/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10663094
"Find the true statement and get a free beer!" is the only possibly true statement, so if any statement is true, it must be that one.

>>10387176
>>10388688
>>10388862
>>10388870
>>10388883

http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799193/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no1-33.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564/
https://www.amazon.com/Self-Does-Not-Die-Experiences/dp/0997560800/

And here is why you have not encountered this data before: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

>>10388890

Not even at all, they got a semi-hit, it is just that the observation was not in a room with targets, but it was still beyond astronomically unlikely to just have been guessed by the NDEr.

>>10388894
>>10388901
>>10388910

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc937961/m2/1/high_res_d/31-1_4_Potts.pdf

>>10389083

1. Clinical death is for all intents and purposes, in the context of this discussion, equivalent with irreversible death, because the brain has no chance of creating any experiences in either scenario.

2. If you delve deeper into the NDE case, it becomes apparent that Pam should not have been able to see and hear those things even if she had been perfectly awake: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461722/m2/1/high_res_d/30-1%20E%20Carter.pdf

>>10308802

>m-muh fundamaterialism!!

Just see >>10303001.

>>10217092

TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(G999)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>10113282
>lots of people with NDEs wake up and don't remember anything

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what an near-death experience (NDE) even is. An NDE is not just being close to death, it is to have a lucid and profound psychological experience while either undergoing the initial stages of death or while being close to death in general. If you come close to death or underwent the initial stages of death but didn't have any kind of lucid and/or profound experience at that time, you did not have an NDE, by definition.

Of all the people who come close to death, roughly 10-20% come back with an NDE, and it is random whether someone will have an NDE or not, as near-death experiencers (NDErs) are representative of the population as a whole.

>>9912029
>>9912064
>>9912131

Fundamaterialists detected. Required reading: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

"Science is a methodological process of discovering truths about reality. Insofar as science is an objective process of discovery, it is, and must be, metaphysically neutral. Insofar as science is not metaphysically neutral, but instead weds itself to a particular metaphysical theory, such as materialism, it cannot be an objective process for discovery. There is much confusion on this point, because many people equate science with materialist metaphysics, and phenomena that fall outside the scope of such metaphysics, and hence cannot be explained in physical terms, are called "unscientific." This is a most unfortunate usage of the term. For if souls and spirits are in fact a part of reality, and science is conceived epistemologically as a systematic investigation of reality, then there is no reason why science cannot devise appropriate methods to investigate souls and spirits. But if science is defined in terms of materialist metaphysics, then, if souls and spirits are real, science, thus defined, will not be able to deal with them. But this would not be because souls and spirits are unreal, but rather because this definition of science in terms of materialist metaphysics has semantically excluded nonphysical realities from its scope."

>>9912045
>>9912179

http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564/

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Does-Not-Die-Experiences-ebook/dp/B01LYMHXCO/

That's all you need to know, basically. There is a lot of well-documented cases of consciousness existing independently of the brain.

>>9912175

>If the seat of consciousness is not physical why does a physical change affect it?

See Carter's book. A preview: https://trans4mind.com/spiritual/Does-consciousness.pdf

>>9901936

>>9883787
Yes, a normal 18 years old human being now is smarter than every single humans that lived before the 1950.

And with the Internet, we have access to every thing, every time, every where.

>>9872339
>>9872342

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

From the article:

>In the above paragraphs, I have been using the terms "science" and "scientific" in their epistemological sense. Science is a methodological process of discovering truths about reality. Insofar as science is an objective process of discovery, it is, and must be, metaphysically neutral. Insofar as science is not metaphysically neutral, but instead weds itself to a particular metaphysical theory, such as materialism, it cannot be an objective process for discovery. There is much confusion on this point, because many people equate science with materialist metaphysics, and phenomena that fall outside the scope of such metaphysics, and hence cannot be explained in physical terms, are called "unscientific." This is a most unfortunate usage of the term. For if souls and spirits are in fact a part of reality, and science is conceived epistemologically as a systematic investigation of reality, then there is no reason why science cannot devise appropriate methods to investigate souls and spirits. But if science is defined in terms of materialist metaphysics, then, if souls and spirits are real, science, thus defined, will not be able to deal with them. But this would not be because souls and spirits are unreal, but rather because this definition of science in terms of materialist metaphysics has semantically excluded nonphysical realities from its scope.

>>9775672

>Curious. If reincarnation WAS real, on Earth or in another cosmos, and memory isn't carried forward how would that be "you"?

No, because it would be memory-less. You'd cease to be entity A here and now, and wake up as entity B somewhere and sometime else. It wouldn't be you, but here would also be no gap in consciousness.

>>9776192

Given the possibilities of infinite universes and an eternal big crunch scenario, it is an interesting 'if' to pontificate on further indeed. I don't even adhere to death being equivalent to extinction due to the empirical evidence anyway, so I haven't thought about it too much.

>>9776236

>it isn't because...... what?

People are explicitly stating in the millions that they visited the afterlife during their NDEs. Any good reason besides >muh fundamaterialism you don't believe them?

>>9627306
>not understanding meta-irony