Existentialism...

[Postmaster]

I think your real problem with the science is that it has studied NDE's and so far has found nothing to support the claims and this pisses you off. So you blame the science.

Tao would you say that if science can't find anything to support the claims of NDE, would you say that they not authentic expereinces?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao would you say that if science can't find anything to support the claims of NDE, would you say that they not authentic expereinces?

I think there are available explanations that fit the evidence a lot better than a lot of the hogwash I have seen.

 

[Postmaster]

Your probably more well informed on this then Iam, Im sure other explanations are worth consideration. But there isn't a way of knowing for sure that these other explanations are not part of a bigger picture?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Your probably more well informed on this then Iam, Im sure other explanations are worth consideration. But there isn't a way of knowing for sure that these other explanations are not part of a bigger picture?

So far no. I have had the dubious pleasure of being rendered unconscious on a number of occasions both medically and through blunt trauma. I have experienced what people describe as the tunnel to light, I call it regaining conciousness. Now for me that is a more plausible explanation than "I saw the gates of heaven".
Being rendered unconcious fuddles the brain. To draw any conclusions based on the personal testimony of those so beffudled is clutching at straws. The plainest, simplest explanation is usually the right one.

 

[earl]

Maybe they "do not require science to confirm" but are they then actually interested in knowing the cause and mechanics of that experience? Or are they simply going on an emotionally charged circular form of thinking that will support their baseless and unshakeable forgone conclusions? People like you get into this and then start devouring everything they can, and there is no shortage of myth-mongers in that field, yet never bother with the negative information. I think your real problem with the science is that it has studied NDE's and so far has found nothing to support the claims and this pisses you off. So you blame the science.

Tao this very response portrays the power of a world view closed against contradictory evidence as in the physician's data I posted in the thread re the implications of NDE research for models of consciousness. You prove my very point about why science won't ever finally settle issues of consciousness: there will always be folks who will cling to their world views like a dog to the bone no matter what. You simply like to sweep away evidence as if it does not exist when it doesn't fit your view. earl

 

[earl]

Tao, here's an idea. Try the game young children play when they want to pretend something doesn't exist-they shut their eyes real tight so as not to see and hope it goes away by the time they open them again. Oh, wait, you're already doing that. earl

 

[citizenzen]

You prove my very point about why science won't ever finally settle issues of consciousness: there will always be folks who will cling to their world views like a dog to the bone no matter what. You simply like to sweep away evidence as if it does not exist when it doesn't fit your view. earl

Earl, your eyes are just as closed as anybody else's in this thread. And your logic! OMG. Science will never settle the issue of consciousness because somebody in the world will cling to mistaken view? That doesn't even make sense, man!

There's millions of people who cling to the mistaken view that evolution is a lie. There's still a Flat Earth Society and people who believe the Moon landing was faked. These mistaken views haven't stopped science. Science forges ahead and eventually leaves the naysayers kicking and screaming, forgotten and discredited.

Why do you think that the study of the human mind and consciousness won't progress in the same way?

 

[citizenzen]

Well, lookie here, a far-out scientific theory from another bunch of closed-minded eggheads. I actually ran into this looking up something for another thread, but it seemed pretty appropriate for this discussion...

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
New Science, 19:00 20 November 2008, by Stephen Battersby

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter. Read More >>​

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, here's an idea. Try the game young children play when they want to pretend something doesn't exist-they shut their eyes real tight so as not to see and hope it goes away by the time they open them again. Oh, wait, you're already doing that. earl

Look Earl, I have already explained to you that I have looked at it from your point of view, as someone sympathetic to it and because the evidence mounted against it I became a sceptic. That is not closing your eyes. I suggest that it is you that is playing another children's game "make believe". And do you believe that Santa Clause is real? Or perhaps you should try scientology, that would fit in nicely for you. You could be an immortal space alien that is born again and again and have the holy remit to diss psychology.

 

[Snoopy]

Man gets home from work and goes into the kitchen. There's a note propped up next to the cooker that reads "Gone to philosophy class. Your dinner does not exist."

s.

 

[nativeastral]

Well, lookie here, a far-out scientific theory from another bunch of closed-minded eggheads. I actually ran into this looking up something for another thread, but it seemed pretty appropriate for this discussion...

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
New Science, 19:00 20 November 2008, by Stephen Battersby

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter. Read More >>​

some of the comments are great!, [dude don't even try to understand this, just sip your beer and enjoy life'.

This had already been 'confirmed', albeit intuitively or if you prefer,logically, by many philosophers [ l know, yawn but they had taken up to date scientific theoretical understandings into consideration of course]

 

[earl]

Look Earl, I have already explained to you that I have looked at it from your point of view, as someone sympathetic to it and because the evidence mounted against it I became a sceptic. That is not closing your eyes. I suggest that it is you that is playing another children's game "make believe". And do you believe that Santa Clause is real? Or perhaps you should try scientology, that would fit in nicely for you. You could be an immortal space alien that is born again and again and have the holy remit to diss psychology.

You're just not credible when you say you examine the evidence objectively Tao. In fact haven't even taken a peak at the evidence already posted here by physicians, not that I think you would objectively examine it. In fact, the one time when you couldn't logically discount what a physician said you simply resorted to claiming he was simply lying. Objective? I suspect you're about the only 1 here who might really believe you are capable of objectivity when it comes to this sort of thing- well you and maybe CZ. You have a set worldview which everyone who has been here more than 1 year is well aware of and no amount of evidence will ever sway you. In that sense you are a fundamentalist. In fact, given that, seems rather silly for me to engage you in dialogue. Dialogue with fundamentalists is usually an exercise in futility. earl

 

[earl]

OK, now I'm curious about you on another level Tao. Just like religious fundamentalists cannot conceive of their worldview being wrong and cling to it because threats to it instill fear in them, makes me wonder what it is about the probability our consciousness is more than just the workings of brain cells and the possiblity that there may be spiritual realms we barely know little about that "puts the fear of God" in you-excuse the pun-to the point that you are so fundamentalistic, (i.e., wholly unwilling to objectively consider contradictory evidence and vehemently attacking the "infidels" of a non-materialist view point). earl

 

[Tao_Equus]

Ok, so today I'm a fundamentalist. Should I celebrate?

This is from a Dr Jansen a Dutch scientist who carried out a 13 year long study into NDE's.

According to Dr. Jansen, ketamine can reproduce all the main features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into the light, the feeling that one is dead, communing with God, hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, strange noises, etc. This does not prove that the NDE is nothing but a set of physical responses, nor does it prove that there is no life after death. It does, however, prove that an NDE is not compelling evidence for belief in either the existence of a separate consciousness or of an afterlife.

So clearly if a drug can mimic an NDE it must have something to do with neurochemistry. You may want to fly a helicopter before you have learned to fly a kite, I choose to keep my mind open.

 

[Snoopy]

Shunryu Suzuki a well known contemporary Zen teacher long dead-my favorite ones are the dead ones- used the well known phrase in discussing mind and body: "not one, not two." Those Zen folks really know how to clear up any confusion. earl

Materialism seems to be monist in asserting that there is only matter; and so the separation of mind and body is therefore denied. However, I'm not sure the author of the article quite gets the Buddhist perspective, which is fundamentally anti-ontological. Buddhism appears to be non-material monist (shunyata) but is actually so resolutely non-dual (a speculative view) that it even denies the separation of dual and non-dual. Which I think is what Suzuki is summing up here.

I hope that clears that up.

s.

 

[earl]

Ok, so today I'm a fundamentalist. Should I celebrate?

This is from a Dr Jansen a Dutch scientist who carried out a 13 year long study into NDE's.

According to Dr. Jansen, ketamine can reproduce all the main features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into the light, the feeling that one is dead, communing with God, hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, strange noises, etc. This does not prove that the NDE is nothing but a set of physical responses, nor does it prove that there is no life after death. It does, however, prove that an NDE is not compelling evidence for belief in either the existence of a separate consciousness or of an afterlife.

So clearly if a drug can mimic an NDE it must have something to do with neurochemistry. You may want to fly a helicopter before you have learned to fly a kite, I choose to keep my mind open.

Few NDE researchers are willing to go so far as to contend their research proves life after death. What their evidence suggests is that consciounsess is not merely a function of brain activity. earl

 

[earl]

Materialism seems to be monist in asserting that there is only matter; and so the separation of mind and body is therefore denied. However, I'm not sure the author of the article quite gets the Buddhist perspective, which is fundamentally anti-ontological. Buddhism appears to be non-material monist (shunyata) but is actually so resolutely non-dual (a speculative view) that it even denies the separation of dual and non-dual. Which I think is what Suzuki is summing up here.

I hope that clears that up.

s.

To some I agree with that. I think though that what Suzuki was getting at is that mind cannot be fully equated with body but also not separable from it. Though don't know what the guy would have thought about NDE's. Zen folk didn't discuss views re consciousness at or around the time of death the way Tibetan Buddhists did. earl

I take that back, Snoopy, guess Zen roshis do have similar views to vajrayana folk: http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsisp/boomframe.jsp?query=zen+buddhism%2C+consciousness+at+death&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dcca6dcaca4decdff%26clickedItemRank%3D8%26userQuery%3Dzen%2Bbuddhism%252C%2Bconsciousness%2Bat%2Bdeath%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.esalenctr.org%252Fdisplay%252Fconfpage.cfm%253Fconfid%253D9%2526pageid%253D96%2526pgtype%253D1%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSISPClient%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.esalenctr.org%2Fdisplay%2Fconfpage.cfm%253Fconfid%253D9%2526pageid%253D96%2526pgtype%253D1

 

[Snoopy]

To some I agree with that. I think though that what Suzuki was getting at is that mind cannot be fully equated with body but also not separable from it. Though don't know what the guy would have thought about NDE's. Zen folk didn't discuss views re consciousness at or around the time of death the way Tibetan Buddhists did. earl

I take that back, Snoopy, guess Zen roshis do have similar views to vajrayana folk: Netscape Search

I try to keep an open mind on rebirth. I think a lot hangs on what one understands particular terms to mean - Dogen constantly requires a Dogen-layman's English dictionary and the ability to make head-swivelling changes of perspective .

This is taken from Between Heaven and Earth, a comparison of Nagarjuna and Dogen (who are basically singing from the same song sheet):

"Every action in the present creates karma, which continues until the effect, and then disappears. Nagarjuna emphasizes that karma does not continue after death, which he suggests is deluded thinking."

...and...

"Nagarjuna argues that since Buddhism believes in oneness of mind and body, it is impossible for a person to pass on to another life in spiritual form, or in physical form. And since we can find no trace of real persons passing on with any of the senses, the belief in the migration of the soul on its passage to liberation is unacceptable.

Nagarjuna clearly denies that human beings pass through a succession of lives, based on the Buddhist insistence that body and mind are indivisible. And to Nagarjuna, talk about nirvana or the state of cessation as a state of perfect freedom from bondage that we strive towards over a series of lifetimes is not plausible either."

so take your pick...

or just sit...

...is this existentialism?...



s.

 

[earl]

Just sit-well yeah the Buddha did in speaking of the 10 fetters which bind the mind to suffering spoke of holding views. Ultimately any view we hold will not liberate us because liberation (spiritual growth) isn't ultimately about the cognitions flowing transiently through our minds. Knocking views around is just a hobby. By the way, as trivia, that last thing I posted from the zen roshi, Richard Baker-he was the immediate successor to Suzuki at the San Fran Zen Center when he died. That piece does point out the Buddhist view on consciousness through death and yes they do not believe in souls or their transmigration. My view is somewhat between an eternalist one and the standard Buddhist view, but I won't bore you with the details. earl

 

[Snoopy]

Knocking views around is just a hobby.

Quite so!

By the way, as trivia, that last thing I posted from the zen roshi, Richard Baker-he was the immediate successor to Suzuki at the San Fran Zen Center when he died. That piece does point out the Buddhist view on consciousness through death and yes they do not believe in souls or their transmigration.

Yes, I have occasional urges to visit the SFZC. Who knows, I might bump into PoO!

My view is somewhat between an eternalist one and the standard Buddhist view, but I won't bore you with the details.

Half way to eternity?

Hedge-sitter!

s.