Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

philosopher.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#151

Post by smokedetector1 »

_alternator_ wrote: post #95
hackthemack wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory is a bit hazy, but I thought what you are describing is very common with people who flatline and come back? I have vague memories that a new anesthetic drug was developed and used on soldiers undergoing surgery in the Vietnam war, and there was something about it that caused the same kind of reaction in those who were put under. Again, my memory is very hazy on the subject. I should go do some research and…

I was going to mention ketamine. Famous for this type of effect. I don't want to belittle the meaningful experience, but the mind is a really powerful organ and it's a safer bet to treat these experiences as arising from mind rather than beyond it. Shrug.

Safer why?

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#152

Post by smokedetector1 »

ericmcer wrote: post #62
BoardsOfCanada wrote: post #14

Probably the contrarian take, but an informed one. Near death experiences are probably the best way we have to assess the nature of reality. Now, it's almost impossible to reach people who aren't ready with any arguments, but I'll outline some possible steps for anyone who's on the verge. - Go to youtube, type in NDE and listen to a few - Try to come up with a "rational" explanation (hallucinations, the brain dumping…

I never remotely believed this because I don't even believe in a "me" really. One hard hit in the head can literally change your personality entirely, then you have alzheimers and all the other degenerative brain diseases that will erase "you". Even if you avoid all that "you" will be wildly different every 15-20 years. Christianity gets through this by saying you will return to your prime. That just seems kind of ch…

The brain is like a sail thats catching the wind of the soul. The wind pushes and shapes the sail, and the sail limits the shape of the wind inside it. If the sail is in bad condition, it changes how the wind catches it, or prevents it from catching altogether.

So the brain is animated by the soul, and also limits and shapes its experience. When we're affected by anesthetic, or we're badly injured, or have a stroke, our conscious experience is impacted, while we're here on this plane. Eventually we leave this form and experience reality more truly. This could be one reason why NDEs happen - the brain is so badly damaged that it fails to even contain the soul and we approach a more death-like state.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#153

Post by smokedetector1 »

card_zero wrote: post #127
throwanem wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be seriously uncomfortable to discover myself making authoritative reference to anything out of a "pop neuroscience" book, unless I had myself validated the claim - at least as far as making sure there is a paper that says what is claimed of it, by whatever failed academic turned mountebank I am reading. (If those guys were comfortable being held to what they say, why did they stop writing for peer reviewers?…

OK, you could also read a serious neuroscience textbook, but that seemed a less reasonable thing to expect of anyone. The basic point remains true though. Tunnel vision is a tunnel, in your vision, associated with death. Since I'm talking to people who will latch on to anything at all similar to a tunnel in reports of experiences, and say "See! Commonalities!", this is sufficient to explain why a lot of the nearly-de…

You'd be hard pressed to find a principled neuroscientist who is as confident as you are that neuroscience can explain consciousness

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#154

Post by _alternator_ »

smokedetector1 wrote: post #151
_alternator_ wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to mention ketamine. Famous for this type of effect. I don't want to belittle the meaningful experience, but the mind is a really powerful organ and it's a safer bet to treat these experiences as arising from mind rather than beyond it. Shrug.

Safer why?

Lots to say there. The last few centuries have shown that many things which previously seemed inexplicable have been convincingly explained without resort to the supernatural. So a material basis of conscious experience seems a good bet.

Related, and hinted at by my original comment: the brain is capable of generating truly profound experiences. There is a tendency to ascribe them to something 'beyond ourselves' but again, advances in medicine and neuroscience have shown that these are explicable, subject to manipulation by chemical and electrical signals, which again suggests a material basis for conscious experience.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#155

Post by smokedetector1 »

Here's something I don't understand about the argument that all conscious experience is some kind of illusion.

An illusion necessarily implies an entity experiencing the illusion. So what's that entity? It can't be illusions all the way down.

I think some people would rather claim that they themselves don't exist rather than admit that there might be something spiritual or unexplainable about existence. And I find that very strange.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#156

Post by smokedetector1 »

_alternator_ wrote: post #154
smokedetector1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safer why?

Lots to say there. The last few centuries have shown that many things which previously seemed inexplicable have been convincingly explained without resort to the supernatural. So a material basis of conscious experience seems a good bet. Related, and hinted at by my original comment: the brain is capable of generating truly profound experiences. There is a tendency to ascribe them to something 'beyond ourselves' but…

It's true that many things have yielded to science. And yet, what we discuss (the "hard problem of consciousness") hasn't. In my opinion, the burden is on you to prove that progress in other questions implies inevitable progress on an unrelated question that hasn't budged at all.

I said this in my other comment but, when you say the brain generates truly profound experiences, you beg the question (in the philosophical sense of the phrase). It's all in the word "experience." For in order for an experience to happen, some entity has to be experiencing. For there to be an illusion, there has to be an entity being deceived. And then how do you explain that entity? It can't be illusory experiences all the way down..

Any honest person has to see the connection between experience and the material brain. But I don't think it's honest to say it's obvious that experience is entirely material. The connection is deeply mysterious and may never be understood. I personally would rather accept that than claim that I don't really exist just so that everything can be explained.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#157

Post by mrsvanwinkle »

pseudohadamard wrote: post #126
hackthemack wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory is a bit hazy, but I thought what you are describing is very common with people who flatline and come back? I have vague memories that a new anesthetic drug was developed and used on soldiers undergoing surgery in the Vietnam war, and there was something about it that caused the same kind of reaction in those who were put under. Again, my memory is very hazy on the subject. I should go do some research and…

I prefer Mullah Nasruddin's experience, which was that death is perfectly OK unless you disturb the camels, at which point they beat you. https://ia800908.us.archive.org/28/items/idries-shah-the-exp...

Amazing recommendation! I was hooked by that most powerful New York Times Bestseller endorsement but in 1600s. "Many say: I wanted to learn, but only found madness. But those who seek wisdom will not find it elsewhere."

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#158

Post by LeCompteSftware »

BoardsOfCanada wrote: post #144
LeCompteSftware wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I didn't want to burst anyone's spiritual bubble earlier, but I had a very similar experience one time when I smoked salvia divinorum: there was an eerie and overwhelming purple light, sort of like a "fluorescent" UV bulb, and the Ministers of The Universe pulled my life history in front of me, something something ALL OF SPACE AND TIME WAS- I wasn't speaking to God. I was high on salvia. And I'm quite certain A.…

There is either a spiritual bubble or a materialistic/scientistic bubble, and we shouldn't be afraid to burst either.

No, us scientific folks shouldn't go around needlessly poking people's spiritual bubbles. It's rude and disrespectful, and it almost never actually matters. Who cares if someone thinks they spoke to Jesus when they had a heart attack? Leave them alone.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#159

Post by _alternator_ »

smokedetector1 wrote: post #156
_alternator_ wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots to say there. The last few centuries have shown that many things which previously seemed inexplicable have been convincingly explained without resort to the supernatural. So a material basis of conscious experience seems a good bet. Related, and hinted at by my original comment: the brain is capable of generating truly profound experiences. There is a tendency to ascribe them to something 'beyond ourselves' but…

It's true that many things have yielded to science. And yet, what we discuss (the "hard problem of consciousness") hasn't. In my opinion, the burden is on you to prove that progress in other questions implies inevitable progress on an unrelated question that hasn't budged at all. I said this in my other comment but, when you say the brain generates truly profound experiences, you beg the question (in the philosophica…

The evidence is abundant and continues to chip away at the "hard problem". For example, we can through anesthesia turn on and off conscious experience. Through various drugs we can manipulate the character of conscious awareness, inducing ecstasy, visions, abiding serenity, terror, pain, grief... all states that were previously described as ineffable.

To say we haven't made progress on understanding consciousness is to move the post; we continue narrowing the 'hard problem' and eventually it seems like there will be nothing left other than a misunderstanding, something like the resolution of Xeno's paradox.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#160

Post by smokedetector1 »

_alternator_ wrote: post #159
smokedetector1 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that many things have yielded to science. And yet, what we discuss (the "hard problem of consciousness") hasn't. In my opinion, the burden is on you to prove that progress in other questions implies inevitable progress on an unrelated question that hasn't budged at all. I said this in my other comment but, when you say the brain generates truly profound experiences, you beg the question (in the philosophica…

The evidence is abundant and continues to chip away at the "hard problem". For example, we can through anesthesia turn on and off conscious experience. Through various drugs we can manipulate the character of conscious awareness, inducing ecstasy, visions, abiding serenity, terror, pain, grief... all states that were previously described as ineffable. To say we haven't made progress on understanding consciousness is…

I don't mean to be insulting but, you don't seem to understand what the hard problem is. It is not "is the brain intimately linked with conscious experience?" I would agree we've made progress on that question. It is the harder question of "why is there conscious experience at all? Why does it feel the way it does?" I would argue no progress has been made on this whatsoever, and possibly can't be done.

You can try to claim that this question is meaningless, but that doesn't seem principled to me, not to mention that it completely ignores the fact that gestures broadly all this is happening.

Post reply on HN