For Arguments Sake: Nothing Exists Beyond The Physical Realm

Derevon wrote:

What would the purpose be with people experiencing extraordinary things when they are about to die as far as natural selection is concerned? None whatsoever.

Careful Derevon, you are displaying a misunderstanding of evolution here, and then drawing a conclusion from the misunderstanding. Evolution and Natural Selection don't create things they need, they result from and affect the things they've got. And there's a big difference.

NDE's are a predictibly expected result of the natural breakdown of brain neurology when deprived of blood and oxygen. They can be induced artificially. Natural Selection isn't necessary to explain this effect any more than it's necessary to explain why drowning leads to death.

Please note that I don't claim that this proves that *some* NDE's aren't spiritually produced. Science can't test for something "spiritual" because it has no empirical definition. However, it's also not possible for you to conclude that *some* NDE's are spiritual simply because science can not rule it out.

At this point, all we know is that NDE's can be produced artifically, and that we would expect these types of experiences to result from normal brain activity under certain conditions (lack of oxygen and blood). We do not know what *else* might cause NDE's. I could just as easily conclude that they are thought transmissions from aliens as I could conclude that they are spiritual.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

.......Careful Derevon, you are displaying a misunderstanding of evolution here, and then drawing a conclusion from the misunderstanding...........

on the contrary, Derevon's comment is totally consistent with the theory, in that there is 'no connection'.

and apart from that we all seem to agree.

0 Replies

Can't....type...hands....turning....to...ethereal....fog....

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Derevon wrote:
What would the purpose be with people experiencing extraordinary things when they are about to die as far as natural selection is concerned? None whatsoever.

Careful Derevon, you are displaying a misunderstanding of evolution here, and then drawing a conclusion from the misunderstanding. Evolution and Natural Selection don't create things they need, they result from and affect the things they've got. And there's a big difference.

I haven't said that it does. I merely said that a genetic mutation which doesn't increase chances of survival is less likely to remain in the gene pool.

Quote:

NDE's are a predictibly expected result of the natural breakdown of brain neurology when deprived of blood and oxygen. They can be induced artificially. Natural Selection isn't necessary to explain this effect any more than it's necessary to explain why drowning leads to death.

NDE:s are normally triggered when the heart stops beating, respiration stops, and/or brain activity ceases. It is true that OBE-like experiences have been triggered by electrically stimulating the angular gyrus in the right cortex of the brain and by the anesthetic drug ketamine (these experiences are normally quite different from NDE-related OBE:s, though), but as I've said in a previous post, just because experiences can be triggered by natural means, it doesn't mean the experiences themselves are natural. People who've been 'dead' (no brain activity) have been known to give detailed accounts of surgical operations performed on them.

Quote:

Please note that I don't claim that this proves that *some* NDE's aren't spiritually produced. Science can't test for something "spiritual" because it has no empirical definition. However, it's also not possible for you to conclude that *some* NDE's are spiritual simply because science can not rule it out.

I make my conclusions based on lots of different things weighed against one another. In my mind NDE:s being spiritual is the most plausible explanation.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Derevon wrote:
What would the purpose be with people experiencing extraordinary things when they are about to die as far as natural selection is concerned? None whatsoever.

Careful Derevon, you are displaying a misunderstanding of evolution here, and then drawing a conclusion from the misunderstanding. Evolution and Natural Selection don't create things they need, they result from and affect the things they've got. And there's a big difference.

I haven't said that it does. I merely said that a genetic mutation which doesn't increase chances of survival is less likely to remain in the gene pool.

That's not what was implied by your original post. Perhaps I should have included more of your previous post to make my point. Here is the part which I'm addressing:

Derevon wrote:

In my opinion their are very strong indications that NDE:s are spiritual in origin as I've pointed out in previous posts. Besides, there is simply no reason why NDE:s would exist from an evolutional point of view. What would the purpose be with people experiencing extraordinary things when they are about to die as far as natural selection is concerned? None whatsoever.

First you make a statement that NDE's are spiritual in origin. Then you follow with a statement that is clearly offered as corrobaratory evidence of the previous assertion. And yet, the corraboratory evidence is only a straw man argument which implies something about the evolutionary process which is incorrect. You conclude your argument by knocking down the straw man.

It's fine if you want to believe in NDE's based on some touchy feely instinct that you have. If that's your argument, then you need go no further than that. But you cannot support your argument through evolutionary science as stated above.

0 Replies

What I said was that from a natural selection point of view self-awareness/consciousness wouldn't increase the chances of survival, and hence it would have less chance of remaining in the gene pool. After all, almost everything in a human being fills a purpose. Please let me know what part of this it is that you disagree with.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

Please let me know what part of this it is that you disagree with.

Hi Derevon, sure...

Derevon wrote:

What I said was that from a natural selection point of view self-awareness/consciousness wouldn't increase the chances of survival

This assumption is highly debatable, if not outright obviously wrong.

Derevon wrote:

, and hence it would have less chance of remaining in the gene pool.

Even if the original assumption were correct (which it may not be), it doesn't mean that there is less chance of it remaining in the gene pool. Things don't drop out of the gene pool just because they are not needed. They have to be selected out.

Derevon wrote:

After all, almost everything in a human being fills a purpose.

Again, this assumption is highly debatable, and pretty much hinges on the definition of the phrase "almost everything".

There are lots of things in human physiology (and general biological morphology) which are completely redundant (apendix, tonsils, tialbones, etc.)

I would also point out that none of this (evolution component) has anything to do with the chemical reactions which occur in a brain under adverse conditions. The brain is a complex organ which provides our awareness and perspective. If you start messing with it chemically (due to lack of oxygen and blood) it's not a bit surprising that it starts producing screwed up signals. And since all brains are built and operate in the same way, it's also not surprising that they produce similar effects when they go through similar damage.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I would also point out that none of this (evolution component) has anything to do with the chemical reactions which occur in a brain under adverse conditions. The brain is a complex organ which provides our awareness and perspective. If you start messing with it chemically (due to lack of oxygen and blood) it's not a bit surprising that it starts producing screwed up signals. And since all brains are built and operate in the same way, it's also not surprising that they produce similar effects when they go through similar damage.

Well, these "screwed up signals" very often profoundly transforms a person for the rest of his/her life. These experiences are perceived as more real than a normal waking experience. Also, some people, whose EEG:s have been flatlined, (i.e., no measurable electrical activity in the brain) have after their resuscitation with great detail reported details from surgery performed on them which they couldn't possible have known from their bodily senses.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

Well, these "screwed up signals" very often profoundly transforms a person for the rest of his/her life. These experiences are perceived as more real than a normal waking experience.

I don't doubt this at all.

Derevon wrote:

Also, some people, whose EEG:s have been flatlined, (i.e., no measurable electrical activity in the brain) have after their resuscitation with great detail reported details from surgery performed on them which they couldn't possible have known from their bodily senses.

I do doubt this.

0 Replies

rosborne979,

Well, take a look here: http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html

0 Replies

Deveron,

In my request to you I had something a bit more specific in mind.

1st-- I had thought that I had already explained NDEs as simply "stray voltage" in the unrestrained (by consciousness) "back up" (survival while unsconcious) system. Akin to dreams, more or less.

2nd, Consciousness and self awareness does provide a survival function for a creature that has evolved as we have physically. This body that we find ourselves in needs a brain that suits it. This body, to survive and reproduce, must be conscious and must be aware if its self. If you are to survive as a species it takes a lot more planning than it would for a wolf to.Or a bacterium or a tree or a virus for that matter. Natural Selection only describes a species response to an environment. But self awareness makes prediction possible. Do you think that your dog knows that winter is coming? No, of course not. But the wolf species does not need to know that in order to survive. Humans do, with very few exceptions. The Imaginary "Garden" is one of them.

3rd After reading your link. I have seen it before. Nobody denies NDEs or "out of body" experiences exist or happen. The discussion is whether or not they can be used as evidence of spirituality, or are simply electro-chemical-mechanical reactions to stress. (like unplugging your computer before shutting down) Very Happy

I have mentioned before that the religion and spirituality threads are not the only place on A2K that one can find theories and speculations that are not warranted by observations. Regrettably Sad

0 Replies

akaMechsmith,

The fact that people have had these experiences with a flat EEG pretty much rules out your theory about "stray voltage". Anyhow, dreams and NDE:s are nothing alike. Dreams are vague, illogical and incoherent. NDE:s are nothing like this. They are profound experiences with a much higher sense of reality to them.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

No credible arguments? How about all the thousands of testimonies of out of body-experiences and near-death experiences which cannot be explained scientifically? How about remote viewing being empirically/statistically proven beyond reasonable doubt? (http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html)

Once upon a time not too long ago, I was walking through a seedy area of the city. A scruffy looking man approached me while I was waiting to cross the street. He stared at me with his steely eyes. Time stopped. Then, with tremendous conviction, he uttered "THE TERMINATORS ARE COMING!! YOU CAN'T COOK SHOES FOR TWO WEEKS!!! YOU CAN'T COOK SHOES FOR TWO WEEKS!!!"

He, too, was convinced that his delusion was reality.

The fact that many people claim to have some kind of magical experiance on the brink of death doesn't make thier claim any less delusional, and the relative lack of concrete evidence supporting thier claim doesn't help either. Further, the fact that many of these experiances involve many of the same elements - ie- light at the end of the tunnel - only indicates that they are physiological in nature.

Now, I don't want to get into a debate about the merits and implications of after death experiances. I'm merely trying to point out that an odd phenomenon that has not yet been completely explained - which is what ADE is - hardly constitutes proof, or even evidence, of the metaphysical.

The fact that some things may not be completely sewn up by science does not constitute evidence that said things are metaphysical. In fact, if history is any indication - which, lets face it, it usually is - the only thing holding us back from understanding the unexplained is our lack of knowledge. The history of science has been the history of the steady, inevitable demolition of faith based delusions. I see no reason to think this trend is going to come to a halt any time soon, least of all because of some vague allusions to life beyond death.

0 Replies

Globachio wrote:

>>>Alternative realities are usually pleasant to the beholder. Some people dig up some ole weed that grows down the river and smoke it. A little fermented fruit juice can also induce a pleasant alternative reality.

BUT if the problem is that somebody is going to get hurt due to an person locked into an alternative reality, whether it's divinely, alcoholicly,chemically, or dispositionally induced.

Drunk driving comes to mind, Religiously motivated judgments is another, lying around stoned while your kids starve is another.

IF you are making decisions while you are drunk, stoned, praying or paranoid somebody is "REALLY" apt to get hurt.<<<<

As expected, the thrust of my question - to examine the teliological bearing of a "purely physical realm" upon the practical aspects of daily living - wasn't really examined.

Let's try again ... If the purely physical realm is all that exists, why NOT starve my kids? What diffrence does it ultimately make?

Assuming the stance of pure physicality, one must acknowledge that our "experience" of what we call "consciousness" is simply the result of a biochemical reaction that lasts a mere 80-100 years. Given that the universe is billions of years old, our tiny strip of self-awareness is so pitiful as to be insignificant.

Furthermore, consider the fact that, in time, our solar system will be destroyed by our sun. Everything we've ever done, said, thought - our entire history and existence - will be wiped out. And considering the size of our galaxy alone, our destruction won't even be noticed. (In fact, the universe is so large that the destruction of our entire galaxy is utterly unnoticable.)

Given all of this, why NOT starve my kids? Or, on the other hand, why not raise them to be a good source of protein? In fact, I would hold that, should I be absolutely convinced that the physical realm is all that exists, I'd have no problem going to the nearest neonatal unit, butchering the babies, and then killing myself before the police arrive.

You see, pure physicality = pure meaninglessness, pure insignificance. Hence the very presumption of a solely physical universe destroys the holder's right to any qualifications.

Very few of these kinds of "philosophers" are courageous enough to delve into the implications of their position. Which tells us that such a position is based more on emotion (usually an emotional reaction to traditional theism and its claims) than on logic. The only exceptions that come to mind are Nietzsche, Sartre & Camus (the last of which noted that the only serious philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide).

So, again, why NOT hold to alternative realities?

I smell the stench of red herring.

The question at the heart of this thread isn't whether delusion is preferable to reality. It is about truth, not babying the human condition.

In any case, you're argument seems to be something along the lines of "I don't like the imagined implications of reality, therefore, a belief system based on magic is THE TRUTH, 'cause I like it more."

Also, it doesn't help your case that you come perilously close to acknowledging your argument is delusional, and seem to spend the majority of your post trying to apologize for this or explain it away.

Just my take on it.

0 Replies

Re: For Arguments Sake: Nothing Exists Beyond The Physical R

rosborne979 wrote:

Information exists but isn't physical. Can you be more specific with your conjecture?

If you take a dandelion and burn it to ashes (all in a perfect container), the mass of the ash and gases is the same as the original, and yet you no longer have a dandelion. Information has been lost, but mass has not.

Information has not be lost, it has been transformed.

In any case, I'm not sure what you've said here contradicts my case.

0 Replies

As I stated in the first post, everything - thought, gravity, memories, light, etc - that we generally ascribe to some ethereal nonspatial dimension, is either definitely, or most probably, a concrete, physical, measurable (or testable) phenomona.

All anyone has to do is prove that light is NOT composed of photons.

That's what I want to see. Anybody?

0 Replies

Sorry Deveron, I can't buy that Sad

Dreams that I have had are occasionally indiscernable from real life. The effects are so "real" that I have occasionally checked for blonde hair on my pillow. Confused

feeling it very unlikely that Dolly Parton would show up Sad

.

I have explained that dreams can cause me to hold my breath or waken in surprise, or with exaustion and fears. (We commonly call them nightmares or nocturnal emissions.

I have talked to others who have had realistic dreams also. Some people never have them, others do. Some never remember them, some do.

But I have no reason to think that a person who has realistic, vivid, memorable dreams are more spiritualistic than others, nor is there any reason to think that dreams have any concordance with actual observations.

If a person such as Moses or Isaiah was a bit less careful with observation than I then it is easy for me to understand how they could think that their dreams have something to do with reality. Personally I think that Isaiah was particularly careless about observations, although prone to remember dreams.

I don't think that a "flat EEG" invalidates my surmisions. All that would mean is that there is no dectectable electric impulses at whatever frequencies that the machine is tuned for. Simply because you do not have a radio tuned to an AM station does not mean that AM frequencies are not being transmitted.

I am sorry but I realize that I am being a bit "poetic" (imprecise) in my analogies but this is not the forum to discuss electromagnetic radiation or the various effects of unbidden electrical happenstances. So for practical purposes we can term dreams and revelations as "stray voltage".

At the risk of boring you may I elucidate a bit more on the differences between "Fact" and "Theory".

When a EEG shows no detectable brainwave activity then we may legally assume that a person is dead.

BUT- that is only an assumption, based on a theory that an alive brain emits brainwaves at some detectable frequency. For practical purposes that theory serves well enough. If there are no brain waves and you take him off life support systems it's a pretty good bet that you will get no objections from the patient. But it is not proof that at any point in time before decomposition that he is dead. It's only proof that he has no brain waves.

Physicians, as a group IMO, seem to confuse wishes with outcomes more frequently than some others. This is one of the reasons that placebos and prayer often work. And a reason to be skeptical of your links.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith,

Dreams and hallucinations generate output on an EEG. The idea that people would be able to see themselves and the surgeries performed on them from above, hear every word from the surgeons and nurses, and in great detail describe what these have done to them while they were "dead", using their natural senses while their EEG is flat, seems extremely unlikely to me. Normal natural perception does generate detectable electrical brain activity as well.

Anyhow, I really don't understand how you can compare an EEG to a radio. A radio is designed to pick up signals on a certain frequency at a time. An EEG on the other hand is designed to pick up electrical activity over many different frequency bands.

0 Replies

Re: For Arguments Sake: Nothing Exists Beyond The Physical R

IronLionZion wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Information exists but isn't physical. Can you be more specific with your conjecture?

If you take a dandelion and burn it to ashes (all in a perfect container), the mass of the ash and gases is the same as the original, and yet you no longer have a dandelion. Information has been lost, but mass has not.

Information has not be lost, it has been transformed.

In any case, I'm not sure what you've said here contradicts my case.

no, the information that is 'dandelion' (the dna 'map') has been annihilated.

0 Replies

to reiterate ILZ's previous comments (now also relating to Mech, and Derevon, and all);

science is the detailed explanation of the "know" universe as it has been discovered, and described by numerous brilliant and exhaustively competent minds.

this is not to say that what science has not yet been able to fully 'describe' does not exist, but, it simply is not yet full understood.
What is an important factor to be considered though, in assessing the potential for an actual 'spiritual world' paralleling that of 'reality', is that as phenomena which are not immediately 'explainable' by today's science (current 'magic') are investigated, the history of science tells us that they all fall, one by one to new discoveries, and the validation of previous speculations.

Magic is only magic, until it becomes part of the realm of the obvious!

0 Replies

For Arguments Sake: Nothing Exists Beyond The Physical Realm

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know