Dumbest Of Fundies

[blackpudd1n]

I also take seroquel for sleep. I have N24 and tried everything. It really doesn't do anything more than slow the speed my sleep phase moves a bit. It's actually a really nasty drug as far as I'm concerned and don't recommend it unless it's a last resort.

 

I agree with you regarding Seroquel. When they first put me on it, I was instructed to take 100mg a night, which I consider now to be far too excessive. It was impossible to wake up every morning, I just felt like a zombie. I hated the feeling of sedation, day-in, day-out. After a good six months I'd had enough, and spoke to my doctor about what I could do. His solution was to add Temazepam into the mix. We made an agreement that I would only take Temazepam no more than three times a week, and only on nights when I needed to get up early the next day. That system worked okay, but I felt that I was too reliant on the tablets for sleep, and set about trying to live without their help, which is what I have basically been doing for the past year. I thought that maybe the insomnia would settle of its own accord. i tried depriving myself of sleep to reset my body clock, but that failed miserably- I didn't sleep, and just got a case of the bipolar wobbles. I tried sleeping in shifts, grabbing sleep where I could- a few hours in the early morning, a few hours in the afternoon. That just made me constantly tired, particularly when I couldn't sleep exactly when I wanted to due to the commitments of everyday life. I tried sleeping at night three days a week, and sleeping during the day three days a week. Na-da. I read, watched movies, listened to relaxing music, got a massaging mat. These things would help, but not when the insomnia was determined to be nasty. Finally, I realised that I had no other option but to start taking the pills again, as the lack of sleep was affecting my mental stability and my ability to manage the bipolar disorder. Except this time, I only take the Seroquel twice a week, on a Tuesday night and a Friday night, and I only take 25mg. That's all I neexd to get a good sleep, and it doesn't mess me up as much or for as long the next morning.

[badpuppy]

You're the one that stated "It's the only thing I know can create 3-D realities to interact with (we do it every night when we dream.)" Blind, from birth, people do not do this. Deaf people, again from birth, do not experience sound. They do not experience what their senses have failed to provide.

 

Fair enough. I see what you're trying to say. Maybe I can better explain. I don't feel like an NDE is the same thing as a dream exactly. When i was talking about personal dreams I was using an analogy of the only thing I know that "can" (which doesn't mean in every single case it does) create a 3-D realistic reality. When mentioning NDE's that's going to another realm of experience, but it was in answer to your blind example because there are cases of NDEs where people blind from birth experienced seeing things. I was trying to express that the limits placed upon one consciousness by their physical body are not the de facto limits of consciousness.

 

But you're right that I shouldn't have muddied the issue by bringing in a different phenomena. It didn't clarify anything. I should have simply stated that one person being blind doesn't mean someone ELSE can't "create a 3-D reality in their mind." My point was that it is possible for a mind to do this not that every single individual human mind can create the exact same experience. I hope that's more clear.

 

 

Anyhow, I'm willing to accept that those who were blind saw perfectly well during their NDE's, but, I'll just need one quick bit of information. What does a microwave look like? Not sure? Trick question? I ask because how does a blind person know, even in during NDE what, say, orange, looks like? Why aren't they seeing a microwave. Or how would they know they aren't seeing infra-red? Or gamma rays? Maybe that isn't orange at all? Or why don't they see the rest of the radio spectrum for that matter? Why just the narrow band of visible light we normally see?

 

There are several cases of NDE experiencers claiming they saw colors and other things that don't exist here but they couldn't put it into words because they didn't have language/proper context to describe those things. Of course you (or anybody else) is not obligated to accept that, but the fact is that they describe seeing and hearing and perceiving in ways wildly different from how we do but seem to have a huge difficulty expressing that in human language since our language systems are largely built around the things human beings experience in day-to-day existence.

 

Also: a question: Why are you willing to accept they saw perfectly well in their NDE when they were blind from BIRTH? (After claiming they don't see things in their dreams.) Isn't that admitting a non-local consciousness?

 

Hard, unanswerable, questions.

 

I agree. We don't know anything about most of this. We can only go with what makes the most sense (and that will vary by person). Human beings construct narratives of reality. Materialists claim people with spirituality are using "god of the gaps" but EVERYBODY fills in the gaps they don't know with "something". few people can live with total ambiguity. Those people who can, say: "I don't know." And that's where it stops with them. I don't know either. And you don't know and neither does anybody else including fundie Christians and strict materialists. But "not knowing", most people insert "some kind" of philosophy/understanding/ordering of things in order to function practically.

 

I'm not making a pronouncement about who is "objectively correct". I have no idea. I honestly don't believe that's something human beings can ever know. In the strictest sense I'm agnostic, but I have the narrative that works for me and makes the most sense for me. I don't expect it to be everybody else's narrative. But at least everyone could admit they have a narrative, unless they want to claim omniscience or some other superhuman trait that wouldn't fit inside their materialistic assumption and would therefore be illogical.

[badpuppy]

Also, my apologies for leaving you hanging. I had to take a few days off because I was becoming frustrated and angry about not being heard and was starting to behave like an asshole. That's not who I want to be. So I had to take a break and decompress.

[Thought2Much]

Also: a question: Why are you willing to accept they saw perfectly well in their NDE when they were blind from BIRTH? (After claiming they don't see things in their dreams.) Isn't that admitting a non-local consciousness?

 

No. Just because blind people may see things during NDEs that they wouldn't under normal circumstances does not logically point toward a "non-local consciousness." Even assuming this is correct (which it most likely isn't), why does this "non-local consciousness" only exhibit itself during an NDE? What is the point of that? Why doesn't it bother to show up any other time? This "non-local conciousness" is beginning to sound as elusive, mysterious, and useless as the Christian god that most of us decided doesn't exist.

 

It could just be that the part of the brain responsible for sight is suddenly sent signals, by a part of the brain that doesn't normally communicate with it, during an NDE. This would make a lot more sense than some mysterious, elusive "non-local consciousness."

[badpuppy]

Also: a question: Why are you willing to accept they saw perfectly well in their NDE when they were blind from BIRTH? (After claiming they don't see things in their dreams.) Isn't that admitting a non-local consciousness?

 

No. Just because blind people may see things during NDEs that they wouldn't under normal circumstances does not logically point toward a "non-local consciousness." Even assuming this is correct (which it most likely isn't), why does this "non-local consciousness" only exhibit itself during an NDE? What is the point of that? Why doesn't it bother to show up any other time? This "non-local conciousness" is beginning to sound as elusive, mysterious, and useless as the Christian god that most of us decided doesn't exist.

 

It could just be that the part of the brain responsible for sight is suddenly sent signals, by a part of the brain that doesn't normally communicate with it, during an NDE. This would make a lot more sense than some mysterious, elusive "non-local consciousness."

 

Non-local consciousness doesn't just exhibit itself during an NDE. It happens during OBE's, as a result of some drugs, and during some transcendental meditation. I'm sure I'm leaving some things out.

 

If you don't think this points to non-local consciousness then please explain to me an alternative way that a person blind from birth can see anything while they are clinically dead. I'd love to hear this theory. It would be easier for you to just say they are personal anecdotes and you believe the person is lying. It would make a lot more sense, IMO.

 

How would the brain get "signals" it doesn't normally get? If you think eyes aren't required for sight, how is that NOT non-local consciousness? And if you think everything you see happens in your mind and not through your eyes, then why is it any bigger thing to posit that mind and brain are not the same thing? I honestly don't understand this resistance.

 

I get that you don't have to accept NDE's "mean anything". That's fine, but just say you don't believe the anecdote. No need to resort to something even less rational just to explain it in strict materialistic terms.

[Thought2Much]

Who the fuck said anything about the person having a near death experience lying? I never said any such thing.

 

Really, having an adult discussion with you is impossible. You have proven this beyond a doubt. The reason you find yourself arguing so much here isn't because of everybody else. Take a look at what you're writing and what other people are writing. The communication problems are because of your inability to articulate whatever the hell it is you've actually been talking about, and your failure to understand other people's replies. How many pages did it take to finally boil down your belief to what you call a "non-local consciousness?" Why couldn't you have just stated that in one sentence?

 

Sorry to rant like that. I don't normally fly off the handle like that, but you just totally made shit up about anyone saying that blind people having near death experiences are lying. To continue...

 

This is how a person who is blind from birth can see during an NDE:

 

Assuming that someone can't see from birth because of problems in the optic nerve or because of defective retinas, and not because of some issue in the part of the brain that is itself responsible for processing sight (the occipital lobe), then it is damn well possible for someone to "see" something that isn't there during a near death experience whether they are blind or not, because the part of the brain that can process images works just hunky dory. This is observable in people who have cochlear implants that directly stimulate the auditory nerves, bypassing their broken ears; their brains work just fine. When a normal person has a near death experience, they also "see" and "hear" things that aren't really happening. During the oxygen deprivation of a near death experience, all kinds of funky shit happens inside the brain. And not one bit of it points toward some vague "non-local consciousness."

 

And, just because someone is clinically dead does not mean that all cellular activity stops right that second. That just means the heart has stopped. The brain is perfectly capable of sending all kinds of signals within itself on the last little bits of oxygen present before they totally shut down. There isn't anything supernatural about it.

 

By the way, the onus is on you to provide evidence for a "non-local consciousness" if you insist on arguing for such a thing. None of us is under the obligation to disprove it.

[badpuppy]

Seriously, Trapped? Why are you being so emotive and angry with me? I never said you said they were lying. I love how you read things I'm not saying only to say I'm saying things about you I'm not saying. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

I said it would be MORE LOGICAL for you to assert such a thing. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to read such simple sentences without getting angry and assuming some "bad motive" on my part. I think they are very clear.

 

If you said you didn't believe the story or thought they were lying, I would simply say: "okay". But instead you resort to all sorts of speculation that has no basis in observed fact. It's just your speculation and nothing more.

 

So... if your speculation is correct, why then is it that these people who are blind-from-birth do not see anything in dreams? They don't understand the "concept" of sight. So they don't have dreams of visual things. Just sounds, smells, tastes, and feelings. Why would some part of the brain suddenly be stimulated in an NDE that never gets stimulated in dreams? Prove it, don't just assert it.

 

In the NDE it scares them at first because it's the first time they are experiencing it. "Where" is this consciousness happening? I find this interpretation just bizarre, which is why I said it would be EASIER if you had said (notice I didn't say you DID say) that they were lying or you didn't believe the story. Why even play by my rules? Why not just insist I prove these accounts are real accounts that someone has verified in some way? I'd be digging for days for the actual study. It would keep me busy and out of your hair.

 

Instead, you run for the weakest argument. I'm just trying to understand how you think.

 

Also saying "When a normal person has a near death experience they also "see" and "hear" things that aren't really happening" This is pure assertion. Prove it. How do you know these things aren't really happening? Oxygen deprivation isn't an excuse because these SAME types of experiences can happen with certain drugs, during OBE's, and during transcendental meditation. And there is no oxygen deprivation going on in those cases.

 

I find it a little absurd to posit that someone can have a MORE lucid experience than their waking experience where time doesn't seem to exist (People can talk for days just about their life review which seems to have been experienced in a much longer period of time than actually existed objectively), all while the "lights are being turned off"... i.e. cells are dying. So if something so counterintuitive is actually happening, I'd like some proof. But it's unprovable. Still, you claim victory on this topic, which is highly amusing to me.

 

I didn't say there was anything "supernatural" about it. Why do you insist that consciousness, if not reducible to "materialism" is somehow "supernatural"? I don't get that way of reasoning at all.

 

Actually the onus is NOT on me to provide evidence for anything. I didn't say: "non-local consciousness exists". I said that's my personal opinion given the information I've been presented with. I haven't asked you or anyone else to see things the same way I see them. I'm just trying to understand the logic behind strict materialism.

 

The onus is ACTUALLY on the person who makes an empirical truth claim. If you want to say you simply aren't convinced of non-local consciousness, fine. I'm unconvinced by strict materialism. We can agree to disagree from that point.

 

However, if you are going to say the brain IS the mind and non-local consciousness is "supernatural" and therefore "not real", then I'm going to ask you to provide more evidence than your mere assertion.

[Thought2Much]

badpuppy, you really need to do some reading on how the brain is structured and organized, and how different drugs, stimuli, and behaviors can affect how it operates. It can all be explained in material terms. You are the one asserting that it cannot, even though you have zero (zilch, none, nunca, no) evidence of why you think this is so.

 

I don't know what "evidence" you have been presented with to lead you to your conclusions, but I suggest you get a lot more real evidence about the world as it actually is before you post about this subject again.

[badpuppy]

badpuppy, you really need to do some reading on how the brain is structured and organized, and how different drugs, stimuli, and behaviors can affect how it operates. It can all be explained in material terms. You are the one asserting that it cannot, even though you have zero (zilch, none, nunca, no) evidence of why you think this is so.

 

I don't know what "evidence" you have been presented with to lead you to your conclusions, but I suggest you get a lot more real evidence about the world as it actually is before you post about this subject again.

 

Please don't assume how much I have and haven't read. Consciousness has yet to be "reducible" to brain processes. That's why it's called "the hard problem" of consciousness. If science had actually "solved it", I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it, but last I checked, it's still the "hard problem" of consciousness.

 

I've absolutely never asserted that it "cannot" be all material. I've said I don't see enough evidence and I remain personally unconvinced. I've said on more than one occasion on this site that I could be wrong and strict materialism could be the empirical reality. I don't say that as just lip service. I admit to my fallibility as a human being. Do you? However, I am not convinced by the evidence that has thus far been presented. It is my right as a thinking and reasoning human being to not just accept every pat answer that is given to me on any topic.

 

I remain unconvinced that there is any strong evidence that actually makes NDE's "absolutely material/hallucination/reduced to brain processes". Claiming de facto victory based on your materialistic assumption doesn't cut grass with me. But thank you for your suggestion that I become more educated on a topic you have no idea how much I've actually read about (on both sides btw).

 

Why is it such a threat that I've read the current information on both sides but personally feel my viewpoint is more likely than yours?

[blackpudd1n]

Badpuppy, how about you start a new thread, and put up some references if you feel so strongly about all this?

[badpuppy]

Badpuppy, how about you start a new thread, and put up some references if you feel so strongly about all this?

 

I'm just responding to what other people are saying to me. I'm happy to go to another thread if someone else starts another thread, however I don't feel that strongly about it. I don't think most of this stuff is even knowable by human beings. But, I still stick with what makes the most sense to me. Others have challenged me and asked me questions, which I've answered "from my perspective". I'm not sure why my personal opinion is such a big threat, but whatever. I'm also not sure why people want to assert they have empirical truth then pretend they didn't assert anything they have to prove, while insulting my intelligence, rationality, motives, and education.

 

Where I have gotten irate is when people have ascribed negative motives to me that just don't exist. I don't CARE if someone merely disagrees with me.

[blackpudd1n]

Badpuppy, how about you start a new thread, and put up some references if you feel so strongly about all this?

 

I'm just responding to what other people are saying to me. I'm happy to go to another thread if someone else starts another thread, however I don't feel that strongly about it. I don't think most of this stuff is even knowable by human beings. But, I still stick with what makes the most sense to me. Others have challenged me and asked me questions, which I've answered "from my perspective". I'm not sure why my personal opinion is such a big threat, but whatever. I'm also not sure why people want to assert they have empirical truth then pretend they didn't assert anything they have to prove, while insulting my intelligence, rationality, motives, and education.

 

Yes, but this was not your thread to hijack in the first place. Secondly, the fact that you have been going on about this topic for 7 pages would suggest that either you feel strongly about it, or feel strongly about being "right". Either way, if you have some evidence one way or another, start a new thread, and chuck it on there, and let it stand for itself. Otherwise, don't you think this has gone on for long enough?

[badpuppy]

Badpuppy, how about you start a new thread, and put up some references if you feel so strongly about all this?

 

I'm just responding to what other people are saying to me. I'm happy to go to another thread if someone else starts another thread, however I don't feel that strongly about it. I don't think most of this stuff is even knowable by human beings. But, I still stick with what makes the most sense to me. Others have challenged me and asked me questions, which I've answered "from my perspective". I'm not sure why my personal opinion is such a big threat, but whatever. I'm also not sure why people want to assert they have empirical truth then pretend they didn't assert anything they have to prove, while insulting my intelligence, rationality, motives, and education.

 

Yes, but this was not your thread to hijack in the first place. Secondly, the fact that you have been going on about this topic for 7 pages would suggest that either you feel strongly about it, or feel strongly about being "right". Either way, if you have some evidence one way or another, start a new thread, and chuck it on there, and let it stand for itself. Otherwise, don't you think this has gone on for long enough?

 

It wouldn't have been "hijacked" if someone hadn't started ascribing BS to me I never said. I spent 3 pages defending myself from personal attack on my character and what they thought I said that I didn't ever say. I should NEVER have even spoken up on the topic of dogmatic materialists. I didn't know it was going to turn into this. This is as pointless as arguing with a fundie Christian. I wouldn't have even gotten INVOLVED had I known. But it's not appropriate to expect me to sit and let people kick me in the teeth without responding.

 

I also often have the naive hope people will actually hear me, but if they've decided they don't like me for some imaginary reason that just won't happen. ALL people have to do is stop responding to me here. Or open their own thread and let me know about it. But as long as people keep addressing me here (as you just did), I'll probably keep responding, unless I have the person on ignore.

 

I don't feel strongly about the topic or being "right". The ONLY thing I feel strongly about is people not putting words into my mouth and ascribing bad motives to me that aren't there. It's fucking offensive and inappropriate for grown adults claiming to be so "rational".

 

You say: "Don't you think this has gone on long enough?" YES. I do. The second people stop fucking attacking me, mischaracterizing what I say, and asking me QUESTIONS here, I will stop replying. It's that simple.

 

It's bizarre to act like I'm the only person involved here. I question why it's okay for other people to make posts to me in this thread continuing the hijacking, but then I'm the one to blame. Really? If you think I'm some kind of troll, then everybody stop feeding me. My replies have been to answer direct questions posed to me and to defend my character against attack.

[blackpudd1n]

Badpuppy, I really think you are taking this all a bit too personally. And you are attacking others just as much- assuming people don't like you, assuming personal attacks on your character, implying that the people you are debating are no different to fundies, assuming people are ascribing bad motives to you, mischaracterising what you say, and now alluding to me thinking you are "some kind of troll".

 

I can see that you are angry, but I don't necessarily think that the people on this forum are the root cause of your anger. That is all I'm going to say on this subject. I do, however, think it is unfortunate that you feel that we have caused you such grief.

[badpuppy]

Badpuppy, I really think you are taking this all a bit too personally. And you are attacking others just as much- assuming people don't like you, assuming personal attacks on your character, implying that the people you are debating are no different to fundies, assuming people are ascribing bad motives to you, mischaracterising what you say, and now alluding to me thinking you are "some kind of troll".

 

I can see that you are angry, but I don't necessarily think that the people on this forum are the root cause of your anger. That is all I'm going to say on this subject. I do, however, think it is unfortunate that you feel that we have caused you such grief.

 

I don't think it's an assumption that people don't like me when some have 1-starred my profile based on this thread. (Later someone else starred me higher). *I'm* taking this too personally? Have you really read every word of this thread? Have you read where people have claimed I was saying they were certain things I never said or saying I said they said things I never said? Yes, by now I'm pissed off because this is several pages of NONSENSE where I'm the "bad guy". I agree this thread has been hijacked and it has surrounded largely around me, but I cannot be solely blamed for it.

 

If no one had started jumping on me for one post that was mischaracterized this never would have happened, but people kept asserting things i wasn't saying and ascribing motives to me I didn't have. So yes, I'll take it personally. Then the OP jumped on me for hijacking the thread. People have fucking flipped out on this thread which actually kind of proves my point about how not all materialists are the height of rationality because if they were it wouldn't have become this insane.

 

(And no, not every person has "attacked me". MWC has been perfectly reasonable and I've enjoyed our discussion. And Vigile was also perfectly reasonable even though I thought he wasn't hearing me at first. In the end Vigile is reasonable. But I was answering questions directly posed to me by MWC which gets me labeled a "hijacker".)

 

The root cause of my anger is exactly what I said it was. And here you go assuming stuff about me, that I have this big root anger issue that must have some other root besides what has happened in this thread. Really? Being treated this way by several people isn't "enough" for someone to be reasonably pissed off?

 

I can't believe you can't read this thread and SEE where people repeatedly claimed I said shit I never said, dragged it on forever, then blamed ME for hijacking. Holy crap. If people are so upset about the concept of hijacking all they have to do is put me on ignore, not continually reply to me, mischaracterize what I say and etc. etc. I took several days off from the forum because of this thread. When I came back, I replied (reasonably) to a post (also reasonable) by MWC. Then Trapped jumps in and engages me further, then gets irate with me for saying he said something I never said he said. Then he proceeds to be completely condescending with regard to how much knowledge I have on a topic and that he "suggests" I know more about the topic before engaging in discussion? Seriously? OMGWTFBBQ

 

If your intention wasn't to imply I was some kind of troll, then I apologize that you got caught in the crossfire. At this point I'm suspicious of nearly everyone who engages me in this thread, due to the previous things that have happened on it.

 

EDITED TO ADD: And to be fair... SEVERAL people have carried on reasonable conversations with me in this thread. My point is that after things went off course, my replies were direct replies to people asking me questions/engaging me in hijack topics, or... replying to where people were claiming I was saying things i wasn't saying. THAT was irritating enough... but it gets much more irritating when I then get blamed (solely, just little ole me, nobody else) for hijacking the thread when clearly other people were carrying on conversations with me here.)

[midniterider]

Also: a question: Why are you willing to accept they saw perfectly well in their NDE when they were blind from BIRTH? (After claiming they don't see things in their dreams.) Isn't that admitting a non-local consciousness?

 

No. Just because blind people may see things during NDEs that they wouldn't under normal circumstances does not logically point toward a "non-local consciousness." Even assuming this is correct (which it most likely isn't), why does this "non-local consciousness" only exhibit itself during an NDE? What is the point of that? Why doesn't it bother to show up any other time? This "non-local conciousness" is beginning to sound as elusive, mysterious, and useless as the Christian god that most of us decided doesn't exist.

 

It could just be that the part of the brain responsible for sight is suddenly sent signals, by a part of the brain that doesn't normally communicate with it, during an NDE. This would make a lot more sense than some mysterious, elusive "non-local consciousness."

 

Non-local consciousness doesn't just exhibit itself during an NDE. It happens during OBE's, as a result of some drugs, and during some transcendental meditation. I'm sure I'm leaving some things out.

 

If you don't think this points to non-local consciousness then please explain to me an alternative way that a person blind from birth can see anything while they are clinically dead. I'd love to hear this theory. It would be easier for you to just say they are personal anecdotes and you believe the person is lying. It would make a lot more sense, IMO.

 

How would the brain get "signals" it doesn't normally get? If you think eyes aren't required for sight, how is that NOT non-local consciousness? And if you think everything you see happens in your mind and not through your eyes, then why is it any bigger thing to posit that mind and brain are not the same thing? I honestly don't understand this resistance.

 

I get that you don't have to accept NDE's "mean anything". That's fine, but just say you don't believe the anecdote. No need to resort to something even less rational just to explain it in strict materialistic terms.

 

Hey, do blind people see things in their dreams? And if this question was already covered by the messages that I skimmed over, just beat me. :-)

[badpuppy]

 

Hey, do blind people see things in their dreams? And if this question was already covered by the messages that I skimmed over, just beat me. :-)

 

Well, we should probably start a new thread about this, since I'll get blamed for hijacking for replying to you. However, the good news is... since I'm the "official hijacker" you will remain blameless.

 

People blind-from-birth do not see in their dreams. People who became blind later in life, do.

[Antlerman]

badpuppy, you really need to do some reading on how the brain is structured and organized, and how different drugs, stimuli, and behaviors can affect how it operates. It can all be explained in material terms.

Good lord.. really? Correlation does not equal causation. How is it that a chosen mental practice can directly effect the brain, and not the mental process itself be a slave to the brain? Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361002/

 

There is a clear effect on the brain by a mental action. Mediation directly affects the brain. Meditation is a mental action, not an effect of the brain just doing it's brain thing. It's amazing how consciousness is not a caboose on the brain train, isn't it?

[midniterider]

Seriously, Trapped? Why are you being so emotive and angry with me? I never said you said they were lying. I love how you read things I'm not saying only to say I'm saying things about you I'm not saying. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

I said it would be MORE LOGICAL for you to assert such a thing. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to read such simple sentences without getting angry and assuming some "bad motive" on my part. I think they are very clear.

 

If you said you didn't believe the story or thought they were lying, I would simply say: "okay". But instead you resort to all sorts of speculation that has no basis in observed fact. It's just your speculation and nothing more.

 

So... if your speculation is correct, why then is it that these people who are blind-from-birth do not see anything in dreams? They don't understand the "concept" of sight. So they don't have dreams of visual things. Just sounds, smells, tastes, and feelings. Why would some part of the brain suddenly be stimulated in an NDE that never gets stimulated in dreams? Prove it, don't just assert it.

 

In the NDE it scares them at first because it's the first time they are experiencing it. "Where" is this consciousness happening? I find this interpretation just bizarre, which is why I said it would be EASIER if you had said (notice I didn't say you DID say) that they were lying or you didn't believe the story. Why even play by my rules? Why not just insist I prove these accounts are real accounts that someone has verified in some way? I'd be digging for days for the actual study. It would keep me busy and out of your hair.

 

Instead, you run for the weakest argument. I'm just trying to understand how you think.

 

Also saying "When a normal person has a near death experience they also "see" and "hear" things that aren't really happening" This is pure assertion. Prove it. How do you know these things aren't really happening? Oxygen deprivation isn't an excuse because these SAME types of experiences can happen with certain drugs, during OBE's, and during transcendental meditation. And there is no oxygen deprivation going on in those cases.

 

I find it a little absurd to posit that someone can have a MORE lucid experience than their waking experience where time doesn't seem to exist (People can talk for days just about their life review which seems to have been experienced in a much longer period of time than actually existed objectively), all while the "lights are being turned off"... i.e. cells are dying. So if something so counterintuitive is actually happening, I'd like some proof. But it's unprovable. Still, you claim victory on this topic, which is highly amusing to me.

 

I didn't say there was anything "supernatural" about it. Why do you insist that consciousness, if not reducible to "materialism" is somehow "supernatural"? I don't get that way of reasoning at all.

 

Actually the onus is NOT on me to provide evidence for anything. I didn't say: "non-local consciousness exists". I said that's my personal opinion given the information I've been presented with. I haven't asked you or anyone else to see things the same way I see them. I'm just trying to understand the logic behind strict materialism.

 

The onus is ACTUALLY on the person who makes an empirical truth claim. If you want to say you simply aren't convinced of non-local consciousness, fine. I'm unconvinced by strict materialism. We can agree to disagree from that point.

 

However, if you are going to say the brain IS the mind and non-local consciousness is "supernatural" and therefore "not real", then I'm going to ask you to provide more evidence than your mere assertion.

 

I've been having this hallucination that there is a world in which people debate philosophical topics, but I know it is all just in my imagination. :-)

 

I was reading some Advaita Vedanta stuff once and the 'enlightened' author noted that non-dual awareness isn't some spiritual thing...there's no god involved...it is totally natural and is what you are. There's no woo about it.

[badpuppy]

 

 

I've been having this hallucination that there is a world in which people debate philosophical topics, but I know it is all just in my imagination. :-)

 

I was reading some Advaita Vedanta stuff once and the 'enlightened' author noted that non-dual awareness isn't some spiritual thing...there's no god involved...it is totally natural and is what you are. There's no woo about it.

 

Don't worry, your hallucination is fully reducible to brain chemicals.

 

Yeah I think the term "god" gets in the way. But even without it people think you're talking about something "supernatural". Since scientists are still empty-handed when it comes to the "hard problem" of consciousness... then I would think assuming we know every aspect of the nature of consciousness would be a tad bit premature. But I'm sure that's just me being irrational again.

[midniterider]

I've been having this hallucination that there is a world in which people debate philosophical topics, but I know it is all just in my imagination. :-)

 

I was reading some Advaita Vedanta stuff once and the 'enlightened' author noted that non-dual awareness isn't some spiritual thing...there's no god involved...it is totally natural and is what you are. There's no woo about it.

 

Don't worry, your hallucination is fully reducible to brain chemicals.

 

Yeah I think the term "god" gets in the way. But even without it people think you're talking about something "supernatural". Since scientists are still empty-handed when it comes to the "hard problem" of consciousness... then I would think assuming we know every aspect of the nature of consciousness would be a tad bit premature. But I'm sure that's just me being irrational again.

 

I think assuming we know every aspect of anything is a little premature..haha...But I like how some scientists are linking quantum physics to non-duality. http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/ When quantum physics starts correlating with what is written in the Vedas it gives more scientific validation to what some describe as woo. Science gives certain people comfort. I know it gives me some comfort. Maybe someday I can make my way to the end of another book I'm reading called "The Self Aware Universe."

Though, it makes my brain hurt. I've been told I have a brain but have never seen it. "They" seem to assume everyone has one just cuz other people do. haha...JUST KIDDING!

[badpuppy]

 

I think assuming we know every aspect of anything is a little premature..haha...

 

Agreed. I wonder if a thousand years from now someone might look back on our time and go: "Oh, that's when people still thought their mind was their brain. That makes me chuckle."

 

But I like how some scientists are linking quantum physics to non-duality. http://faculty.virgi.../consciousness/ When quantum physics starts correlating with what is written in the Vedas it gives more scientific validation to what some describe as woo.

 

Have you seen Peter Russell's speech about the Primacy of Consciousness? If you google "Primacy of Consciousness" there is a google video about it. It's a little over an hour long but it's pretty awesome. The thing is... I think quantum physics was correlating back when it was first discovered. The attitude toward it has simply been: "It works, but don't think about the implications."

 

Science gives certain people comfort. I know it gives me some comfort. Maybe someday I can make my way to the end of another book I'm reading called "The Self Aware Universe."

Though, it makes my brain hurt. I've been told I have a brain but have never seen it. "They" seem to assume everyone has one just cuz other people do. haha...JUST KIDDING!

 

LOL. Robert Lanza is fond of saying that you can't see through the bone in your skull. (Basically... that the things you see are re-creations in your mind, not the actual thing being viewed directly.)

[midniterider]

I think assuming we know every aspect of anything is a little premature..haha...

 

Agreed. I wonder if a thousand years from now someone might look back on our time and go: "Oh, that's when people still thought their mind was their brain. That makes me chuckle."

 

But I like how some scientists are linking quantum physics to non-duality. http://faculty.virgi.../consciousness/ When quantum physics starts correlating with what is written in the Vedas it gives more scientific validation to what some describe as woo.

 

Have you seen Peter Russell's speech about the Primacy of Consciousness? If you google "Primacy of Consciousness" there is a google video about it. It's a little over an hour long but it's pretty awesome. The thing is... I think quantum physics was correlating back when it was first discovered. The attitude toward it has simply been: "It works, but don't think about the implications."

 

Science gives certain people comfort. I know it gives me some comfort. Maybe someday I can make my way to the end of another book I'm reading called "The Self Aware Universe."

Though, it makes my brain hurt. I've been told I have a brain but have never seen it. "They" seem to assume everyone has one just cuz other people do. haha...JUST KIDDING!

 

LOL. Robert Lanza is fond of saying that you can't see through the bone in your skull. (Basically... that the things you see are re-creations in your mind, not the actual thing being viewed directly.)

 

I will check out the Primacy of Consciousness. Thanks. :-) Take a look at Headless.org. It's non-duality for dummies (like me)...ha.

[badpuppy]

Cool. Will check it out.

 

Thx!

[blackpudd1n]

As I said, Badpuppy, I'm done here. I'm not answering anything you raised.