NDEs: It still comes back to epistemology (Agnosticism)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 01, 2020, 21:04 (645 days ago) @ dhw

xeno: What does it actually mean that the data was corroborated?
The claim here that we're considering is pretty... well pretty banal. So we find a shoe. other people corroborate that.
Looking at some other cases:
"Pam Reynolds: Upon returning to consciousness, she was able to accurately describe the unique surgical instrument used and report the statements made by the nurses."
We've got this dutch guy:
"‘You were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that cart, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath, and there you put my teeth.’"
The thing that *I* notice here, is that in these instances we're all talking about things that are physically close to the patient in question.
Lady finds a shoe. Man finds his teeth. Another lady describes a procedure that the doc and nurses all already know.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the fascination or implications might really be here?

I wish I could remember the other examples that did NOT concern such observations but I don’t have time to do the research. I vaguely remember that they involved patients “meeting” people they didn’t even know were dead, or being given information about living people which turned out to be true. BBella’s example was not an NDE – it concerned the person concerned being “told” to take action because of an accident which he/she couldn’t have known about. Such “psychic” events are far from being confined to NDEs. I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful, but the implications are that the human mind is not confined to the brain cells, and may even have an existence of its own when the brain cells are dead. Hence the concept of an immortal soul. As usual, I remain neutral, but NDEs are only part of the story, and there are far too many instances of “psychic” experiences involving inexplicable knowledge for me to dismiss all of them as hoaxes or delusions.

I'm going to have to shelve this for now. Part of why I brought up this old ghost is because I left it lingering, and I restarted a book I originally picked up to discuss here a few years back, "problems of knowledge." It seems, had I spent a bit more time studying it, I'd have a better understanding about where some of my own epistemological train jumps tracks. I'm essentially a full-on positivist, and as we should recall... Positivism was roundly refuted a good 60-80yrs ago... but it seems I like others, by not REALLY learning my history, are actively repeating it.

Dr. Turell, I'm sorry to keep responding to you in dhw's responses, but as I just stated I'm doing some heavy lifting right now in order to help make things right and hopefully suss out things that I'm missing. It's been slow, but atomism and reductionism have lost their respective spells.

\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum