/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14730389
>Moscow
>degenerating science to esoteric woo cult
Checks out

Already wrote you a lengthy comment developing the notion of consciousness from basic thought, then self awareness (second and higher order thought).
You're ruining the board. Go study biology instead, make us live forever.

Biomedical won't suffice to understand consciousness. You need to learn about quantum mechanics.

>>14730406
I am not the OP of the other thread. I did read that thread though.

Also we cant live forever with a biological body. Only hope to live indefinite periods of time would be a robotic/virtual body.

>>14730389
Consciousness is the prima materia (Elemental Elementalism 1.1.).

>>14730389
Once Moscow is a smouldering crater then humanity will advance.

>>14730389
What is conciousness first though, its not limited to but its main thing is an ability to understand one's existance and its mostlikely a byproduct from having more complex processing power unit like brain or a computer processors as understanding ones existance takes a lot more processing power than one might think; the higher the complexity the higher the conciousness. Now compare your conciousness to any other entity on Earth; be it another man, animal or a robot. Conciousness should be put on a spectrum because many people are more concious than other, some people are more introspective than others. Now Compare animals to eachother, notice how some animals are more concious than other like pic related, but try to teach most insects to do any art and you will be greatly dissapointed. Don't mistake it for lack of concioussness as once again conciousness should be thought on a spectrum: a dog or a cat are more concious of their existance than lets say a simple worker ant, but comparing a cat or a dog conciousness to conciousness of a human pales in comparasment (at least in most cases). This also can go in other direction. I'm fairly certain humans today are more concious than homo erectus of the past and people in the future and possibly AI will be more conciousness of their existance than people today simply because they will have more complex and powerful brains and processors.

>>14730778
I have also thought about the levels of consciousness. You described it fairly well.

It is scary to think that perhaps, somewhere in the universe, there could be a specie with a superior consciousness. So much that in comparison we would be like ants to them. I am afraid we will never know.

>>14730389
https://noetic.org/

I have two mutually exclusive thoughts about consciousness that I tend to like:

1. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that results from the interaction of many smaller parts interacting. Neurons > brain sort of thing. If this is the case, I think it can be said that larger structures (or superorganisms) like a city or nation or ant colony literally have their own consciousness too. It might differ, like our consciousness is different to a crocodile's, but it is just as real. Of course a nation's consciousness wouldn't be accessible to us, just as a single neuron can't access the consciousness it helps create.

2. Consciousness is singular and universal. Sort of like a quantum field, it permeates the universe and any individual instance of it is an excitation of this "field". The energy at any point in the field determines the strength of the consciousness. So all matter has some amount of it, but for certain types of organisms (animals), evolution has exploited it to a high level.

>>14730389
No. Consciousness may be mysterious, but the near-death experience is more than just mysterious as it is screaming that it is not caused by the brain. Not only is there plenty of scientific evidence that the brain couldn't possibly create it, such as people accurately reporting things during OBEs (see the AWARE study and the book The Self Does Not Die, for instance), but there is also the fact that the near-death experience convinces EVERYBODY who has it, even extreme skeptics, neuroscientists, and ultraantitheists, that the afterlife is real.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, all are convinced, so 100% of the population agrees that the afterlife is real once they have an NDE themselves. Hence, as this article points out,

>"[A]t least some NDErs were equally as skeptical of the existence of an afterlife or of the idea that NDEs are or can be indicative of an afterlife as we may be now, and at least some of them also shared the intensity of that skepticism, and at least some of them also shared whatever justifications we may think or feel that we have for that skepticism. And yet, the NDE thoroughly and justifiably convinced them that there really is an afterlife for experientially self-evident and realer than real attributes of the experience."

The NDE is literally the allegory of the cave of the modern times. These people have experienced an unmistakable higher reality in the light of the NDE world, and when they come back to tell the people still living and immersed in this world, they are met with disbelief, ridicule, and even hostility. How comical is it not that the skeptics do not see the irony in that?

>>14730408
why?

>>14732475
Dr. Gary Habermas got a video where he tells a story about having talked to a lady that experienced an NDE while undergoing brain surgery
he says that she say she saw a plate with a serial code engraved on it on top of one of the hospital machines
she says that she later talked to the nurses, and they told her the number, and she says it was the same number she remembered
she also knew the doctors used a bone saw to open up her skull, despite having no medical training

you have to literally be in denial on materialism, when the evidence from NDEs is this strong

>>14732517
So where is the write up? Where is the peer-reviewed study? Seriously, please, do you have facts or just anecdotes? Don't you think people desperately want this to be so? Why is this not considered a watershed thing? Evil dogmatic scientists have buried the facts? They should be just as blown away and changed as anybody by these facts, if they are indeed testable, reproducible facts.

>>14732534
I was making a joke. I was framing one of the most popular NDE case reports in unflattering language.
The butt of the joke are people who believe there is good evidence of NDEs being spooky.

>>14732534
Science cannot even agree on a definition of consciousness. That makes the field incredibly difficult to study.

Scientifically speaking, how come believing in materialism correlates so strongly with having a mental illness?

>>14732570
>definition of consciousness
Do you think people have trouble getting their meaning across when using the word 'consciousness' ?

>>14732560
Okay, I'm retarded. Poe's Law, the lack of punctuation sold me. But honestly, do these people think we're all just crossing our arms and turning up our noses at what would be earth-shattering information?

>"Oh, you have proof of the afterlife? No I don't want to believe that. I would sooner just go on believing in soul-crushing materialism."

>>14732534
>Evil dogmatic scientists have buried the facts?
This, combined with the mass public skepticism that brands the heritics as quacks, and dismisses any anecdotal experiences as hallucinations with no further explanation needed.
If you guys knew what a 'hallucination' really was from my perspective, you would see consciousness in a new light, no pun intended.

>>14732594
If your only way to getting a meaning across is "you know what I mean", you know empiricism is not going to help you much. lol

>>14732618
I just think that how words work.
I don't know why you would expect people to give a solid definition of consciousness, if you suppose we don't really know what it is, or how it works.
Having a definition, would be really weird.

>>14732637
>I don't know why you would expect people to give a solid definition of consciousness
I don't expect it. I know it can't be done and I know empiricism is useless here. It's not my problem, but of those who still insist on dead 19th century materialist dogma.

>>14732594
Consciousness is self-evident, and yet difficult to scientifically define.
It's akin to talking about the soul.

>>14730389
Bet your an Oriental too.

>>14732639
lol, okay
Then what was the problem with science not agreeing on a definition?
Science can't give a definition of quantum gravity either, do you think that tells us something about quantum gravity being a thing or not?

not a materialist, btw

>>14732662
Gravity even without a descriptive theory is more ubiquitous and easy to verify with measurement. Consciousness, not so much.

>>14732601
>But honestly, do these people think we're all just crossing our arms and turning up our noses at what would be earth-shattering information?
_YES!_ It is a well-documented FACT that self-proclaimed "skeptics" never read the actual fucking literature, they just assume that it MUST be false, so they ridicule it and ignore it, blissfully unaware of how demonstrably wrong they are.
Pic fucking related, it will crush every materialist on the planet - if they actually read it, which they won't, just like they won't read any other book about NDEs either.

>>14732715
Keep that speculative fictional bullshit to /lit/

>>14732705
I still think science defining consciousness would be putting the cart before the horse.
People are not going to do that if they don't know what consciousness is, or how it works. Lacking a definition in of itself doesn't tell us anything about beyond that, about how hard/impossible it is on empiricism.

>>14732715
Look, I told you about Dr. Habermas and the 12-Digit lady. Who are these sceptics that ignore NDEs?
I've looked into his reports of his interviews with her and the facts.
It's just really really bad. Dr. Habermas egregiously contradicts himself, and mistakenly embellishes the case. (Imo, not because he is dishonest. But because he is a careless academic.)
He becomes a part of the phenomena that explains why we get these reports, because the evidence is mishandled.

The timeline he uses for the surgery doesn't match up with the one later provided by the doctors.
He supposes that there couldn't be a natural reason for why she overheard what the surgeons were talking about during the surgery, because her brain was emptied of blood. Which contradicts the hospitals report, which states that her brain was not emptied of blood yet. He's just wrong about that. If there was a problem with her anaesthesia that would account for why she was partially conscious and remember hearing this stuff.
The evidence of how the lady confirmed her 12-digit number being correct is poor, it hearsay. I suppose she's seen such machines before, and knew there was a serial code on top of them. She dreamt up having seen a number.
Then a nurse told her the number, after she reported her NDE, and she formed a false memory about having correctly remembered it. I suppose coincidences, not conspiracy.
Just like Habermas himself formed a false memory about the facts of his interview. These things are not uncommon.

All these reports come from the woman herself, right? It's not like the nurses had any idea what was going on, and tried to make for a controlled study setting. The interviews were conducted 4 years after the surgery, btw. Plenty of time a false narrative to settle among everyone involved.

How many of NDEs do I personally have to look into before I'm rationally justified in dismissing them as natural?
I can't trust the "experts" in this field, as evidenced by Habermas.

>>14732715
Stop talking nonsense. Many of those also say they were in heaven or hell, or that they saw god. Do you believe them too?

>>14732737
The definition of consciousness is always brought up in its discussion. Unfortunately it usually ends up being a discussion of semantics and no progress is made. I agree that we have to define consciousness not beyond what we comprehend of it as of now, since trying to go beyond results meaningless. Problem is we dont know what we are looking at a material level.

What is important is to discover how this consciousness develops on the brain. By doing so we can start tackling how to manipulate it.

>>14732852
>Many of those also say they were in heaven or hell, or that they saw god. Do you believe them too?
>muh lets disregard individual testimony because it offends our precious nihilist sensibilities

>>14732852
>Many of those also say they were in heaven or hell, or that they saw god
This always gets me.
Given Christian theism, would that be expected? No!
You are not supposed to go to a temporary afterlife then be sent back because you took certain drugs, or sustained an injury. What kind of whacky theology is that?
You don't get judged and sorted, then sent back to earth to do some more faith/works in order to die and be judged again. Or whatever is supposed to be going on here.

This is just not what the Christian tradition believe the world works like. But still it's used as evidence by Christian apologists.

>>14730389
Consciousness is holy. It gives you the ability to be like source and create your own reality.

>>14732868
The earliest mentions of Heaven and Hell long precede Christianity.
When you don't acquire a new body, it doesn't count as an afterlife. Unless your consciousness knows how to exist without one.

>>14732880
So what? Christian tradition got some pretty specific ideas about what's supposed to be going on.
Heaven and hell are not these generic concept to them.

Christian's don't believe it's some mechanism that sometimes slips up. They believe there's a God running this stuff.

>>14732880
>The earliest mentions of Heaven and Hell long precede Christianity.
This. Its a very human thing to do. On our most primitive level, we have a big black cave sitting before us in death. So what's in there? If you ask a human, its the very best thing or the very worst thing. That's our default for existential questions and it says way more about us than the reality of the situation. We are currently doing the exact same thing with artificial intelligence.

The safest bet is always a mixed bag. Our intuition fantastically fucking fails us on existential matters.

>>14731387
Are you scared there could be some animals living on Earth right now, that are more conscious than humans, but we won't recognize it due to the language barrier?

>>14732853
>science
>individual testimony
wrong board

>>14732889
>This. Its a very human thing to do. On our most primitive level, we have a big black cave sitting before us in death. So what's in there? If you ask a human, its the very best thing or the very worst thing.
This is incidentally a naturalistic explanation for why people would form false memories like that after brain trauma.
They are already primed to expect those things.

>>14732892
Me? Not particularly.
I think there is a correlation between cognitive capacity/intelligence and having consciousness. Or at least a threshold that must be met. I find this extremely plausible.
There can't just be a language barrier, that would not explain why we can't recognize them being conscious.
There would also need to be a intelligence barrier, something like that, or I think think we would be able to recognize them. But I don't think that is plausible. For the reason above; That I think consciousness is tied to intelligence in some ways.

That would leave pretty much the option of these conscious animals being locked-in their bodies, not in control. Which I of course can't disprove. But it seems really implausible.

>>14732920
>these conscious animals being locked-in their bodies, not in control
And how much control does a human consciousness has over a human body? A standart human consciousness can't even hold information without training. It's no different from a calculator connected to a brain.

>>14730389
How does the problem of consciousness even relate to the problem of developing full dive VR? I don't know much about this stuff, but it seems to me that the problem would be intercepting neurological signals from the senses, canceling them out, and then replacing them with signals generated by a VR game engine. Maybe there's something about consciousness that can be explained metaphysically that we don't understand yet that can be exploited to achieve it, but the most direct path to fully immersive cat girl sex seems like a neurological communication problem, not a consciousness problem.

>>14732992
If feel like I excerpt a great deal of control over my body, to make my will manifest
it doesn't look like animals do this in a way that is consistent with being highly conscious and intelligent

>>14732920
I don't believe it's plausible to have an accurate account of something's intelligence without language. Particularly, for relaying what a task/puzzle/intelligence test/etc requires, us understanding their answer to the aforementioned, and knowing any of their reasoning if there was any.
Sure you could count their neurons and see more or often fewer than a human. However you could also count the neurons of someone with severe mental retardation and (I assume) see nearly the same number of neurons as a genius.

Regarding being conscious while locked in a body. I'm certain some people reported being conscious while in a vegetative state/coma. So it may be the case.

I brought it up because, you feared we could be ants compared to some super-conscious aliens out there. So I wondered how you value consciousness.
Would you fear we already could be lesser consciousnesses unknowingly killing off more-conscious beings? Would you extrapolate, and fear we could be considered expendable nothings to some advanced aliens that are barely conscious, because we can't properly communicate with them?

>>14733072
Oh, in the sense of them essentially being cognitively handicapped by not having a langue
not just that we don't understand their language

I totally agree, language seems fundamental for almost all the things I do, that I associate with being "more conscious" than what I think dog is

>>14733072
>Would you fear we already could be lesser consciousnesses unknowingly killing off more-conscious beings? Would you extrapolate, and fear we could be considered expendable nothings to some advanced aliens that are barely conscious, because we can't properly communicate with them?

Not animals on earth, because I think there is an evolutionary story about how they came about to get consciousness and why some are more conscious than others, them essentially following a similar-ish and recognizable pathway
with humans evidencing what a lot consciousness looks like


With aliens. I would be extremely wary of going by looks. As they could have gone about evolving to consciousness in ways I can't recognize or even imagine.
If some alien creature was just slowly floating about in the water at it's home planet, not looking too smart of active to me, I would still leave it well enough alone for that reason.

>>14733072
The other guy is not OP. I am.

Regarding your question, I had not considered such possibility in Earth. Mainly because even if they have consciousness, they should have already somehow communicated with us somehow. Take for example the Voyager Golden Record we sent into outer space. Universal knowledge was included there in order to communicate with any specie. If ants, for example, had consciousness, I am sure they would have already contacted us.

I agree with the other guy that a higher level of consciousness implies a higher level of intelligence. Although not on the same plane of consciousness. It is not only about being smarter, but to have a different kind of thought and capacity, which I am sure you already aware of.

So in short, no. I dont think any creature on earth has accomplished what we have, nor expressed emotions on the same manner of humans.

>>14731539
I feel the same way, but I'm not sure the two are necessarily exclusive. In fact, it would make more sense if a bunch of tiny consciousnesses could, when grouped together, form a larger one. One could even imagine a kind of field effect of consciousness which gets stronger in aggregate. I'm not sure consciousness and sentience need to go hand in hand, but rather sentience is a more advanced form of consciousness.

>>14732896
A lot of the 'ology' sciences (psychology, sociology anthropology are based around individual observation/experience.

>>Moscow
>>degenerating science to esoteric woo cult
>Checks out

>>14733219
>In fact, it would make more sense if a bunch of tiny consciousnesses could, when grouped together, form a larger one.
For example, whether you measure the consciousness of an ant colony or an individual ant.

(Probably analogous for what happens in the brain as well)

>>14732475
>How comical is it not that the skeptics do not see the irony in that?
this entire realm (loka) is filled with bizarre irony. The funniest (or saddest) is that stupid people are too stupid to know that they are stupid so the more you try to "red pill' them the more misery you are just creating for yourself. Like trying to teach a cat to play chess mate, there is no upside. The NPC/hylic/shudra was not designed to understand, in fact they were designed specifically not to understand otherwise they couldnt create the hell on earth known as the kali yuga

>>14730778
>mostlikely a byproduct from having more complex processing power unit like brain or a computer processors as understanding ones existance takes a lot more processing power
what isintelligence? Since you say we evolved a powerful brain so we are more conscious, then what is intelligence?
Is a 150 iq more counscious than a 100 iq?

>>14732517
>>14732791
Jeebuz H. Fucking Christ Almighty dude lay off the Gaby Habermas fixation as if he is the only one who has researched NDEs. Also, one bad researchers in a field DOES NOT imply that all researchers in the field are bad. Would you do the same with physics if you found one bad physics researcher? Lol.... lmao even.

Also, as hinted at in these posts, >>14732475
and >>14732715, the most convincing book on NDEs is this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Afterlife-Obviously-Exists-Realer-Than-Real/dp/1785359851

But there are many others that are convincing as well. I would further recommend The Self Does Not Die, as well as the book Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death by Chris Carter. I would say that anybody on the planet who reads all three of these books will be convinced that the NDE is _NOT_ a hallucination or dream. They are just that convincing and the data and the arguments are just totally overflowing at this point.

>>14734341
Imagine a level of consciousness as a plane. There are different levels of Intel long within that plane. But at the end is the same plan.

A higher level of consciousness has a higher intelligence, but not only that.

>>14734462
Okay, so when I look in to a case study that got it's reports available to the public
and it turns out to the book is leaning on anecdotes
who's gonna reimburse me for the wasted time?

The fact that you have to suppose a conspiracy, that the "field" (it's not a field) is being suppressed by an evil cabal of orthodox scientists, to explain away why the evidence fails to persuade people.
It should rise some warning bells.
NDE-crap is not beliefs held on rational grounds, it's emotionally motivated, for desperate people that want to pretend they have a rational basis for a belief in the afterlife.

>>14734462
Just to be clear, it's not like I'm picking at Habermas because I figured he's a soft target
I'm picking at Habermas, because people who sounded a lot like you kept telling me how amazing this evidence was and to look into it

>>14735337
>suppressed by an evil cabal of orthodox scientists
This is my largest beef with the NDE problem; Who gains from suppression of the evidence? There's thousands of academics all over the world who would surely delve into this had they a compelling reason to do so. I'm supposed to believe that their rigidity of thought is so unshakable that they're not the least bit open? It really fails on this point alone. Look at the amount of formerly skeptical people in respectful positions who agree the UAP phenomena now deserves a more rigorous eye. Why does no such population exist for NDE phenomena.

I've looked into heavily myself. I've been following for years since "the popsicles are in bloom" days. In all of that time, nothing compelling has come up to warrant any serious consideration.

Its reminiscent of holistic cancer cures and why on earth oncologists don't use them for themselves or their loved ones. Or why a government would target their most obedient citizens with a deadly vaccine as opposed to targeting the radicals instead. There's a large failure of common sense that precedes any further consideration of these things.

>>14735530
Academia tends to see the supernatural as taboo. Those that publish in that direction tend to get blackballed as the paranormal is implicitly considered pseudoscience.

>>14735547
That's not going to work. If this were truly verifiable in a compelling way, no amount of "taboo" would stifle the human interest. Trillions would be spent. People would move heaven and earth, institutes would be built. Death is the taboo here and anything at all we can glean about its nature, were it verifiable, would never survive suppression, not for ten seconds.

>>14735547
Okay, but in reality people are really really interested in this stuff
that's a fact

>>14735597
This.

>"I'm just going to ignore an earth-shattering revelation in all reality because I worship science."

>>14735567
>>14735597
It's a chicken-and-egg scenario, like marajuana up until a few years ago.
* There's no evidence supporting theraputic pot, therefore there are no studies funding it.
* There are no studies funding it because there's no evidence to support the claim.

There's no credible evidence supporting fringe sciences therefore there's no funding to pursue it (except maybe the ESP and remote viewing stuff from CIA in the 60's).

>>14732578
Define mental illness.

>>14735646
Not really, because nobody banned research into the afterlife over moral panic. The fact is its being done right now, and nobody has anything strong enough to make a dent. Its not like there is a shortage of materials. In the US someone dies every 12 seconds, a decent chunk in the hospital setting. Many people are no-code, which means they'll "die" multiple times in the clinical environment before actually succumbing. Like we've been saying, given how much of the population already believes this sort of thing just to stifle panic, you should have no problem getting families and dying individuals to agree to this sort of thing. You're talking about the one thing literally everyone wants to know, and you think its being willfully ignored?

>>14735773
I suppose that highlights the other tricky part, that to control such an experiment you kinda need to kill someone and bring them back, or just be really lucky with your location+equipment

>>14735835
That depends on what you think NDEs are.
What's supposed to be going on and what you want to prove.

I don't know what spooksters are supposing

>>14735515
Well, they were wrong. Also, Habermas is an avowed Christian, interested in the resurrection of Jesus Christ or whatever, so he is just totally irrelevant and not a truth-seeker. I would actually tell people to stay away from his writings.

The three books mentioned in that post - >>14734462 - are the three best ones, recognized as such by the actual experts in the field.

>>14735337
>>14735530
>>14735597
The public might be interested, but in reality academia is filled with self-appointed guardians of the status quo. Old paradigms go kicking and screaming, and science advances one funeral at a time. People, and especially academics with their whole academic publishing career invested into materialism being true, are NOT as open-minded to this stuff as you naïvely think they should be. Read this:

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

To see for yourself why academia is resistant to this stuff.

Also,

>In all of that time, nothing compelling has come up to warrant any serious consideration.

So what are your counter-arguments to what these three books - >>14734462 - are arguing? Have you actually read them? Because IF YOU SAID WAS TRUE, that you HAVE looked at the most compelling stuff, you should have read them. And yet, I doubt them. You are all talk and pretend.

>>14732534
Would you like to try and run an experiment, in which the patients are brought near to death, to your local review board?
How exacyly would you like to test this?

>>14736575
>>14735897
>>14736840

Can we stop talking about stupid shit and focus on real science ?

>>14736861
Real science:

>>14735530
>There's thousands of academics all over the world who would surely delve into this had they a compelling reason to do so
>Dude Tobacco's totally safe, the academics would have delved into it if they had a compelling reason to do so.
>Dude BLM protest's don't spread corona only anti mask protest do, the academics would have delved into it if they had a compelling reason to do so.
>Dude Transgender people aren't mentally ill, the academics would have delved into it if they had a compelling reason to do so.
Turns out scientists are just as compelled by social clout, and fear of shaming as everyone else.
>Dude Lysenkoism is real biology, the academics would have delved into it if they had a compelling reason to do so.
Quick reminder that you need a consensus of a least 5 people to publish a paper, the researcher, an editor and three peer reviewers, and if you publish anything controversial good luck getting it into a major journal. The idea of the independent researcher exposing the truth of reality against the main stream realty is a myth

>>14732715
I have said it here 100's of times. The science is unambiguous and irrefutable for anyone that takes the time to look and understand it. I wrote an article for a 12 yo to be able to understand it all yet most of the people on this board are incredibly still too stupid to understand it. This board is a joke, populated by not even midwits, like 90IQ droolers mainly.

>>14737041
Why are you telling me this? I agree that scientists are people
Scientists were wrong/lying about thing in the past, therefore: they are lying about my thing - that what you are supposing?
You could use this to justify literally any position that don't have scientific support
Not having support, supports your position?

Just don't publish in a scientific journal
Write a book, make a YouTube video, show people your evidence, explain how they can obtain the same evidence you got, how you interpret it, etc
You don't need to focus on corrupt scientists
That is what people are currently doing, right? It just happens to fails to persuade most people

I think this is all just explained by the evidence being really bad
You need to make up so many stories to explain away why you think the evidence is good, yet nobody else seem to agree

>>14737313
>Scientists were wrong/lying about thing in the past, therefore: they are lying about my thing - that what you are supposing?
Lying about my thing? No, I don't suspect that scientist are lying, I expect they believe their own mistruths. I know that many of these beliefs are central to their identity as well as their career and they don't have the gall to challenge them scientifically.
>Not having support, supports your position?
No, but absence of support in the scientific community is not the end all be all.
>You need to make up so many stories to explain away why you think the evidence is good, yet nobody else seem to agree
Who is this nobody else? Plenty of people believe in NDE, but because a major journal doesn't publish a paper on this, suddenly "nobody" agrees?
Or are you just refusing to look independently of the beliefs of your peers?

>>14737390
>absence of support in the scientific community is not the end all be all.
Yeah, but I think it hurts you position a lot

>Plenty of people believe in NDE
Look, I don't think that people who report having seen a bright light in the end of the tunnel are lying about that.
I just think there is a mundane reason why we get these reports. I'm not saying that NDEs don't happen, I'm saying they are not good evidence of anything supernatural going on.
That's my position.

>>14737424
>I just think there is a mundane reason why we get these reports. I'm not saying that NDEs don't happen, I'm saying they are not good evidence of anything supernatural going on.
That's a reasonable position to take.
>Yeah, but I think it hurts you position a lot
I mean yeah, in a perfect world this would be a well studied phenomenon, but we don't live in that world.

>>14737427
Yep, it turns out scientists are human too. Whodathunkit?

>>14730778
A lot of letters to fuck up the difference between consciousness and intelligence.

Your oldest memory is from when you were 3 or 4. You were conscious then. But you were also dumber than an adult elephant or chimp.

>>14737313
>Write a book, make a YouTube video, show people your evidence, explain how they can obtain the same evidence you got, how you interpret it, etc
People have already done that and are doing, BUT
>That is what people are currently doing, right? It just happens to fails to persuade most people
NO IT DOESN'T! As Neal Grossman points out here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXFUUu_KvdM
(From 32:40 to 40:26)
Everyone who has read the literature has been convinced by it. E V E R Y O N E.
Everyone.
_EVERYONE!_
The only ones who are not convinced are those that refuse to read it, and just go on to pretend that it's not there, "lalalalalala it's not there lalalalala"-style.
>>14737427
>That's a reasonable position to take.
No it's not, it's an ignorant one, and it just completely ignores everything written in these books:
>>14732475
>>14732715
>>14734462
But what can you do when people don't actually read the literature? Nothing, it's like arguing with clueless children.
>>14737300
Here here!
>>14737424
>I just think there is a mundane reason why we get these reports. I'm not saying that NDEs don't happen, I'm saying they are not good evidence of anything supernatural going on.
And you can think that the moon is made of cheese to if you ignore the evidence and arguments against it, refuse to say the literature, and then just say "That's my position! :D"
But it's not rational.

>>14735567
Most people in the west spent the last 100 years coping the the certainty that there is nothing after death.
It is the mostly agreed on paradigm in western urban center culture.
And despite a lot of people claiming that it doesn’t faze them, i cannot imagine that it doesn’t make people anxious.
Ithe coping strategies people developed are very ingrained now.
To the point that evidence of an afterlife now fucks with their outlook on life that stems from their cope with death

>>14739169
Why should I bother reading a book, that appears to have all the hallmarks of being bullshit?
Can you give an argument, or provide evidence without referring to a book

I just don't want to waste my time again, like with that other guy that made me look into Habermas.

>>14732662
>Then what was the problem with science not agreeing on a definition?
It's left with nothing to study. Consciousness is not the subject of scientific inquiry.

>>14739172
I just think that is obviously a false reason for why people are not giving NDE research it's proper due.

Still, supposedly the evidence is out there now. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Even if people meet NDEs with resistance, it's only a matter of time before it should become untenable to keep up the denial.

What's the time frame if this doesn't happen, where you would think you were wrong about the evidence being good?

>>14739358
Just dropping by to express my exasperation with your monumental level of cope..

>>14739351
Would a neuroscientist agree with that?
They think they are looking to what consciousness could be, they don't seem too bothered by not having a definition.

If you suppose that consciousness cannot be subject to empiric study, for one reason or another. Then it would follow that scientists won't figure it out.
That may even be true.
But then, it isn't the lack of a definition that is causing the problem.

>>14739363
You're the one that has to make up a conspiracy about why people are ignoring NDEs
I'm the one that has to make up a story about what looks like pseudoscience is pseudoscience

>>14739169
>Buy the book
>100% persuasive success rate
just force a few scientist to read it
then it should spread like a mind virus
does this sound sane to you?

>>14739371
>Would a neuroscientist agree with that?
If he's got a modicum of intelligence and honesty.

>They think they are looking to what consciousness could be
They're figuring out how the brain functions, unless they're in the crank department, in which case they study """correlates of consciousnes""".

>it isn't the lack of a definition that is causing the problem.
It's the nature of consciousness that makes it impossible to even define which causes the problem, brainlet.

>>14739372
>You're the one that has to make up a conspiracy about why people are ignoring NDEs
I'm not that poster. People ignore NDEs because midwit intellectual fashion says it's undignified to engage with christard-adjacent topics. One way or another, I hope you realize there is no way to prove that hallucating shit while your brain is shutting down proves an afterlife. Worse yet, unwitting cryptomaterialists like you desperately cling to their earthly identities which are demonstrably rooted in matter. You condemn yourself to death every time you cling to the ridiculous concept of a soul. Seethe.

>>14739385
>It's the nature of consciousness that makes it impossible to even define
I don't know that

>>14739423
Well, it's your problem that you're incapable of basic reflection.

>>14739405
>desperately cling to their earthly identities
By which you mean, that I haven't read to book this guy >>14739169
goes on about?
Or did you have something particular in mind?

>>14739428
I know, that I don't know
You claim to know, but can't tell me why

*makes some noise about the hard problem*

>>14739440
The only words that can be properly defined using other words are abstractions. Direct experience can only be alluded to. There is nothing to define direct experience by, or to study about it, because it has no properties except for what it feels subjectively like.

No one values consciousness. Not even you "philosophy" hippies. You just care about intelligence and assume consciousness & intelligence imply each other.

>>14739471
>intellectually insecure midwit projecting

>>14739476
>no argument or disagreement
I accept your resignation.

>>14739497
You never made any argument in the first place. I'm just reminding you that you will never be an intellectual and that I am far more interested in the behavior and interactions of conscious organisms with an IQ of 10 than in the midwit ramblings of human GPTs like you.

>>14739385
Even if consciousness for whatever reason was impossible to understand, we could still try to manipulate it as a black box. Inputs and outputs.

Nonetheless I think you are underestimating the power of our understanding. Lets take for example evolution. It answered a question that lasted thousand of years, and was usually attributed to God (why are animals as they are?). But we answered it nonetheless.

I believe consciousness is on the same boat. We are missing that fundamental observation, which will allow us to create a theory around consciousness.

>>14739506
>I am far more interested in the behavior and interactions of conscious organisms with an IQ of 10 than in the midwit ramblings of human GPTs like you.
That's obviously a lie. Because you're on 4channel talking to me right now, instead of say birdwatching.

>>14739520
>we could still try to manipulate it as a black box. Inputs and outputs.
That's all you could ever do in this case, and fair enough... that can come in handy. Just fuck off with your consciousness uploading, your conscious AI, your unfalsifiable reductionist theories of consciousness and other cancerous neo-religious beliefs.

>you are underestimating the power of our understanding
There's this funny little pattern where ignorant pseudointellectuals always talk about some imaginary understanding they don't actually have (usually understanding that nobody has) as "our" understanding.

>>14739534
>you're on 4channel talking to me right now, instead of say birdwatching.
I much rather watch some birds. It's just not an option right now.

>>14739539
>It's just not an option right now.
Again with the lying!

https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Animals%2C%20Aquariums%2C%20and%20Zoos

>>14739549
Every time you post just confirms what a lowly and parasitical subhuman you are. I don't know why you bother.

>>14739553
Ironic.

>>14739574
>no u

>>14739575
This you?: >>14739476

>>14739358
Not even the NDE anon.
But i wouldnt classify wether or not something has merit when it gets widely accepted by normies.
Id look at the data.

>>14739657
Well, in this case he is saying that the data is so good, that it persuades everyone that looks into it.
So there has to be a story about why people are in denial about this.
I obviously disagree with that.

>Id look at the data.
What data? These are anecdotes, afaik
Still I did. With Habermas' stuff.
But now there's some new book. How many books do I need to look into before I can be rationally justified in rejecting NDEs being magic as bunk?
Spooksters writing books faster than I can look into them. Doesn't mean I owe them any credibility.

>>14739738
Isn't half of medicine based on anecdotes though?
Perhaps there are distinct patterns to be mapped

>>14740053
There are, NDEs got a lot regularity to them.
It's just that I explain that in mundane terms, I don't there is anything supernatural going on.

As the experience people who temporary died at a operation table reports:
of floating out of your body and looking down at yourself

I don't think they actually looked down at the operating table from a perspective in the roof.
I explain this as them having formed a false memory of that, incorporating some real memories for sure. Just like a dream.

So like, if you wrote a number on the patients forehead with a marker, and kept it a secret. He'd never be able to tell you that from the NDE.
He would however sometimes be able to tell you details about what the room looked like, or the surgeon. Because people are good at guessing at what they already got a general idea what looks like.
Rarely you will even get people describing uncanny details, but I explain that away as random chance. As it's outweighed by people people who got no such details, or get them wrong.

Why is everyone describing the feeling of floating? I got 2 potential explanations: Because they've seen stuff like that on TV and heard rumours of what an NDE is supposed to be like, cultural contamination
They are primed to expect the experience to be a certain way, so this contributes to how their (false) memory is shaped.
Also, there may just be something about how the brain works, that causes it to act up in a predictable fashion when the brain is subject to similar kind of trauma. Like how different people taking a hallucinogenic drug can describe having seen predictably similar looking hallucinations. I think there is a biological explanation for this.
Probably a bit of both.

I have seen no NDE reports that makes me go: "This is just too inexplicable! The best explanation is magic..."

>>14730406
can i see it too?

>>14737041
>Turns out scientists are just as compelled by social clout
This is a sort of quasi internet reality take. Scientists aren't a lockstep group of individuals who don't have families, hopes, fears, and every reason to want to support your data. It may just be that your data is not convincing. That's far more likely than this conspiratorial "we want to protect our nothingness after death" bullshit.

I'm sure scientists of the world are just lining up to say "I don't want to be the one to confirm the most monumental discovery in all of existence!"