Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!! (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 07, 2012, 18:26 (4705 days ago) @ David Turell

Too much wine the night I read your reply, but no where are you telling me that you cracked Sabom's book and read his physician's description of the operation and her verifiable observations will literally blind, deaf, and severely hypothermic.

Nowhere am I NOT being scientific about this. From the story given, I
decided I needed more information.

Why respond as you did without getting the info first, especially if you have the book.

When I say this, I do not mean to say this sarcastically or negatively: But I thought it was clear that my postings on this topic were a running commentary on the website you posted, as well as the topic of NDE/OBE.

However--it's patently hard to be "scientific" about this. It's a personal experience. I can no more verify Pam's experience than Christ risen. In fact, in a direct sense, the claims are identical. In Christ's case I have to take the eyewitness word of 4 Gospels. In our case, I have to take Pam's and her doctor's "word for it" and it is at this level that we cannot be scientific--

I recognize that there are soft sciences as psychology, but those folks are making valid attempts to get around some of your objections.

Phenomenology is really the only thing psychology can do. The experiment discussed at the beginning of the website's article is a prime example of one thing that could be done. I like the idea of random messages.

(This is in fact, why mathematics is alluring...)

I clearaly understand your prejudices. How hard a science is economics?

Economics is a social science--so it's not "hard" at all. There's very real and descriptive mathematics behind it, but at the end of the day you have supply-siders using the same theorems as demand-siders to make opposite claims.
(Sound familiar?) Economics as a "hard science" breaks down because it makes a critical and unrealistic assumption:

That people will always act in their own self-interest.

It is precisely the fact that we don't--that prevents Economics from being "hard." In relation to psychology, I still claim economics does more to explain humanity and its nature. So if the question becomes "Is economics a harder science than psychology?" Unequivocally yes. Psychology is phenomenology.

I've also said before, science that isn't replicable, isn't science. I hold to that. So asking me to be a "real scientist...?" sorry, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Your response the other day was off-hand and dismissive. I still stick with falsifiable, along with replicable, and suggest thatd a use of both is much more complete.

My bias is from medical science, yours from math. A great difference.

Thank you for the falsifiable piece--> Very silly of me to leave it out.

You&apos;re free to interpret my post however you wish, but when reading the site, I wrote down all the questions that came to my mind. You call it dismissive, I call it inquisitive. My primary criticism: If we know that we know very little about consciousness, we have very little right to be able to claim we know for sure when it ends. <--This application of Occam that justly criticizes neuroscience comes back to slice you in the discussion of NDEs. We don&apos;t know enough about consciousness and the mind-brain interaction to be able to give a reasonable discussion of NDEs.

The key difference between our mindsets turns on the critical fact that the mathematical perspective is radically conservative. You rarely see one of us make a move or a decision until we&apos;re certain we&apos;re right. It&apos;s an ascetic art. Its relation to mysticism is that you experience what you learn. The first time you crack a hard problem--and I&apos;m not talking computations, physics, or engineering equations, but a true, general and difficult problem--there is an almost transcendental feeling that you have uncovered a deep and hidden secret.

Then, you attempt to destroy your secret, in the hopes that it will survive. No other science operates like this.

This isn&apos;t a process that Medical Doctors have any use for. You don&apos;t have the luxury of time. And you certainly don&apos;t have time to destroy your &quot;secret.&quot; I know how differential diagnosis works: when you find what you think the problem is, attempt the solution and figure out if the symptoms go away. If not... try again.

You still use a math brain for this. But you follow a heuristic and a trial and error process necessitated by time-boxing. There is no time limit on mathematics.

--
\"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.\"