of people have supposedly seen one?

Remind me again: what's your basis for believing in souls?

Tell me why you believe souls exist. It can't be on the basis of evidence. It's just because you believe some stories you've heard or read. Right?

By the way, there have been a number of reports from people having NDEs of details they claim to have "seen" in the operating theatre while unconscious and floating above their bodies, which, upon checking, turned out to be wrong. That is, they "saw" things that actually weren't in the operating room at the time, or didn't see obvious things that were there. This tends to suggest that they imagined things.

Why would surgeons make up a story like that?

Did you not understand what I wrote? Your response makes no sense.

How could we test your idea that there is a "consciousness field", for example? More importantly, what experiment could we do that might possibly disprove the existence of a consciousness field?

well, if a soul floats and isn't effected by gravity, then sacrificing a theist at the LHC is probably not going to reveal a soul. On the other hand, the theist will definitely know the answer.

So, to translate your response: your hypothesis is fundamentally untestable, and therefore scientifically worthless.

Are we done?

 

[Mazulu]

Absolutely, that is what the article said. But the article was inaccurate and meant to get a geewiz reaction from people like you. I read the surgeons technical description of his technique. It did not say there was no blood in the brain or no brain activity. (Note: I was referring to your original quote that all blood was drained from the brain. There was no blood flow during the operation seems to be a true statement.) The EEG showed no response but this is a far field detection device known to be inaccurate at diagnosing death. The key to the surgeon's technique is giving the patient barbiturates, which lower brain cell metabolism so that they can survive while the heart is stopped. Large doses of barbiturates can fool doctor that brain death occurred when using an EEG. They had to carefully balance the brain cell metabolism with drugs and lowering of body temperature. At no time was the patient clinically dead. They monitored brain activity in several ways, not just an EEG. The patient was given barbiturates, narcotics, nitrous oxide and a few other drugs. The nitrous oxide is dissociative. But she was unlikely to be hallucinating during the operation. The combination of drugs leaves a hangover of memory impairment and confusion for a day or two. More than likely the NDE was a false memory perhaps triggered by expectations of a NDE. Perhaps she had read about NDEs and was primed to give a false positive. It was not a controlled experiment and so was proof of nothing other than a better way to do drastic dangerous brain surgery.

Or maybe we have a soul.

 

[Mazulu]

james r,
What is the equation for experiencing love, or hate or feelings of any kind? How do you build a device that can experience it? Science finds itself on the outside looking in. You can point to measurements of electrical activity in the brain, but fundamentally, you can't reproduce the quality of consciousness. Science can't duplicate consciousness because something is missing. You have to throw out 8 million NDE data points to avoid the conclusion that there is a ghost in the machine. Consciousness is modulated by the brain. Your conclusion that consciousness is created by the brain is a mistake. It's like saying that electrical signals from a computer are created by the computer. But you forget where the electricity comes from. It comes from the wall outlet. The electrical signals that make a computer work come from outside the computer. The power supply and circuit boards merely modulate the 110 AC volts and turn it into DC voltages, clocks. TTL logic, etc. Consciousness is the say way.

The fact that so many people have near death experiences that involve floating over one's own body, rising up into heaven, meeting dead friends/relatives/angels/beings of light/disassociation with the body/life review/etc., just don't fit the scientific paradigm. Well, maybe consciousness extends beyond the natural world. Or maybe there are things beyond what science can detect?

 

[kx000]

Do you have data to back that up? Every time I've had an "experience", I'm relaxed. I don't think stress (adrenalin) has anything to do with it.

What are your experiences? I have "hallucinated" fire sparking from thin air. Among other things like a light spirit, and a dark spirit at different times.

 

[Cheezle]

Or maybe we have a soul.

I see you are switching from consciousness to soul. Are they the same? And what about the spirit?
Obviously you are concerned with facing non-existance. This might help. Or maybe not.
[video=youtube;giZN0ZuDERY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZN0ZuDERY[/video]

 

[Mazulu]

I see you are switching from consciousness to soul. Are they the same? And what about the spirit?
Obviously you are concerned with facing non-existance. This might help. Or maybe not.

Are you faking care and concern again?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Are you faking care and concern again?

Mazulu, why must you ask if Cheezle is "faking care and concern again?"

When you express "care and concern" for fellow human beings - are you only "faking" it? If not, why must you assume or even have to ask if other people would?

Mazulu, all anybody is asking or requesting of you on these Forums is that you produce concrete evidence of your statements. Factual evidence that anyone or everyone is able to test and verify. Yet, you do not.

Instead, you continually choose to provide you-tube videos, wiki-quotes, conjecture, fantasy, guesses, what if's and delusional non-existent evidence.

Mazulu, how can you continue to fail to see something so simple as that?

Mazulu, why must you continue to ignore such simple requests?

 

[Mazulu]

dmoe,
Your on my ignore list for lack of content and incessant insults.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

dmoe,
Your on my ignore list for lack of content and incessant insults.

??? your...not you're or you are...??? ...anyway

Mazulu, may I humbly refer you to the previous Posts #'s 86 to #127 inclusive, when you Posted :


#127 -

Fine, I'll move to a more appropriate topic thread.

Mazulu, I may be one of the few Posters left on this Forum that actually read your Posts and still worry about your well being.

Mazulu, I sincerely hope that someday you are better able to utilize your intelligence - instead of seeming to only choose to continuously exercise what appears to be ignorance.

Again Mazulu,...sorry.

BTW, if you truly believe your allegations against me then I humbly repost my Post #123, below :

If you can clean up your posts of unnecessary insults/personal attacks and engage in sincere dialogue, I will read your posts.

Mazulu, of course you are nothing but correct...because you say so.

Mazulu, of course I have no idea how to "engage in sincere dialogue"...again...because you say so.

Mazulu. of course you should, and I, dmoe, HONESTLY REQUEST that you do, contact the Moderators/Administrators of SciForums and point out my alleged "posts of unnecessary insults/personal attacks" and failure to "engage in sincere dialogue". I am fairly certain that they would see it your way, in less than a millisecond...and ban me for those infractions of the rules, because you say so.

Mazulu, I would have no qualms what-so-ever about being banned or even permanently banned from Posting on SciForums, iif I were to be conclusively proven guilty of your accusations.

Mazulu, would you please, by my own HONEST REQUEST, do just that? Please, either Prove your allegations...or...actually begin to "engage in sincere dialogue" (as you put it !).

Mazulu, one possible thing that would prevent you from doing just that, might be a self manufactured fear of all things pertaining to reality. But, hey Mazulu, anyone who has read even a few of your Posts, know that that is impossible, again...because you say so.

Mazulu, of course you will do what I have HONESTLY REQUESTED, because real men stand behind their words and have no problem proving their accusations. Especially men who only "engage in sincere dialogue" and would never "bear false witness" or allow themselves to become victims of their own self manufactured delusions and fears.

Mazulu, since you will surely, as any real honorable man would, honor my HONEST REQUEST to contact the Mods/Admins with your complaints as to my suitability to continue Posting on SciForums...I will now say Goodbye and I am sorry that I will no longer to be able to enjoy your Posts that contain absolutely no "unnecessary insults/personal attacks" and are always only chock full of "sincere dialogue".

I only hope that I can somehow learn a valuable lesson from your perfect example of how real honorable men conduct themselves in on-line Forums.

Just think of it Mazulu, very soon you will not have to ignore dmoe's Posts filled with nothing but "insults/personal attacks".

 

[Mazulu]

dmoe,
When I see your post shine with the light of wisdom, I'll take you off my ignore list.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

dmoe,
When I see your post shine with the light of wisdom, I'll take you off my ignore list.

Mazulu, sorry, but I have no control over what you choose to see or ignore!

And, how did you make the light of wisdom shine like that? Are you "special"?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Mazulu, you seem to like Videos - so I link you to two videos of creatures that may well not know of any religions or supernatural powers or even dark matter/dark energy - but they know quite a bit about the true meaning of life. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF8em4uPdCg#t=23

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZRuO1YSZis

How do you suppose that they would respond to the Poll you refer to?

Mazulu, please do not ignore!

 

[James R]

Mazulu,

What is the equation for experiencing love, or hate or feelings of any kind?

There isn't an equation. The brain is a neural network.

There isn't an equation for experiencing anything. Having an experience is a function of the software in your head, which is implemented by the brain hardware. No evidence suggests otherwise.

How do you build a device that can experience it?

Sexual reproduction?

You're a device that can experience it.

This is not to say that a digital computer can never experience love, hate or other feelings. It's just a different hardware implementation of the necessary software.

Science finds itself on the outside looking in. You can point to measurements of electrical activity in the brain, but fundamentally, you can't reproduce the quality of consciousness.

This is god of the gaps.

You don't know that the quality of consciousness cannot be reproduced. You just like to think it can't be. When it is reproduced, then no doubt you'll change your arguments for a soul to something else that science hasn't managed to do yet.

You have to throw out 8 million NDE data points to avoid the conclusion that there is a ghost in the machine.

No.

There are many scientifically viable explanations for NDEs. You've already been given a few in this thread. The soul is an unnecessary hypothesis in that context. Occam's razor suggests that we don't introduce it.

Consciousness is modulated by the brain. Your conclusion that consciousness is created by the brain is a mistake. It's like saying that electrical signals from a computer are created by the computer. But you forget where the electricity comes from. It comes from the wall outlet. The electrical signals that make a computer work come from outside the computer. The power supply and circuit boards merely modulate the 110 AC volts and turn it into DC voltages, clocks. TTL logic, etc. Consciousness is the say way.

You're confusing the energy source with the information source. A computer does create electrical signals all the time. To produce those, it needs an external energy source, which is the AC power. Similarly, you, as a human being, create consciousness in the neurons of your brain. That brain also has an external power source, namely the food you eat.

There's no evidence that consciousness is created by anything outside the brain.

And if it was, then you'd need to explain the mechanism by which consciousness from outside is able to interact with the brain and body inside. All you've managed on that front so far is an ad hoc, untestable hypothesis that has no empirical value.

The fact that so many people have near death experiences that involve floating over one's own body, rising up into heaven, meeting dead friends/relatives/angels/beings of light/disassociation with the body/life review/etc., just don't fit the scientific paradigm.

Sure they do. I already explained how there are physiological factors at work, combined with some social conditioning. Basically, these manifestations are probably hallucinations or dreams.

Well, maybe consciousness extends beyond the natural world. Or maybe there are things beyond what science can detect?

There's no evidence that consciousness extends beyond the natural world. For that matter, there's no evidence that anything extends beyond the natural world.

And if there are things beyond what science can detect, how could we possibly know about them? As human beings, the tools we have for detecting stuff are only the same tools as are available to scientists. In fact, science in most cases has far more sensitive tools available to it.