Near death, (maybe) explained? • Hacker News Board

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#21

Post by gruseom » Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 5:14 AM UTC

vbo wrote: post #13

kstenerud wrote: post #5

Unfortunately, the author is heavily biased in favor of the soul/spirit explanation, as can be seen by the sudden change of tone when he starts talking about "Materialistic" scientists.

I stopped reading when I got to that term, thinking "what's a materialis... oh, right, it's a REAL scientist". Other than that, a fascinating article, I might finish reading it now.

what's a materialis... oh, right, it's a REAL scientist

Max Planck:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

Pretty sure Planck was a real scientist.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#22

Post by kstenerud » Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 2:56 PM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #21

vbo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped reading when I got to that term, thinking "what's a materialis... oh, right, it's a REAL scientist". Other than that, a fascinating article, I might finish reading it now.

what's a materialis... oh, right, it's a REAL scientist Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck Pretty sure Planck was a real scientist.

Yes, because untested hypotheses and opinions are always true when they come from a scientist. That's how we know for a fact that Yahweh is 100% real.

Controlled double-blind experimental evidence or GTFO.

Re: Near death, (maybe) explained?

#23

Post by ajuc » Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 2:01 PM UTC

paged90 wrote: post #18

tgflynn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think that if there were something real here more evidence of "verifiable" NDE experiences would have become available. Instead articles like this are still rehashing cases from 10 or 15 years ago.

It could be that due to the inherent lack of ability to perform this in a controlled manner it is not being looked at. I can't imagine there's a line of people waiting to be put in a near-death situation for an experience you have ~16% (?) of having, with the risk being death or brain damage. Even if you could find volunteers, I'd like to see an institute willing to take on the impending lawsuit should something ever…

But you could put blackboard into operation room, write there result of a few rolls of dices after the patient is unconcious, and clear the board before patient wakes up.

Of course people will argue it's wasting time that is important to heal that person, but if we want to get results, we could invest into one additional person, that will perform this function.

Or we could just put monitor there, showing (not pseudo) random numbers when pacient is for sure unconcious, to minimize costs, and risk of infection becouse of additional person.

If NDEs and OBE are so common (a few percent people experienced it) after year we would have our proof, or we would know it's extremely unprobable. Not that I think right now it's true, but if we can check, why predict?