Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!! (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, January 08, 2012, 05:10 (4682 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.

That is a cop out. To be thoughtful you need to crack Sabom's book, and I am not seeing that from you. You are too bright to close your mind like this.

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.> Phenomenology is really the only thing psychology can do.

You are not expected to 'verify' Pam.

But Sabom's description of the events is very compelling. What Pam 'saw' is verified. How did she do it?. I don't know. Sabom doesn't know. Something is going on and you won't even open up to it.
>

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.

Too strict a standard. Sometimes things require a more open mind than you have.van Lommel's book is like that. An open mind, because what is observed is so surprising.

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.

We don't know enough about consciousness and the mind-brain interaction to be able to give a reasonable discussion of NDEs.

Agreed. We don't know squat, but we can take a look at experiences that give information to a person who is dying, that they would have no way of knowing, but they do. How is that?. Where is your curiosity?

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're certain we're right. It'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'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.

No problem with your description, but that approach limits you to a tiny amount of reality to think about.

This isn't a process that Medical Doctors have any use for. You don't have the luxury of time...... 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.

Exactly. And that is what our searching for meaning and reality is really like.

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.

I think you are limiting yourself. Thought about reality is not as rigid as you make it.

I'm glad we are having this discussion. We are so different in our approach to reality. At least we can agree to disagree. I think you are shutting out alot.