--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Good rap, Curtis. For me, as I said earlier, any > exhortation to "read the book and then we can talk" > is meaningless *if I have zero interest in the subject > matter of the book*. Reading it just isn't going to > happen. In this particular instance, I have zero > interest in people's subjective experience of NDEs. > > On a slightly higher level, however, I see this > discussion (and some of the antipathy it has gener- > ated) as an extension of my favorite quote from the > FFL Home Page: "What is wanted is not the will to > believe, but the wish to find out." > > For some of us (you, me, Salyavin, Paligap, etc.), > I think it is safe to class us as "Wish to find > out-ers." We are not committed to any particular > belief or set of beliefs re (in this instance) > life after death. Therefore when we encounter > claims either pro or con about its existence, our > PROCESS is simply to "wish to find out." We don't > approach any data we gather along the way as either > confirming or denying something we believe in, cuz > we (or in this case maybe just me) don't HAVE any > fixed beliefs in this regard. > > For "believers," those who DO have an investment > in a belief (in this instance in life after death), > when they encounter data that seems to contradict > their beliefs, they perceive this as a challenge, > or even as an insult. Their PROCESS in my opinion > is often to search for data that *validates* or > "seems to prove" their existing beliefs. So they > glom onto subjective reports as if they were "proof." > When someone suggests that they're NOT proof, they > sometimes get uppity because the contrary data > is perceived as a challenge to their beliefs. > > Me, I roll with "wish to find out." With regard > to this particular instance, I tend to actually > *have* beliefs in reincarnation and life after > death, based on subjective experiences of my own. > But I'm not attached to them. And I don't consider > them anything *more* than beliefs. They are NOT > "truth" or "fact" or anything approaching it. They > are just theories that I've developed to explain > my subjective experiences. So when I find data > that seems to contradict these theories, it > doesn't raise my hackles at all. Nothing is > challenging a belief that I've invested in, > and I can just as easily accept "no life after > death" as I can accept "life after death." > > Just my opinion...
"Just" indeed. You are one of the greatest 'generalizers' I have ever come across. You are also the greatest hypothesizer of other peoples' beliefs and positions which is based on nothing but your own knee jerk, cookie cutter reactions which repeat themselves endlessly. I think you expound on what you think others believe, in their narrow little worlds, because you need a springboard off which to plunge into being able to talk unceasingly about yourself. Carry on, no one can stop you. I'm going to keep reading your posts simply because I am an eternal optimist. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > Hi Emily, > > > > Hi five for bringing new material. I grabbed it at the library as soon as > > its catnip (for me) title had its effect. I had to read some of the > > critiques to understand the scientific issues with his claims. > > > > Evaluating this book is a great education in how we need to approach the > > flood of popular books from scientists or doctors without a background in > > the field. Scientific understanding is a collaborative process filled with > > outliers expanding the edges of the known as well as people who are just a > > bit off. It taught me a lot about how complex determining death is in the > > short run. In the long run it becomes more obvious! > > > > Neurosurgeons are as naive as anyone else concerning the issues with being > > confident of our knowledge if they have not studied epistemology. He makes > > a few fatal errors in his assumptions. > > > > Having had the kind of experiences he recounts in the altered states > > produced by lots of meditation, I understand the compelling nature of what > > the brain can produce. I suspect under the extreme conditions his was > > under are even more compelling. > > > > His title is fascinating: Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into > > the Afterlife. It makes us feel as if we should take his claim more > > seriously because of his background doesn't it? It worked on me. But in > > the end we have a subjective account with no scientific way to know when > > exactly he had these experiences as his brain powered down and up. So we > > are left with another account that uses the tantalizing concept of "near" > > death which sounds more like death than "not" death in the same way that > > "barely" legal porn gets more Internet porn hits than "legal" porn. (Or so > > I am told having no first hand knowledge in this area.) > > > > Our minds are amazing and the collaborative effect of minds trying to get > > to the bottom of life's deepest questions is fascinating. I will always > > respond to the catnip of the outliers, but wont be surprised when, after > > more study, they don't quite deliver what they promised. I always learn > > from taking the ride. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Read the book Xeno and then I would love to have a discussion with > > > you.....it was written by a neuroscientist after all. Â And he addresses > > > exactly what you discuss below in the context of medical science. Â > > > > > > >________________________________ > > > > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartaxius@> > > > >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > >Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:22 PM > > > >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander > > > > > > > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > > > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> This is a beautiful picture. ÃÂ Can you believe I just finished this > > > >> book? ÃÂ Eben Alexander refutes all this in the later Chapters of > > > >> this book - he addresses this supposition of hallucination > > > >> specifically by making the very real point that his neocortex was not > > > >> functioning, amongst other things. ÃÂ > > > >> > > > >How would he, in that state, know whether he even had a neocortex? > > > >Someone had to feed him this information. Neurologists point out that > > > >even in states where the patient seems to be in cardiac arrest, there is > > > >some slight activity that keeps a small amount of blood flow to the > > > >brain. In these emergency situations, there is no > > > >electroencephalographic monitoring of the brain, though that might be > > > >introduced as additional controls someday. No one has figured out just > > > >when a patient has the NDE in these situations as they cannot point out > > > >they are having an experience, so currently there are a lot of unknowns > > > >about these experiences. Those that believe in NDEs assume the brain is > > > >not functioning, but this is unknown except in the case where the > > > >patient does not revive, and then of course they do not report an NDE. > > > >These kinds of experiences often occur under very specific circumstances > > > >where a patient or a subject is not in a life threatening situation such > > > as cardiac arrest, which is why scientists very substantially question > > > whether they have any 'supernatural' component at all. > > > >> > > > >> >________________________________ > > > >> > From: Yifu <yifuxero@> > > > >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > >> >Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:04 PM > > > >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Michael Shermer rebuts Eben Alexander > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >ÃÂ > > > >> >"Allegory of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by Pat Devonas: > > > >> >http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/2/10741.jpg > > > >> > > > > >> >Dr. Michael Shermer attempts to rebut Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE as > > > >> >being genuinely "out of body" and supernatural. (Alexander is a > > > >> >neurosurgeon who had an NDE. Claims he traveled out of the body into > > > >> >supernatural dimensions in which he met deceased relatives, and > > > >> >listened to the OM.) > > > >> >... > > > >> >Shermer in Scientific American, Apr 2013, 86, essentially uses a > > > >> >"similarity" argument coupled with Occam's Razor. Shermer states: > > > >> >"Migraine headaches also produce halluncinations, which Sacks > > > >> >[neurologist Oliver Sacks] himself has experienced as a longtime > > > >> >sufferer, including a 'shimmering light' that was 'dazzlingly bring'" > > > >> >etc, etc, clouds, blah, blah. > > > >> >Then Shermer goes on to make the comparison: "Compare Sack's > > > >> >experience with that of Alexander's trip to heaven, where he was "in > > > >> >a place of clouds. Big, puffy, pink-white ones that showed up sharply > > > >> >against the deep blue-black sky. Higher than the clouds - > > > >> >immeasurably higher - flocks of transparent, shimmering beings arced > > > >> >across the sky, leaving long, streamerlike lines behind them.". > > > >> >... > > > >> >Then Shermer says "In any case, there is a reason they are called > > > >> >'near'-death experiences: the people who have then are not actually > > > >> >dead". Also he inquires how Alexander could have a memory of the > > > >> >experiences. > > > >> >. > > > >> >Finally, Dr. Shermer states "To me, this evidence is proof of > > > >> >hallucination, not heaven." > > > >> >. > > > >> >[his arguments on the whole are similar to those of Sam Harris]. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
