Verifiable data is essential for me. On the other hand, Steinhart's Promotion
theory consists of a process (humans, biomes,?) being also data pipelines to
another region of spacetime, or other universes. This, in some sense resembles
the repeated perspectives by many of tunnel's, passages, and the like. Being
promoted, as a software process might be occurring-if one holds that this
vision is somehow, not, a hallucination? Steinhart, suggests we'd get promoted,
as integrated data and history, to another instantiation of yourself. His
Revision Theory of Resurrection is not the same as his Promotion, in that the
data that you were is merely an improved clone in an improved universe, but no
memories pass to the next instantiation. Promotion is the same as
Teleportation, or Uploading, where as, Revision is akin to the clone's created
by Everett's MWI, although some, MWI's are exact copies with exact memories and
identity. It's all just me tossing about Steinhart's and my own ideas, and
applying it to this discussion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pierz <pier...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, May 26, 2015 10:07 am
Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:03:48 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last,
number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend
toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist
stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come
back with information.
? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in
which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible
from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried)
This could invalidate the "top-down" view often reportedly experienced in NDEs,
but my 13 year old daughter told me the other day that she can easily imagine
herself from an outside viewpoint (we weren't talking about NDEs or anything
like that) so it is certainly possible for people to do this. Hence people
being "conscious" in some sense during NDEs isn't invalidated by their
inability to spot cards hidden on top of cabinets, even if the viewpoint
described is. It remains possible that they are aware of their
surroundings.....mind you I'm also very sceptical of this woman's report, how
exact and well testified is it, and could she have picked up the information
smoe other way?
It's not invalidated - those not predisposed to credit the legitimacy of NDEs
naturally latch onto this, while those predisposed to believe tend to downplay
it. Confirmation bias. But there are credible explanations for the failure to
confirm (so far) via cards - firstly it is difficult to get enough subjects,
because one can't organize someone's near death easily, only about 10% of
people who come close to death have such an experience, and not all NDEs
involve the classic "looking down from the ceiling" experience. Furthermore,
people undergoing a near death experience are not lab rats running a maze -
they are typically fascinated by the sight of their own body and the drama
surrounding it, so it's plausible that a card stuck to the top of a cabinet
simply does not attract their attention.
You should be skeptical of the report of course - extraordinary claims bla bla.
But invariably people who presume NDEs 'can't' be legit don't investigate them
properly, or read just enough to get to the first skeptical account which then
safely confirms their assumptions. Brent's one sentence dismissal is typical,
and typically inaccurate. Far from exaggerating and confabulating (though no
doubt some people do), NDE experiencers tend to keep their experience secret
for fear of ridicule or being thought nuts. And the experience is typically so
intense and vivid that it in no way resemble a dream or delirium in which
second hand reports or later memories could get confused with the original
experience. The particular case I cited was both *highly* accurate and
witnessed by multiple persons, including the neurosurgeon who for example
stated there was no way she could have heard the conversations she reported -
because she was profoundly unconscious according to her EEG, and because she
had earphones on at the time that were emitting deafening noise.
I don't get into arguments about it because it is boring and frustrating, I
just encourage people to look into it for themselves. I have some interest in
it because my mother had one which changed her life in a big way.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
