Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sees

NDE: A skeptic neurosurgeon experienced this!

248 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
32 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

When_62d398_1325713.jpg

sorry Nothing but the numbers appear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
onlookerofmayhem
8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

sorry Nothing but the numbers appear. 

It's a picture of a sign for "Hell" with icicles hanging off of it.

It's follow by :

"IT HAPPENED

HELL FROZE OVER"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

It's a picture of a sign for "Hell" with icicles hanging off of it.

It's follow by :

"IT HAPPENED

HELL FROZE OVER"

lol nice one. :) 

Ok when i open the link in a new tab it appears. 

 

When Hell Freezes over. . Hell froze over

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
On 11/22/2020 at 9:58 PM, psyche101 said:

I've made that perfectly clear. If you want a blunt answer it is no. 

I can't believe it.

Maybe you misunderstood the question like pretty much everything else?

On 11/22/2020 at 9:58 PM, psyche101 said:

Cosmological directions. That much is pretty obvious. 

2+2 is a comparative example. Ive made that perfectly clear too. And yes it's a valid example. 

You're making zero sense here.

That's my entire argument.

I just want you to explain how basic physics would change. 

They are just as solid as 2+2.

Invoking dark matter with regards to afterlife myths is very Deepak. Invoking dark matter is dumb. There's no connection to even suspect there. 

Please explain. 

Where else are you getting afterlife possibilities from? 

Heaps. No idea what's that got to do with anything. I do have the ability to determine fiction from fact. Perhaps that skill is rarer than I thought. 

Yes. Already answered that 

Any negligible courtesy for mankind's imagination can be recognised as such. 

Still a chance? You can view it like that. Pretty self defeating and ridiculous though. You can't prove unicorns feed in the dark side of the moon only in shallow craters. Still a chance? You're not very realistic in what you consider a chance. I see nothing wrong with negating a miniscule option. Not alternative mind you, but a cultural option. 

My mind is fine, I can consider both and recognise the most likely option. You don't seem capable of making a determination. So I don't think it's my mind that's jailed is it.  

Can you tell me why the basics of physics are likely to change? 

What a disgusting about it? You don't approve?

Please explain. 

That's what refutes the afterlife. Knowns. You seem to be struggling with that part. 

So you googled a scientist that disagrees with Weinberg and Hawking. Wow. I'm sure papageorge could find one too. And a theoretical physicist whose main interest, and the subject of his books is the philosophy of science. How does he prove Weinberg and Hawking wrong? Or does he offer a philosophers point of view? What the actual argument that illustrates how philosophy actually assists discover? Isn't Rovelli actually saying philosophy is best used to refine physics? 

That's how you think is it?

It knows everything it knows. What it doesn't it doesn't. 

Never heard of them.

I know.

I'm wondering if you have more than that though. It doesn't seem so. 

So that's where you're suggesting we search for interdimensional parasites to support the afterlife theory is it? 

So are the basic physics that refute the afterlife. Yet you do not seem rather concerned about that. 

Had plans did we? 

Then why don't you show what part of the science is in error rather than just having a long winded hypothetical whinge about it? 

Except where they refute that afterlife.

Obviously.

BS.

That's exactly what you're doing. 

You're here as regular as any other place in the forum from what I've seen

I also saw you take quite a different approach to my posting once you found out I wasn't a Trump sycophant.

Coincidence? 

What is misleading exactly? Ive presented science that offers conclusions that make some posters have a big whine about. You haven't approached the science. You have made weak excuses to avoid it, relying upon emotional appeals. 

Am I mocking you am I? I thought I was trying to have a fruitful discussion but you only seem interested in exploring whataboutism.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Would you mind at least offering a post number. 

And to me what you are doing is bullying.

What exactly is your problem with somebody knowing something? Why should everyone say they can't understand science and why does one have to continuously reject it to be considered open minded? I don't think that's open minded at all. 

TLDR. I'm bored.

200.gif

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 11/21/2020 at 5:39 AM, eight bits said:

Are you sure that's what you want to ask?

A reasonable standard for 100% certainty is the Pythagorean Theorem. Along the way you mentioned holding something in your hand and letting it go. You are confident that it will fall.

Me, too. In fact, I cannot feel any difference in my confidence about that and my confidence in the theorem. I've "maxed out."

Now, I am aware that David Hume pointed out that the relevant force of gravitation could change just when I open my hand. It is logically possible, but I think not seriously possible. Certainly not anything with any evidentiary foundation, and Hitchens's Razor would seem to apply: if, as and when it happens, I'll look into it then, but not unless, as and when it happens.

 

The Pythagorean Theorem holds true in two dimensions only.  In three dimensions those math theorems do not hold up. Therefore, the claim of 100% confidence is based on a limited view of existence that does not apply to the real world as we have come to know it.

I think this point is ironically relevant to this thread.  People who claim with near certainty that there is no afterlife are basing their judgements on faulty or incomplete information.  They could be just as wrong as two dimensional math theorems in a three dimensional world.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
11 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I've read that before. The idea that the brain is like a radio or TV. 

It seems like a possible way to reconcile a biological brain and spiritualism.

I don't think there would ever really be a way to test that though.

I don't agree with the term spiritualism but I get what you are saying.  You have to keep those things compartmentalized.

I think the remote viewers (the reputable ones) have a way of testing it and what other explanation is there for that?  The consciousness does not reside in the brain, it is connected to the whole body.  People who have an ailment they are ignoring sometimes wake up from weird dreams that tell them what part of their body needs attention.  Sometimes it is so blatant they can't ignore, other times it is symbolic and it might take them time to recognize the message.

I am not going to mention anecdotes and anyone who tells me to prove this can stick it.  Look for it, think about your weird dreams.  The western way of thinking cripples us in so many ways.  

And as for remote viewers, I already know who doesn't believe they exist or get real information, don't bother mentioning it again, since this is the religion and beliefs section you can stick it.  Just pay attention to which sub-forum you are in.  Yes, I am defensive because threads like this turn in to a war zone often and it is tiresome and frustrating to have a discussion amidst that.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think the remote viewers (the reputable ones) have a way of testing it and what other explanation is there for that?  The consciousness does not reside in the brain, it is connected to the whole body.  People who have an ailment they are ignoring sometimes wake up from weird dreams that tell them what part of their body needs attention.  Sometimes it is so blatant they can't ignore, other times it is symbolic and it might take them time to recognize the message.

I am not going to mention anecdotes and anyone who tells me to prove this can stick it.  Look for it, think about your weird dreams.  The western way of thinking cripples us in so many ways. 

I don’t subscribe to the notion of mind-body duality because the evidence simply does not support it. Your experiences of consciousness are significantly altered when different parts of the brain are stimulated or damaged (I.e. stimulating the temporal lobe can produce the feeling of a “presence”, damage to the brain can impair cognitive abilities subsequently your experience of consciousness etc).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
17 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't agree with the term spiritualism but I get what you are saying.  You have to keep those things compartmentalized.

I think the remote viewers (the reputable ones) have a way of testing it and what other explanation is there for that?  The consciousness does not reside in the brain, it is connected to the whole body.  People who have an ailment they are ignoring sometimes wake up from weird dreams that tell them what part of their body needs attention.  Sometimes it is so blatant they can't ignore, other times it is symbolic and it might take them time to recognize the message.

I am not going to mention anecdotes and anyone who tells me to prove this can stick it.  Look for it, think about your weird dreams.  The western way of thinking cripples us in so many ways.  

And as for remote viewers, I already know who doesn't believe they exist or get real information, don't bother mentioning it again, since this is the religion and beliefs section you can stick it.  Just pay attention to which sub-forum you are in.  Yes, I am defensive because threads like this turn in to a war zone often and it is tiresome and frustrating to have a discussion amidst that.  

Haha calm down there tiger :P.

I'm just over here muttering my musings. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I don’t subscribe to the notion of mind-body duality because the evidence simply does not support it. Your experiences of consciousness are significantly altered when different parts of the brain are stimulated or damaged (I.e. stimulating the temporal lobe can produce the feeling of a “presence”, damage to the brain can impair cognitive abilities subsequently your experience of consciousness etc).

Yet here you are in the spirituality, religion and beliefs sub-forum.  I accept that you have different beliefs than I do, I just don't understand why you participate in discussions of things you don't believe in.   Maybe some of the problem in discussing these things is that some believers feel attacked by the words that are used and some non-believers feel they are misunderstood or vilified for not believing.  

It is ok if you have no experience that leads you to think there is more to us than the sum of our physical parts.  Since you are not usually a flame bater I assume you are in this thread to get information or understanding.  My opinion is we all have experiences that can lead us to that thought, but if we have fear or bias, and because of training we ignore it.  It is our culture and that makes us less adaptable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
10 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I don’t subscribe to the notion of mind-body duality because the evidence simply does not support it. Your experiences of consciousness are significantly altered when different parts of the brain are stimulated or damaged (I.e. stimulating the temporal lobe can produce the feeling of a “presence”, damage to the brain can impair cognitive abilities subsequently your experience of consciousness etc).

That's why I said the idea of the brain being more like a radio or TV tries to reconcile that.

If a radio gets damaged it will malfunction, but the radio waves, or whatever, are still there but just not being picked up by the radio. 

The idea being the brain is damaged so it can't communicate the spirit properly anymore. 

I'm an atheist so I find flaws with that. But I find it an interesting concept nethertheles. 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Haha calm down there tiger :P.

I'm just over here muttering my musings. 

It wasn't aimed at you, but like I said I am defensive because of all the warring that goes on in almost every thread on this forum.  Just speaking my mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It wasn't aimed at you, but like I said I am defensive because of all the warring that goes on in almost every thread on this forum.  Just speaking my mind.

I understand. I only tip my toe in the spiritual/religious/skeptic threads every once in a while because it's normally just a flame war. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Desertrat56
3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

That's why I said the idea of the brain being more like a radio or TV tries to reconcile that.

If a radio gets damaged it will malfunction, but the radio waves, or whatever, are still there but just not being picked up by the radio. 

The idea being the brain is damaged so it can't communicate the spirit properly anymore. 

I'm an atheist so I find flaws with that. But I find it an interesting concept nethertheles. 

I think the analagy is a fairly good one, another one is the brain is the computer and the soul or spirit is the OS.  And it doesn't require a belief in a deity to think about it or even consider it a possible explanation (until we know more than we do now).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, Guyver said:

The Pythagorean Theorem holds true in two dimensions only

The theorem only discusses two dimensional abtract objects. What it says about them is certainly true, if that phrase has meaning at all. What else is true about geometries, and there are unboundedly many such true propositions, is irrelevant to the point being made about confidence in the face of logical, scrupulous but not serious, possiility of error.

Now, psyche must accept that reasonable people might disagree with him. However, if his critics here are so reasonable, then why am I reading so much about what's wrong with his vocabularly choices,and so little about anything specific that's wrong with his physics?

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I think it's been firmly established that some are not allowed to have ideas of their own. The naysayers and no-sayers will firmly, aggressively bash your head in with scientific dogma. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The theorem only discusses two dimensional abtract objects. What it says about them is certainly true, if that phrase has meaning at all. What else is true about geometries, and there are unboundedly many such true propositions, is irrelevant to the point being made about confidence in the face of logical, scrupulous but not serious, possiility of error.

Now, psyche must accept that reasonable people might disagree with him. However, if his critics here are so reasonable, then why am I reading so much about what's wrong with his vocabularly choices,and so little about anything wrong with his physics?

How does it go? 

"Its not what you say, it's how you say it."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
30 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I understand. I only tip my toe in the spiritual/religious/skeptic threads every once in a while because it's normally just a flame war. 

That's because discussions don't exist there. And it bleeds over into other areas of the forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
52 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

And as for remote viewers, I already know who doesn't believe they exist or get real information, don't bother mentioning it again, since this is the religion and beliefs section you can stick it.  Just pay attention to which sub-forum you are in.

Indeed.  In this sub-forum it's 'important to respect the views of others', and 'you can stick it' is pretty much the opposite of that, no?  May want to increase the attention you are paying to what forum you are in before bothering to provide instructions to others.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Indeed.  In this sub-forum it's 'important to respect the views of others', and 'you can stick it' is pretty much the opposite of that, no?  May want to increase the attention you are paying to what forum you are in before bothering to provide instructions to others.

right, it probably is not respect in relation to others beliefs, but I am not referring to others beliefs, I am referring to people demanding one change their mind or making derogatory comments about something they don't understand.  I was not attacking anyone's beliefs I was expressing frustration over the rudeness on both sides of the imaginary fences in these forums.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
50 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I think it's been firmly established that some are not allowed to have ideas of their own. The naysayers and no-sayers will firmly, aggressively bash your head in with scientific dogma. 

Aggressively pushing scientific dogma is, admittedly, one of my faults. I've been trying to work on it. I'll make more of an effort to approach these topics with more of an open mind. I apologize if I came across as a dick.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
14 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Aggressively pushing scientific dogma is, admittedly, one of my faults. I've been trying to work on it. I'll make more of an effort to approach these topics with more of an open mind. I apologize if I came across as a dick.

I have no issues with you. I was once the sledgehammer around here. Basically I gave up trying. 

"Its like, whatever, man."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

but I am not referring to others beliefs,

You seemed to pretty clearly refer to the beliefs of others who express skepticism about remote viewing to me, they are the ones that can go stick it.

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I am referring to people demanding one change their mind

Been here a long time and I've never seen this demand.  I for one actually am not comfortable telling most believers to change their mind about God, it falls under a thread subject Xeno I think had this year about crapping on the harmless beliefs of others, which I think the majority of the religious possess.  

6 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I was expressing frustration over the rudeness on both sides of the imaginary fences in these forums.

Understood, but it's difficult to take that frustration entirely seriously when the person complaining about it doesn't seem to follow their own ideas of etiquette.  Whatever else it may be, 'go stick it' pretty much meets the definition of 'rude' for most people, as well as violating at least one of the main overall forum rules in my view.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
15 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I have no issues with you. I was once the sledgehammer around here. Basically I gave up trying. 

"Its like, whatever, man."

:tu:

I try to be as diplomatic as I can to most people here, though I think it can be fairly easily ascertained for whom diplomacy gets ejected straight out of the window. If the person has a history of shifting goal posts during arguments, misrepresenting the positions of those to whom they respond, consistently derails threads to focus on nonsensical and irrelevant anecdotes as a means to highlight what makes them special or otherwise superior to others, overlooks valid points against their arguments to falsely point out that you misinterpreted/misunderstand what they are saying and makes etymological adjustments so they can avoid being incorrect, feigns knowledge in areas that they really know nothing about, etc, then yeah, they don't deserve diplomacy or respect IMO.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.