Evidence for God from Science

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:None of those know properties account for what we are doing right now - debating abstract ideas for example. None of those known properties account for things that have no bearing on day-today survial, things like philsophy for example.

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

Yes, that's the dominant paradigm. So what? Even if true (and that's certainly still up for debate) It doesn't even address the point I was making, i.e. the mind/body connection problem. There are 3 choices here Morny and they are as follows:

1. Cartesian Dualsim (CD), a la Descartes, which leaves us with the exact problem I'm describing, i.e. no coherent connection between body and mind
2. Eliminative Materialism (EM), which basically says there really is no mind, it's just an illusion. And that is what we'd have left if we correctly discard CD as incoherent and not consider viable alternatives (look up Patricia Churchland for some utterly fascinating articles on EM)
3. Hylemorphic Dualism (HD) as in Aristotelian-Tomistic-Scholastic philosophy, i.e. goal-orientedness and intentionality, formal and final causality, and all that comes with it (careful here, world-view alteration probable )

Do yourself a favor and read Ed Feser's blog on the subject here.

Here's the kicker Morny, on HD the current paradigm in neuroscience you speak of is precisely what you'd expect to see, coupled with seamlessly and coherently solving the mind-to-matter connection problem.

Morny said here

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

Yes and the dominant view is wrong for a few reasons morny and you know it. First Nde's don't fit in at all with this view by neuroscientists, and their only response against the peer reviewed nde studies and many anecdotal experiences that fit together like a glove is to deny them. If the dominant view in science morny was that the earth is 6000 years old would u just except it blindly without questioning it or ask for evidence ? Of course you wouldn't because there is an emotional worldview involved in your belief system . There is not one neuroscientist that can give even a rudimentary explanation for even veridical Nde's . Yet you accept this dominant view that is not scientific at all because they completely ignore the evidence from these studies.

And while we are at it please show me one neuroscientist who espouses this view who has done a serious peer reviewed nde study.

Oxford educated professor patricia churchland is one if your so called experys in this field and when she was out to the test , she looked like an ignorant sophomore .

There is not one that can give a rational brain based explanation for these types of Nde's .
Morny are u into scientific evidence or do you just follow the herd blindly because it accepts your worldview ?

And you never bothered to give me any logical or scientific evidence for this dominant position in neuroscience being correct . How about you tackle it now ?

The position of these neuroscientists seem to be totally dependent on BLIND FAITH.
If you feel I'm wrong , show me the beef. Bring some scientific evidence that proves it even points to these Nde's being caused by the brain.

The best your side could do is Audie's objection that because we don't know how the brain is retaining these nde experiences if they are not brain based, therefore they are brain based " explanation , which doesn't deal with how the evidence is pointing towards a none brain based explanation at all.

Lol bip, we both honed in on the exact same quote. While I agree with most of your post, as I mentioned in my post ( as well as in Ed Feser's blogs on the subject) the current paradigm in neuroscience is no threat at all to our world view. The proof, as you correctly stated, is that the champion of eliminative materialism and the foremost advocate of the non-existence of the mind, i.e. Patricia Churchland and her husband, are repeatedly made to look like the fools they really are.

Byblos wrote:Lol bip, we both honed in on the exact same quote. While I agree with most of your post, as I mentioned in my post ( as well as in Ed Feser's blogs on the subject) the current paradigm in neuroscience is no threat at all to our world view. The proof, as you correctly stated, is that the champion of eliminative materialism and the foremost advocate of the non-existence of the mind, i.e. Patricia Churchland and her husband, are repeatedly made to look like the fools they really are.

Thanks for mentioning feser my friend . I've been wanting to check him out for a while . I will do exactly that probably in a month or 2 after getting through our current housing crisis .

Yea ,people like the churchlands who teach at ucsd won't even allow this to be discussed in their academic environment , and the skeptiko interview showed us why .

She also refers to doctor Susan Blackmore as the sole nde researcher that backs her view on Nde's as being brain based .
When Blackmore was interviewed on skeptiko and she was asked basically the same question , at least she didn't hang up on tsakiris. Instead she said she refuses to talk about Nde's anymore as she claims that she hasn't kept up to date on the current research evidences lol.

What is it that these people are afraid of Byblos

Morny correctly claims that this is the current consensus view but not one of them can back up their view against the current evidences.

Morny do u value science or not

bippy123 wrote:Morny said here

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

[bippy's chloroform-in-print omitted]

Perhaps you missed my earlier post. You brought up Dr. Parnia for NDE, so I asked for the following:

Succinctly state Dr. Parnia's claim.
Where is his raw data and protocols?
Who replicated his results?

Then with that information, let's review the quality (of lack thereof) of his evidence.

Byblos wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:None of those know properties account for what we are doing right now - debating abstract ideas for example. None of those known properties account for things that have no bearing on day-today survial, things like philsophy for example.

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

Yes, that's the dominant paradigm. So what? Even if true (and that's certainly still up for debate) It doesn't even address the point I was making, i.e. the mind/body connection problem. There are 3 choices here [...]

Good. So let's tentatively assume that the physics of my brain produces at a minimum my consciousness, memories, and meta-level reasoning.

Now, of the thousand different proposed philosophical ramblings in the literature regarding this issue, please simply and concisely state what you think the "coherent" mind-body connection problem is. E.g., is only the human brain relevant? What mental phenomenon is most compelling for your position?

BTW, Edward Feser has nerve calling neuroscience "neurobabble", when his 3rd paragraph from your hyperlink says:

Somehow, though, when neuroscientists discover some neural correlate of this or that mental event or process, a certain kind of materialist concludes that the mind’s identity with, or supervenience upon, or reducibility to, or complete explanation in terms of neural processes is all but a done deal, and that the reservations of non-materialists are just so much intellectually dishonest bad faith.

Life is too short for someone with my engineering background to trudge through such a morass for something meaningful. I woke up at the 5th paragraph from the sound of my head hitting the keyboard.

Morny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Morny said here

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

[bippy's chloroform-in-print omitted]

Perhaps you missed my earlier post. You brought up Dr. Parnia for NDE, so I asked for the following:

Succinctly state Dr. Parnia's claim.
Where is his raw data and protocols?
Who replicated his results?

Then with that information, let's review the quality (of lack thereof) of his evidence.

His results replicated much of doctor Pim van Lommel but took it even further as a veridical nde was timed at having happened after his cardiac arrest for a full 3 minutes after the cardiac arrest, so in actuality his study built upon lommels study so you can say quote the opposite , that parnia replicated Lommel and took it even further .

Parnia's study was the largest study ever on Nde's and it was peer reviewed .
http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/ ... on__2_.pdf

Methods: The incidence and validity of awareness together with the range, characteristics and themes relating to memories/cognitive processes during CA was investigated through a 4 year multi-center observational study using a three stage quantitative and qualitative interview system. The feasibility of objectively testing the accuracy of claims of visual and auditory awareness was examined using spe- cific tests. The outcome measures were (1) awareness/memories during CA and (2) objective verification of claims of awareness using specific tests.
Results: Among 2060 CA events, 140 survivors completed stage 1 interviews, while 101 of 140 patients completed stage 2 interviews. 46% had memories with 7 major cognitive themes: fear; animals/plants; bright light; violence/persecution; deja-vu; family; recalling events post-CA and 9% had NDEs, while 2% described awareness with explicit recall of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ actual events related to their resusci- tation. One had a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... study.html

The largest ever medical study into near-death and out-of-body experiences has discovered that some awareness may continue even after the brain has shut down completely.
It is a controversial subject which has, until recently, been treated with widespread scepticism.
But scientists at the University of Southampton have spent four years examining more than 2,000 people who suffered cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria.
And they found that nearly 40 per cent of people who survived described some kind of ‘awareness’ during the time when they were clinically dead before their hearts were restarted.


One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”
Of 2060 cardiac arrest patients studied, 330 survived and of 140 surveyed, 39 per cent said they had experienced some kind of awareness while being resuscitated.

I must also say morny that lommels study was also peer reviewed and published in the lancet .
These 2 studies also fit in perfectly with the tens if thousands of anecdotal evidences if veridical Nde's that have been recorded for many years before this . I'm not saying its 100% proof but all of the evidence so far is pointing in the direction of a non brain explanation and it starts to sound ridiculous and reaching when a neuroscientist tries to posit a brain based explanation because it doesn't fit with the nde data.

My next question morny to you is , why do most neuroscientists deny this evidence ? Why is there such a gap of purposeful ignorance with neuroscientists on Nde's. They know that every brain based explanation has been refuted . Whe can't they be more honest about the evidences. If the evidence points to a non material , non brain based explanation , then why not admit it and discuss it in their courses ?

Roger Penrose is an atheist and he knows that the nde evidence is very strong for the soul and life after death and is trying to come up with a theory that explains it in a naturalistic quantum way . Could it be that most fundamentalist atheists just don't like to admit that religion has been saying that we have a soul and the afterlife exists for thousands of years and almost all atheists have said that it's a delusional fantasy ?

I think you will find parnia's protocols were strict morny

bippy123 wrote:

Morny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Morny said here

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

[bippy's chloroform-in-print omitted]

Perhaps you missed my earlier post. You brought up Dr. Parnia for NDE, so I asked for the following:

Succinctly state Dr. Parnia's claim.
Where is his raw data and protocols?
Who replicated his results?

Then with that information, let's review the quality (of lack thereof) of his evidence.

Parnia's study was the largest study ever on Nde's and it was peer reviewed .
http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/ ... on__2_.pdf
[...]
I think you will find parnia's protocols were strict morny

Thank you for Dr. Parnia's AWARE publication.

According to Parnia himself, out of numerous patients in the study, only one patient had a "verified" out-of-body (VA) experience!

But let's put that staggering selection-bias flaw and statistical howler aside for a moment. What exactly was Parnia's ONE case? From his publication:

a 57 year old man described the perception of observing events from the top corner of the room and continued to experience a sensation of looking down from above. He accurately described people, sounds, and activities from his resuscitation

OK, I admit that does sound impressive. But what exactly were the patient's visual and auditory recalls? Again, from the publication:

[the patient saw] the use of an automated external defibrillator

Breath-taking. How could the patient have know that?! Why would anyone use a defibrillator on a cardiac arrest patient in a hospital emergency area?!

a chunky fella [with a] "bald head" [and] blue scrubs

Really? When don't you see such a man in or around a cardiac unit?

I heard the nurse say "dial 444 cardiac arrest"

Parnia's interviews were hours and sometimes days after the cardiac arrests. Proper protocols should have ruled out the most likely reasons for the patient having reported such a recollection, e.g., the nurse told him after his resuscitation and before the final interview. Or the patient heard that phrase any time during his recovery and before the final interview.

What a pitifully shameful study. If you lead with such a flawed study, I cannot imagine how bad the other studies you mention might be.

"""Breath-taking. How could the patient have know that?! Why would anyone use a defibrillator on a cardiac arrest patient in a hospital emergency area?!
a chunky fella [with a] "bald head" [and] blue scrubs

Really? When don't you see such a man in or around a cardiac unit?"""

Morny , since he had said that he saw the man the next day and recognized him as the guy that was in there was extremely impressive . The fact that your trying to poison the well tells me that you have an emotional bias against Nde's being non brain based . Your atheism is showing my friend

This patient didn't know he was participating in the study and had no reason to point all this out . Now from the transcript I believe he said the man had a blue had , and I think they meant blue hat. The fact that he recognized him the next day was more then awesome .

And if you had bothered to read the rest you would have see. That everything he saw was below was during the arrest portion he even was quoted as saying that he heard them say dial 444 cardiac arrest . Please don't tell me that yoir religiously so dogmatic in your atheism to believe that he could have possibly hear all this during cardiac arrest. Morny your response is so full of emotion with no logic it isn't even funny . The man saw his body from up above while all this was happening as he identified things visually as well as hearing them , all this during cardiac arrest .
Please morny I'm begging you to use the ole "he was awake during anesthesia " theory so I could grab it and slam dunk it and then crush it like a grape .



""

I know who (the man with the blue had was). . .I (didn’t) know his full name, but. . .he was the man that. . .(I saw) the next day. . .I saw this man [come to visit me] and I knew who I had seen the day before.”


Post-script – Medical record review confirmed the use of the AED, the medical team present during the cardiac arrest and the role the identified “man” played in responding to the cardiac arrest. Recollection # 2

“At the beginning, I think, I heard the nurse say ‘dial 444 cardiac arrest’. I felt scared. I was on the ceiling looking down. I saw a nurse that I did not know beforehand who I saw after the event. I could see my body and saw everything at once. I saw my blood pressure being taken whilst the doctor was putting something down my throat. I saw a nurse pumping on my chest. . .I saw blood gases and blood sugar levels being taken""

""Parnia's interviews were hours and sometimes days after the cardiac arrests. Proper protocols should have ruled out the most likely reasons for the patient having reported such a recollection, e.g., the nurse told him after his resuscitation and before the final interview. Or the patient heard that phrase any time during his recovery and before the final interview.

What a pitifully shameful study. If you lead with such a flawed study, I cannot imagine how bad the other studies you mention might be.""

First of all morny thank God you aren't a doctor. If you knew anything about proper treatment of patients in the hospital you would know that fir ethical reasons doctors cannot interview cardiac arrest patients that soon after such a traumatic event, but again your religious atheism is shining through in its dogmatic biasm.

I believe that the doctors and nurses weren't told that a study like this was being conducted . This study was stopped the first time because someone in the hospital knew about it before hand , but then again being the dogmatically religious atheist that you are, you chose to once again poison the well .

The fact that it passed peer review in a secular medical journal tells me that the only pitiful thing here is your ridiculous responses in which we can see your emotional bias as clear as day .

As the patient said before he was floating above his body in the corner of the room and saw what he saw during his cardiac arrest . The fact that he heard the device bleep twice tells us that the experience happened during his cardiac arrest , which rules out your emotional pro atheist religious views as being correct here .

The reason why it passed peer review was be a use he followed strict protocols .

Morny it's good to see that you are a man of pure blind faith .
This is what happens when the evidence is against the religiously motivated atheist.


Your responses wreak of dogmatic emotionalism .

I think I'm gonna change your screen name to morny churchland

And there were actually 2 veridical experiences and it fits in perfectly with the national average . If you had bothered to read. Ore you would have see. That out of the 2000+ patients about 340 had survived .

This study was a success and the fact that you couldn't explain the veridical experience in a naturalistic brain based way was the reason why you went nitpicking . If you really expected parnia to interview the patients right after their cardiac arrest you would have been laughed at an Druid held by every doctor on earth.

Yet you must stick to this answer .
Why ?
Because you are not an honest seeker .

If that's the best response you can make then you don't have much .
Morny it's better if you stay away from nde research because it apparently is giving you so much headache that you must abandon your objectivity, reason and rationality .

bippy123 wrote:[...]

Bippy, my post wasn't for you.

My post is for other readers, who can clearly see the unbelievably shaky ground on which this NDE research operates. But thanks again for having me look at your "best case", because otherwise I would not have known how incompetent these NDE and VA researchers are.

I am personally familiar with smart, honest, but self-deluded, psychic researchers. With my very modest magic background, I arranged for an "interview" with the head of a psychic research group. I was shocked (and embarrassed for him) at how careless and oblivious his group was to the simplest controls necessary for doing meaningful psychic experiments.

But this NDE research is even worse.

Morny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:[...]

Bippy, my post wasn't for you.

My post is for other readers, who can clearly see the unbelievably shaky ground on which this NDE research operates. But thanks again for having me look at your "best case", because otherwise I would not have known how incompetent these NDE and VA researchers are.

I am personally familiar with smart, honest, but self-deluded, psychic researchers. With my very modest magic background, I arranged for an "interview" with the head of a psychic research group. I was shocked (and embarrassed for him) at how careless and oblivious his group was to the simplest controls necessary for doing meaningful psychic experiments.

But this NDE research is even worse.

Then one day, your time will come, and you will find out yourself.

What do you, Morny, really think happens after you die?
-
-
-

Really? When don't you see such a man in or around a cardiac unit?

Didn't have one on my unit where I worked for 5 years. Can't even begin to guess the amount of people I've resuscitated.

Parnia's interviews were hours and sometimes days after the cardiac arrests. Proper protocols should have ruled out the most likely reasons for the patient having reported such a recollection, e.g., the nurse told him after his resuscitation and before the final interview. Or the patient heard that phrase any time during his recovery and before the final interview.

Do you really think people are conscious after being resuscitated? Some people don't ever wake up because there's been too much brain damage.
We also give so many Amnestic drugs patients don't remember much, let alone details of anything.
Nurses don't talk to their patients about the details of our experiences. People wouldn't know what we're talking about unless they had at least acute care medical background. So we assume no one does. Patients are informed of what happened in extreme generality. Questions are answered in detail but have to be dumbed down and I'd still get blank stares.

What a pitifully shameful study. If you lead with such a flawed study, I cannot imagine how bad the other studies you mention might be.

This study is not bad, a good addition to the rest.
There are stronger convincing NDE studies, though.

Morny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:[...]

Bippy, my post wasn't for you.

My post is for other readers, who can clearly see the unbelievably shaky ground on which this NDE research operates. But thanks again for having me look at your "best case", because otherwise I would not have known how incompetent these NDE and VA researchers are.

I am personally familiar with smart, honest, but self-deluded, psychic researchers. With my very modest magic background, I arranged for an "interview" with the head of a psychic research group. I was shocked (and embarrassed for him) at how careless and oblivious his group was to the simplest controls necessary for doing meaningful psychic experiments.

But this NDE research is even worse.

Ok morny I'll play the game
My post wasn't for you, it was for people that arent emotionally married to their atheistic religion to the point where they can see that this study produced one of the best medically monitored veridical Nde's , in fact one that was timed as happening during cRdiac arrest , when the brain was non functional .

You would never inject your religious atheism into your answer .

Is that better for small tAlk morny ?

And of course, if their expertise is in psi and Nde's they. Use naturally be deluded.

The ones that aren't deluded are people like professor patricia churchland who was embarrassed and demolished in the very area she is supposed to be an expert in .

Morny do you believe in parallel universes ?
I'm starting to, because is believe that we are in one now.
How else can I explain your answers lol

Mallz wrote:Didn't have one on my unit where I worked for 5 years. Can't even begin to guess the amount of people I've resuscitated.

In the study, at least one person had blue fatigues. Was he the only one?! Balding and chubby ones (which covers a wide range) are never far behind. I see them standing outside hospitals every time I'm cycling through the city. Coincidence?

I've already given multiple explanations for why the patient would report seeing the "blue" man. And information leakage possibilities going back to the patient before the time of the patient's interview for the published AWARE study are clearly big enough to drive a truck through.

That you would credulously prefer to believe in an extraordinary out-of-body explanation, in lieu of one of these obvious likely prosaic explanations first, speaks volumes.

Mallz wrote:This study is not bad, a good addition to the rest.

In spite of your credulousness, at least you agree with me in not giving the study a ringing endorsement.

Mallz wrote:There are stronger convincing NDE studies, though.

I believe you. Finding a weaker study would be nearly impossible.

OK. Give me your best published study.
Clearly state the experimenter's claim.
Provide his/her data and protocols.
And state who replicated the study.

Not to throw B.W. in front of your truck, but why not message him?
Perhaps you'd be willing to discuss his own NDE.

Although his wasn't a part of any study, nor peer reviewed, so you can write it off easily without any real threat.
At least however, you can talk more personally with someone claiming to have had such.

I think the undeniable hallmark of NDEs are the changes they bring to someone's life.
I'm not sure that can be denied? I suppose death does that, experience or no experience.

As for me, I haven't investigated them much.
It's not really interested me a great deal, perhaps because I distrust other people.
I am quite skeptical of anyone's claim, but then at the same time open to the possibility of what they experienced.

Nonetheless, it seems obvious to me that we consciously exist and are more than what physically constitutes us.