Quote: Original post by MTT
What was the sample size? The 70% goes anywhere from being completely meaningless to absolutely incredible depending on this. If the P-value (the statistical P-value, the probability that this was due to chance) is anything significantly small I would be very quick to want to review the methodology of this experiment, because a meta-analysis of similar experiments shows that this effect has basically been 100% disproven.

AFAIK, this is a very well known experiment which has been repeated many times.

Quote: Original post by MTT

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Now, wait a minute. Shouldn't this be a huge evolutionary disadvantage? The act of associating a positive event with death? Because this is exactly what science is saying - that a dying brain chooses to go on a massive acid trip. WHY?

A lot of people even kill themselves because they want to return to this euphoric NDE state. You would've thought that evolution would've cleaned out a thing such as a positive association with a near death experience a very long time ago. But, the fact remains: people almost exclusively report being bathed in a powerful loving light. There are very few negative NDEs.

I want you to reread this and explain to me why it is an illogical argument. If you can not do this then I have lost all faith in your intelligence. Because really, come on...

People kill themselves in order to re-experience a NDE. This is a very bad thing from an evolutionary perspective. For an NDE to make sense as a product of the brain, it should be a terrible experience in order to make the entity avoid whatever action led to that near death experience in the first place.

If I've missed something glaringly obvious then I'll just eat my hat and call myself stupid. So, what is it that I have missed?

As I said before, I'll pick and chose what to answer this time.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
I have no control over what I foretell. I would've foretold lottery numbers a long time ago if I did. [smile]

Here's an example of a prophetic dream I had:
I spent my entire night vividly dreaming that I was talking to an entity called Lucifer.
I then woke up and started my day by reading some online news. Guess what the entire front page consisted of? A big article about a cat named Lucifer.

Dreams about Lucifer, as well as cats named Lucifer are both pretty uncommon, so I'm sure that there was some form of link here.

Actually there is a song by Pink Floyd about a cat named Lucifer, its called Lucifer Sam.

The human mind is all about patterns, you were obviously predisposed by your dream to be more sensitive towards Lucifer and Cat and made the connection, had you not had the dream, you wouldn't have noticed anything particularly interesting about the article, it really happens to anyone, is not paranormal and it does have a scientific explanation.

Then you go on about the illusion of separation, blah, blah, we could be oblivious to this psionic link as much as we are oblivious of radio waves, yet we can build a radio and listen to them, we should be able to perceive this link by proxy.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Morals are a subjective human construct

I don't really agree with this.
If you imagine that there are simply two spiritual orientations: the positive/unity orientation and negative/separation orientation, then any action can be determined as having a certain quality from either of those.
A moral value is just a way of classifying a certain action as having a quality of either the positive or negative orientation. For example: killing is negative, because it is an act of separation. Loving is positive, because it is an act of sharing or unity.

There aren't, good and evil, positive and negative are subjective human ideas, I've said this before in these forums and I'll say it again, there is no good or evil, there is only convenient and inconvenient.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
This proves what? That some people are susceptible to making stuff up? I don't doubt that. Some people make stuff up, therefore all stuff is made up?

Name a single instance of a documented life regression experiment with neutral participants, in which the experiences recounted were 99% accurate descriptions of what was being described.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Is it that hard to imagine that a state of separation and forgetfulness creates an intense experience? - and that an intense experience is efficient at forcing an entity into action?

Its not hard to imagine, but its hard to accept as fact that this process is put forth by a sentient being who we inhabit and who's whole purpose of existence is, basically, masturbation, I am very sorry I cannot shut my brain off like that.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
No, not really. But I'm saying that the possibility should be left open, which I'm sure is an idea that most participants of this thread do not even consider.

Which would bring us to insanity because then we have to give the same treatment to any other wacko idea, like the flying spaghetti monster.

The rest of your post just tells me what I already new and said before, you've already made your mind on what you want to believe, I hope you eventually see the futility of it.

Have a nice experiencing of yourself [smile].

Oh and by the way, though I think your ideas are really out there, I commend you for your civility and of course for at least not menacing people with hellfire and brimstone, this doesn't mean I see the belief as entirely harmless however, I still think it halts human progress.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Well, for starters, the Law of One material is a lot more scientific than any of those religions. The Law of One explains the universe through methods such as vibration, cause and effect and so forth. Christianity on the other hand tells us that God made Eve from Adam's rib.

I think that this is a common misunderstanding. There is a very important distinction between something scientific and something that uses scientific language. From what you have told us, the Law of One Material does not come to its conclusions by using the scientific method, and is therefore not any more scientific than Christianity or other religions, no matter how scientific it sounds.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Now, wait a minute. Shouldn't this be a huge evolutionary disadvantage? The act of associating a positive event with death? Because this is exactly what science is saying - that a dying brain chooses to go on a massive acid trip. WHY?

A lot of people even kill themselves because they want to return to this euphoric NDE state. You would've thought that evolution would've cleaned out a thing such as a positive association with a near death experience a very long time ago. But, the fact remains: people almost exclusively report being bathed in a powerful loving light. There are very few negative NDEs.

I want you to reread this and explain to me why it is an illogical argument. If you can not do this then I have lost all faith in your intelligence. Because really, come on...

People kill themselves in order to re-experience a NDE. This is a very bad thing from an evolutionary perspective. For an NDE to make sense as a product of the brain, it should be a terrible experience in order to make the entity avoid whatever action led to that near death experience in the first place.

If I've missed something glaringly obvious then I'll just eat my hat and call myself stupid. So, what is it that I have missed?

Consider a gene for near death experiences, with one allele making people have very pleasurable ones and the other allele making people have terrible ones. Now you say that evolution will select the allele that makes NDEs terrible for people, because people will then tend to avoid a second one, and thus have greater odds of increasing the frequency of this gene in the gene pool. The problem is that everybody in the past, and very close to everyone in the present, only has the chance to experience one directly before (or after, I guess) they die. This means that with all other things being equal, the person with the pleasurable NDE allele has the exact same chance of passing on their genes and the person with the terrible NDE allele because by the time it has any effect the person has already done all of the reproducing they are going to do in their lifetime, because they are now dead. Natural selection therefore does not favor either allele. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is both too new on an evolutionary timescale and also too rare of an event for it to have any effect on natural selection.

Quote: Original post by MTT
Consider a gene for near death experiences, with one allele making people have very pleasurable ones and the other allele making people have terrible ones. Now you say that evolution will select the allele that makes NDEs terrible for people, because people will then tend to avoid a second one, and thus have greater odds of increasing the frequency of this gene in the gene pool. The problem is that everybody in the past, and very close to everyone in the present, only has the chance to experience one directly before (or after, I guess) they die. This means that with all other things being equal, the person with the pleasurable NDE allele has the exact same chance of passing on their genes and the person with the terrible NDE allele because by the time it has any effect the person has already done all of the reproducing they are going to do in their lifetime, because they are now dead. Natural selection therefore does not favor either allele. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is both too new on an evolutionary timescale and also too rare of an event for it to have any effect on natural selection.

If I may hazard a guess, without doing any research about it, I would think NDEs have nothing to do with evolution as by the time they occur, they are completely irrelevant (remember, in evolution an individual that lives enough to reproduce is considered a successful individual), so I would be more inclined to think that they are due to the brain shutting down its functions, remember, after all we experience pain through our brains, as we do with everything else.

So, what I am saying is that you're right, adding that there may not even be an allele for NDEs.

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
So, what I am saying is that you're right, adding that there may not even be an allele for NDEs.

Definitely agreed, just a purely hypothetical situation to illustrate the point.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
AFAIK, this is a very well known experiment which has been repeated many times.

I'm having trouble finding this, and I have been looking, did you see it on TV or something or did you actually read the papers? A similar type of experiment I can think of is Emily Rosa's therapeutic touch experiments.

://www.free-tv-video-online.info/player/youtube.php?id=0l1Ozy55Brk">Here's Penn and Teller: Bullshit taking a look at it. Experiments testing any sort of ESP effect have the strong tendency to fit in to one of two categories: They either show no effect, or they are shown to be experimentally flawed.

I doubt this will prove useful to the descussion. And one doesn't need the ability to tell the future to have known how pointless this thread would become. But I will throw in my $.02 anyway.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
If the Creator is just one entity, then that means that it is conscious of all parts of itself at all times.

This creator of yours is illogical.

If we are part of this all encompassing creator, but somehow seperate. Then logicly this creator is NOT all encompassing. This creator cannot be both infinity AND infinity minus 6+ billion humans. Even with this rule of one nonsense.

1 != (1 - 6,000,000,000)

If this creator...well created logic and is somehow above it. Then it is completely futile and pointless to try to define the creator logicaly.


What I think about all this:

Mankind in general has an Superiority complex. We don't want to be inferior random specs of dust in the universe, we want to feel special. Yes, we are that insecure. So we invent gods and creators to justify a sense of purpose. I have no problem with discussions of such inventions in general philosophical terms, but I do take issue with those trying to convince others to buy into thier inventions...But I've said enough.

Does that "blind-folded person can tell if someone is standing behind them" experiment work when there's sound-proof glass between the two people? I would suggest a much more likely explanation is that the person standing behind you makes tiny noises (breathing, heart beating, etc) and small air movements (again, breathing, etc) that you are able to pick up on. These indicators are not big enough that you can consciously tell they're there, but you just get the "feeling" that someone is there.

That seems a much more likely explanation than "you've got some psychic ability."

Quote: Original post by MTT
Consider a gene for near death experiences, with one allele making people have very pleasurable ones and the other allele making people have terrible ones. Now you say that evolution will select the allele that makes NDEs terrible for people, because people will then tend to avoid a second one, and thus have greater odds of increasing the frequency of this gene in the gene pool. The problem is that everybody in the past, and very close to everyone in the present, only has the chance to experience one directly before (or after, I guess) they die. This means that with all other things being equal, the person with the pleasurable NDE allele has the exact same chance of passing on their genes and the person with the terrible NDE allele because by the time it has any effect the person has already done all of the reproducing they are going to do in their lifetime, because they are now dead. Natural selection therefore does not favor either allele.

This explanation is flawed. First of all, using this explanation one would expect that the distribution between positive and negative experiences are somewhat even. The fact, however, is that the large majority report an overwhelmingly ecstatic experience.
Also, our society with long uneventful lifespans is a very new concept. In our primitive past, coming close to death several times before reproducing probably wasn't too uncommon. There were diseases, open wounds, saber-tooth tigers, rivaling clan members with big bone clubs and so forth.

Quote: Original post by MTT
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is both too new on an evolutionary timescale and also too rare of an event for it to have any effect on natural selection.

Nonsense. If an event happens at all you can bet evolution has considered its effect thoroughly.

Quote: Original post by MTT
I'm having trouble finding this, and I have been looking, did you see it on TV or something or did you actually read the papers? A similar type of experiment I can think of is Emily Rosa's therapeutic touch experiments.

://www.free-tv-video-online.info/player/youtube.php?id=0l1Ozy55Brk">Here's Penn and Teller: Bullshit taking a look at it. Experiments testing any sort of ESP effect have the strong tendency to fit in to one of two categories: They either show no effect, or they are shown to be experimentally flawed.

I'm gonna see if I can find it.
By the way, as much as I do enjoy watching Penn & Teller, I don't take them seriously. In order of importance, this is a list of the methods Penn & Teller employ in order to create their entertainment:
1. Tits.
2. More tits.
3. Ridicule.
...
23423. Objective analysis.

Quote: Original post by Codeka
Does that "blind-folded person can tell if someone is standing behind them" experiment work when there's sound-proof glass between the two people? I would suggest a much more likely explanation is that the person standing behind you makes tiny noises (breathing, heart beating, etc) and small air movements (again, breathing, etc) that you are able to pick up on. These indicators are not big enough that you can consciously tell they're there, but you just get the "feeling" that someone is there.

That seems a much more likely explanation than "you've got some psychic ability."

Obviously the subject would have been completely shielded from his/her senses. [smile] (Except the sixth sense, obviously [grin])
Would be embarrassing if they discovered that this "telepathic effect" was a result of the other person's bad breath.

[Edited by - polymorphed on March 13, 2009 2:12:29 AM]

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Krokhin

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Time and space are to the Creator nothing but an illusion.

Ok,you must prove me that it is Creator's illusion,not yours[smile]
Otherwise all this talks has no sense.I.e.you must explain what is "unified entity"( and throw away your Occam razor)

If the Creator is just one entity, then that means that it is conscious of all parts of itself at all times. So, how is time or space going to produce any form of challenge to an entity that is everything that has been, is, and will be?
Think about that for a second. [smile]

Ok,such entity can exist- "all parts of itself at all times" actually can be linked,and maybe it can think.
There is such saying: "If you've sent a fool in shop to buy a bottle [of vodka-rem.],he will bring only one [bottle-rem.][smile]
Ok,I'll bring you a couple of bottles, but had to assume that the number of dimentions in world (it's not the same as universe!) are also infinite. In such case your entity -just a thinking point,and any times,distances and number of dimentions don't care,even there is no difference for it between bing-bang and present state.But such point will be outside of our universe...

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
The human mind is all about patterns, you were obviously predisposed by your dream to be more sensitive towards Lucifer and Cat and made the connection, had you not had the dream, you wouldn't have noticed anything particularly interesting about the article, it really happens to anyone, is not paranormal and it does have a scientific explanation.

Oh, come on. [grin]
I spent my entire night dreaming about Lucifer, only to find the frontpage of the largest newspaper in Norway covered with an article about a cat named Lucifer.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Morals are a subjective human construct

I don't really agree with this.
If you imagine that there are simply two spiritual orientations: the positive/unity orientation and negative/separation orientation, then any action can be determined as having a certain quality from either of those.
A moral value is just a way of classifying a certain action as having a quality of either the positive or negative orientation. For example: killing is negative, because it is an act of separation. Loving is positive, because it is an act of sharing or unity.

I say that you can define moral in the complete absence of human perception.
If you see the Creator as one entity, than any action which acknowledges this unity can be considered a positive action. Any action which assumes a separation can be considered a negative action.
But, we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Name a single instance of a documented life regression experiment with neutral participants, in which the experiences recounted were 99% accurate descriptions of what was being described.

I don't think I can find an experiment which matches this kind of rigor.
To me, the fact that seemingly honest individuals choose to put themselves into a position of ridicule in order to share an experience they honestly believe to be true is good enough for me.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. [smile]

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Its not hard to imagine, but its hard to accept as fact that this process is put forth by a sentient being who we inhabit and who's whole purpose of existence is, basically, masturbation, I am very sorry I cannot shut my brain off like that.

Well, that you at least see my point of view is good enough for me.

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Oh and by the way, though I think your ideas are really out there, I commend you for your civility and of course for at least not menacing people with hellfire and brimstone

It's sad that stereotypes likens anyone who does not believe in a "sterile" science to a religious fanatic without any manners. [wink]
Believe me, I like Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep as little as you do.

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Have a nice experiencing of yourself [smile].

You too!

Thing is, it's irrelevant whether you believe in this stuff or not. This is step three, the plane of separation. Entities are supposed to consider themselves separate here. The understanding of the Law of One is actually only required in order to graduate to step six, which is, to put it mildly, a very long way from here.
So, live your life and let your actions speak for you, because you'll graduate to step four regardless of what you believe - it's the way you act which is the true test.

(Yes, I also know that you disagree with this. [smile])

[Edited by - polymorphed on March 13, 2009 4:56:06 AM]