/lit/ - Literature

>>21001386
Another interesting comment from that thread:
>"Your husband is going to believe what he wants to. When I tell people that I listened to a conversation far from my body (no WAY my ears heard it), they just decide I'm lying for no apparent reason.
>Show them someone like Tricia Barker and her NDE, and they will LEGIT claim that everyone, doctors and nurses included, are "making it up", because they want to believe what they want to believe. Doctors and nurses would, in their minds, risk their careers to lie for no return on it. No fame, no money... they just... lie. Because why not, I guess??
>When you have an NDE, you do KNOW it's not in your head. Every excuse people like your husband try to use to excuse it away fall flat. "It's lack of oxygen to the brain." Except a brain denied of oxygen experiences lack of lucidity and experiences memory loss. "Well, then it's DMT released by the brain as it dies." Except DMT lasts a minimum of 30 minutes (so they'd still be high and hallucinating for another 25 minutes if they were only dead for 5 minutes--as example), the pituitary isn't big enough to produce enough for a trip, and DMT has never been found in dead human brains in any clinically significant amount.
>Etc. etc. etc.
>People like your husband love to pretend they're analytical and critical thinkers, but they believe absolutely ridiculous things like this without questioning it. The sheer number of 'skeptics' who I've spoken to who BLINDLY and UNTHINKINGLY accepted the "dmt in the brain" thing is hilarious. It started out literally as a GUESS by a PARAPSYCHOLOGIST.... these supposed science nerds never looked into it at all. "Oh, sounds good. Whew!" and they accept it as "science" without question.
>No disrespect to your husband, he's welcome to BELIEVE whatever he wants. But it's pretty awkward to realize he's BELIEVING something completely unscientific while claiming to be a rational skeptic, no doubt."