I see that this discussion is almost ower.Author can't reply something to my definition for his "entity, existing in every point of universe in every moment of time" (and actually representing the whole universe "via" itself).
I've defined such entity like "thinking point in infinite dimension space",outside of our universe-i.e. in highest continuum,though in accordance with my calculations ~100 dimensions will be enough.I see also that initial point of discussion was lost,and my final advice for author-"think more,speak less..." [smile]

[Edited by - Krokhin on March 14, 2009 3:24:50 AM]

Quote: Original post by MTT
Well, that's the argument you would have to back up with a substantial amount of good evidence. Not just something you can state as a fact.

Well, if you want actual evidence then I can't do anything else than refer you to the countless scientific books on NDEs that have been written through the years, which do acknowledge that there is indeed something peculiar going on that science can't yet explain.

Quote: Original post by MTT
"At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory attitudes-an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new." Carl Sagan (1987)

Sagan was a genius.

Quote: Original post by MTT
There are many mechanisms by which it can happen, but the brain dies because because it no longer has a supply of oxygen (Edit: Kwizatz beat me to it), so no, it is not peculiar.

Cells can die from countless ways other than lack of oxygen, each method of death producing a distinct neuronal firing pattern. Oddly enough, according to science, they all result in the same distinct NDE.

Quote: Original post by MTT
This is all pretty pointless because neither of us believes that there is a genetic basis for what we are feeling.

Good, I was getting tired of hacking at that same argument. If you hadn't said that I would've still been hacking away at it right now [grin]

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
Well the cattle "mutilations" are strictly for research/medical purpose and benefits mankind as a whole.

Yeah, obviously, our government wouldn't be able to acquire cows by actually buying them. No, they have to use their top secret stealth technology to hack away at them in the middle of the night so no one notices.

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
As for these crop circles you refer to, they are clearly made by human (amateurs).

Some crop circles are clearly not made by humans. Some of them, are, though, but they are easily distinguished from "the real thing":

In fake crop circles, the crops break. In real crop circles, the crops bend.
Example of bent crop:

Interestingly, the crops actually keep on growing in this bent fashion in real crop circles.

So, how would you go about bending crops in an area of roughly 50000m² in order to manifest a complex design? If you can give me a feasible method for achieving this then I'll be more open to crop circles being man-made.

Quote: Original post by MTT
Where is the proof that these NDE are all the same? Where is the proof that even a modest percentage of people who experience NDE end up killing themselves? Where is the proof that NDEs are experienced when clinicaly dead and not either before death or once resuscitated?

You haven't seen any proof because you haven't bothered opening your mind enough to read honest literature about NDEs. In fact, all you know about NDEs probably come from Penn & Teller. [smile]
For example, proof for the fact that NDEs occur when people are clinically dead comes in the form of that person being able to recite what the doctors said as they tried to revive the person.

Quote: Original post by MSW
How does dreaming of haveing a conversation with an entity called Lucifer. Then finding a cat named Lucifer in the newspaper mean proof of a creator and not proof of a random universe?

I've only had one dream which involved Lucifer in my life, and I've only seen one front-page newspaper article about a cat named Lucifer in my life. These events happened within 15 minutes of each other, and very importantly: the dream came first.

I believe that I actually somehow tapped into the future, and that this was not just a coincidence. Of course I believe that coincidences do occur - just not to this magnitude. I don't buy lottery tickets, because the chances of a coincidence which would result in me winning occurring seems too slim.

I'm not saying that this particular occurrence proves anything other than it being more to consciousness than science acknowledges. Maybe the ability to foretell the future is a result of the altered brain state one is in while sleeping. I don't know, but I do know that according to science, actually foretelling the future like this should be impossible.

The "subconscious" theory is science's way of saying "Well, maybe the brain is able to calculate the probability of certain events happening during the day, and then preparing the brain for this by dreaming about it." It sounds like a good theory at first, but when you dig deeper into the theory it falls apart.
Like, why would my subconscious have any reason to believe that anything involving Lucifer would happen the next day?

I choose to let the events that occur and those events' probabilities of occurring influence my view on reality. Like, I've had other much more stunning prophetic dreams, and I've had them many times. The probability of this happening repeatedly as the pure result of pure coincidence seems pretty slim to me. Therefore, I choose to let these events affect my beliefs, even though they are very subjective. It is a subjective proof to me.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
I see that this discussion is almost ower.Author can't reply something to my definition for his "entity, existing in every point of universe in every moment of time" (and actually representing the whole universe "via" itself).
I defined such entity like "thinking point in infinite dimension space",outside of our universe-i.e. in highest continuum,in accordance with my calculations ~100 dimensions will be enough.I see also that initial point of discussion was lost,and my final advice for author-"think more,speak less!"

I'm not a physicist so I won't be able to give you any actual equations which supports the Law of One. Then again, physicists haven't proven any theory which uniformly describes all the fundamental forces at the both the giant and minuscule scale either.
The Law of One does state that this is an infinite universe, with an infinite number of dimensions.
My own personal view is that the universe is like a fractal - you can keep on looking deeper and deeper into one point, but the universe will just keep on repeating itself infinitely. This view could be wrong according to the Law of One, though.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
Well, that's the argument you would have to back up with a substantial amount of good evidence. Not just something you can state as a fact.

Well, if you want actual evidence then I can't do anything else than refer you to the countless scientific books on NDEs that have been written through the years, which do acknowledge that there is indeed something peculiar going on that science can't yet explain.

Fair enough, I will have to take your word for it. I hope to see that some ongoing research in this area.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
This is all pretty pointless because neither of us believes that there is a genetic basis for what we are feeling.

Good, I was getting tired of hacking at that same argument. If you hadn't said that I would've still been hacking away at it right now [grin]

God damn, what does it take to convince somebody of something around here? If you want to keep going I am happy to. I wouldn't want to prematurely end this experience and have that sticky mess on my hands.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
Where is the proof that these NDE are all the same? Where is the proof that even a modest percentage of people who experience NDE end up killing themselves? Where is the proof that NDEs are experienced when clinicaly dead and not either before death or once resuscitated?

You haven't seen any proof because you haven't bothered opening your mind enough to read honest literature about NDEs. In fact, all you know about NDEs probably come from Penn & Teller. [smile]

That's Penn & Teller AND Wikipedia, give me a little credit here. But, I have been misquoted, so I will let MSW take this one.


You are obviously an intelligent person, and I can completely understand and respect you arguing that science does not understand many things by presenting empirical evidence of things like psi-phenomenon, NDEs, and non human made crop circles. But what I don't understand is how you go from looking at these unexplained phenomenon to jumping on board with religion. I am sure it explains many of the questions you have in the world, but that is what religions are designed to do, and it is very for easy for a religion to explain every one of the worlds phenomenon because they do not need any evidence to back up their claims. Do you notice how religions created at a certain time seem to mirror the level of scientific understanding at that time, and how usually once science has enough time to progress the old religions start to seem antiquated and silly? People want the answers for things now, and religion provides a nice easy out. But that's part of the harm of religion, they give people answers for things we do not yet understand, and if everybody were to just take their word for it, then we would not be constantly gaining a better understanding of the universe through scientific study, which is something I value deeply.

[Edited by - MTT on March 14, 2009 4:56:11 PM]

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
Where is the proof that these NDE are all the same? Where is the proof that even a modest percentage of people who experience NDE end up killing themselves? Where is the proof that NDEs are experienced when clinicaly dead and not either before death or once resuscitated?

You haven't seen any proof because you haven't bothered opening your mind enough to read honest literature about NDEs. In fact, all you know about NDEs probably come from Penn & Teller. [smile]
For example, proof for the fact that NDEs occur when people are clinically dead comes in the form of that person being able to recite what the doctors said as they tried to revive the person.

According to Near-Death.com:

NDE and Afterlife Statistics (a sample of 50 NDEs)
Overwhelming love (69%)
Mental telepathy (65%)
Life review (62%)
God (56%)
Tremendous ecstasy (56%)
Unlimited knowledge (46%)
Afterlife levels (46%)
Told not ready (46%)
Shown the future (44%)
Tunnel (42%)
Jesus (37%)
Forgotten knowledge (31%)
Fear (27%)
Homecoming (21%)
Told of past lives (21%)
Hell (19%)
City of light (17%)
Temple of Knowledge (13%)
Spirits among the living (10%)
Suicide (6%)
Devil (0%)

These statistics show that while many aspects of these NDEs are common. Clearly people do not all share the SAME NDE, that was a gross missrepresnetation on your part. Even with a sample size of 50, there is a lot of variation.

Further http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence06.html illustraits that a persons preconcieved religious beliefs play a role in shapeing the NDE experience.



Same website offers this concerning people with NDE while clinicly dead and able to recall things that happend during death:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

At no point is it proven she had the experience while dead. In fact she would have been made well aware of what occurs during the procedure before the NDE occured. The bulk of her recount of the experience reflects what she would ALREADY have been made aware of.

Closest bit of proof is:

Quote:
Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that

However The "I remember thinking that I should have told her about that" reflects an anxiety over missed information. If she knows her veins and arteries are very small but did not inform the doctor, then its ENTIRELY predictable that during the course of the procedure a medical person would make that observation. It then entirely possible her anxiety forced this into her experience.

This wasn't overhearing a doctor talk about his childs school grades. This was information she knew about herself that was important to the procedure. The odds of both her NDE and real life calling attention to that are nearly certain. No doubt she believes the NDE experience was real, but that does not make it so.

Quote: Original post by MTT
You are obviously an intelligent person

I'm glad to hear that I'm perceived as a reasonable entity despite my peculiar beliefs. [smile]

Quote: Original post by MTT
But what I don't understand is how you go from looking at these unexplained phenomenon to jumping on board with religion. I am sure it explains many of the questions you have in the world, but that is what religions are designed to do, and it is very for easy for a religion to explain every one of the worlds phenomenon because they do not need any evidence to back up their claims. Do you notice how religions created at a certain time seem to mirror the level of scientific understanding at that time, and how usually once science has enough time to progress the old religions start to seem antiquated and silly? People want the answers for things now, and religion provides a nice easy out. But that's part of the harm of religion, they give people answers for things we do not yet understand, and if everybody were to just take their word for it, then we would not be constantly gaining a better understanding of the universe through scientific study, which is something I value deeply.

Well, although I could stretch myself to define the Law of One material as some form of belief system, I strongly disagree with defining it as a religion.
In my opinion, a religion comes with these things:

1) Worship of a God entity.
2) Strict rules with the threat of eternal damnation if the rules are not followed.
3) Some form of salvation to its followers.

The Law of One material requires none of this, in fact, free will is the most important aspect to the universe according to it. Also, the Law of One material does reach out to science by stating that the Reciprocal System of Dewey B. Larson is a more accurate model of the universe. This reciprocal system states that the universe is in fact composed of not only spacetime, but its reciprocal timespace. Don't ask me to elucidate this topic any further, though, I only understand the very basics. I'm not a physicist. [smile]

Let's meet halfway and call the Law of One material a nonreligious belief system with specks of verifiable science in it.

Quote: Original post by MSW
NDE and Afterlife Statistics (a sample of 50 NDEs)

That is a pretty small data set to draw any form of definite conclusions from, but let's ignore that and go on.

Quote:
Overwhelming love (69%)
Mental telepathy (65%)
Life review (62%)
God (56%)
Tremendous ecstasy (56%)

62% report a life review: how is such a structured experience possible from a dying brain?
Even this small data set of 50 subjects demonstrate these aspects as recurring.

I'd just like to point out that I do not believe that all those 50 subjects had genuine NDEs - it's very likely that some of these experiences were simply a result from a malfunctioning brain. But, that's not really what we are debating: what we are debating is whether the genuine NDE occur at all. You state that absolutely all NDEs are a result of the brain malfunctioning.
I, on the other hand, state that genuine NDEs do occur alongside the non-genuine NDEs.

Quote: Original post by MSW
Same website offers this concerning people with NDE while clinicly dead and able to recall things that happend during death:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

At no point is it proven she had the experience while dead. In fact she would have been made well aware of what occurs during the procedure before the NDE occured. The bulk of her recount of the experience reflects what she would ALREADY have been made aware of.

Again, this is another example of "some people make stuff up, therefore all stuff is made up."

Trust me when I say that there are documented cases of people knowing things they should be unable to with a non-functioning brain. The case of the old man whose heart had stopped for 45 minutes before being revived, knowing where his dentures was located after awakening from a week in a coma springs to mind.
That particular case was covered in a NDE documentary, too bad I can't remember what it was called.

If you want to look further in to this then I recommend Dr. Raymond Moody's research, because I can't recite all documented NDEs which science is unable to explain for numerous reasons.

I'd like to end this post by saying that these documented cases are death-blows to science's explanation of the NDE being a result of a malfunctioning brain. A malfunctioning brain can not perceive anything while it is dead, this is a fact. The fact that there are documented cases of this occurring is something science is unable to even begin to understand, therefore it is ignored.

Let's apply Occam's razor to this and say that consciousness is not generated by the brain. These impossible scenarios are then easily explained - the consciousness leaves the body for a short while which leaves it able to experience the body and its surroundings objectively. In other words, the consciousness is not the brain. Case closed. [grin]

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MSW
NDE and Afterlife Statistics (a sample of 50 NDEs)

That is a pretty small data set to draw any form of definite conclusions from, but let's ignore that and go on.

I was giving your claim all NDEs are the same the bennifit of a statistical advantage

Quote:

Quote:
Overwhelming love (69%)
Mental telepathy (65%)
Life review (62%)
God (56%)
Tremendous ecstasy (56%)

62% report a life review: how is such a structured experience possible from a dying brain?
Even this small data set of 50 subjects demonstrate these aspects as recurring.

Recurring wasn't your claim.

Simular != Same

Quote:
I'd just like to point out that I do not believe that all those 50 subjects had genuine NDEs - it's very likely that some of these experiences were simply a result from a malfunctioning brain.

You wanted me to investigate "honest" NDE research...I did. I even gave sources showing that your claim all NDEs are the same to be false.

But instead of admiting your claim is incorrect...You are now going to cherry pick NDEs that fit your conclusion.

Quote:
But, that's not really what we are debating: what we are debating is whether the genuine NDE occur at all.

A distraction. You are unwilling to admit your claim that all NDEs are the same is incorrect.

Quote:
You state that absolutely all NDEs are a result of the brain malfunctioning.

Nope. I believe NDEs are the result of deep seeded notions of superiority, inferiority, anxiety and insecurity funneled through preconcieved notions of death in a unconcious mind susceptible to shapeing the experience into something meaningful. In short, not brain malfunction, but a dream.

Quote:
I, on the other hand, state that genuine NDEs do occur alongside the non-genuine NDEs.

You wanted me to investigate "honest" NDE research...I did. I even gave sources showing that your claim all NDEs are the same to be false.

But instead of admiting your claim is incorrect...You are now going to cherry pick NDEs that fit your conclusion.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by MSW
Same website offers this concerning people with NDE while clinicly dead and able to recall things that happend during death:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

At no point is it proven she had the experience while dead. In fact she would have been made well aware of what occurs during the procedure before the NDE occured. The bulk of her recount of the experience reflects what she would ALREADY have been made aware of.

Again, this is another example of "some people make stuff up, therefore all stuff is made up."

So Pam Reynolds' NDE was made up? Is this account of a NDE that even Dr. Moody considers to be one of those death-blows to NDE sceptics actualy one of those non-genuine NDEs?

Really hoped you would have backed this case as irrefuteable proof...

Quote:
Trust me when I say that there are documented cases of people knowing things they should be unable to with a non-functioning brain.

TRUST YOU!?

You dismissed the case most considered by "honest" NSE research as proof the phenomenon is real. Instead of even a mention you misspoke about all NDEs being the same; you now what to dance arouns cherry picking NDE cases which fit your views...and I'm suppost to just shut up and TRUST you!?

Quote:
The case of the old man whose heart had stopped for 45 minutes before being revived, knowing where his dentures was located after awakening from a week in a coma springs to mind.
That particular case was covered in a NDE documentary, too bad I can't remember what it was called.

Indeed.

Quote:
If you want to look further in to this then I recommend Dr. Raymond Moody's research, because I can't recite all documented NDEs which science is unable to explain for numerous reasons.

I did look into his research...It's why I posted the Pam Reynolds case, which you want to dismiss.

Quote:
I'd like to end this post by saying that these documented cases are death-blows to science's explanation of the NDE being a result of a malfunctioning brain. A malfunctioning brain can not perceive anything while it is dead, this is a fact. The fact that there are documented cases of this occurring is something science is unable to even begin to understand, therefore it is ignored.

Remember, we are suppost to TRUST you on this...when your own record of representing "honest" NDE research is far from trustworthy.

Quote:
Let's apply Occam's razor to this and say that consciousness is not generated by the brain. These impossible scenarios are then easily explained - the consciousness leaves the body for a short while which leaves it able to experience the body and its surroundings objectively. In other words, the consciousness is not the brain. Case closed. [grin]

You arn't applying Occam's razor correctly. In fact your observations are in defiance of it. Consciousness not generated by the brain is an ASSUMPTION. Case closed.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
But what I don't understand is how you go from looking at these unexplained phenomenon to jumping on board with religion. I am sure it explains many of the questions you have in the world, but that is what religions are designed to do, and it is very for easy for a religion to explain every one of the worlds phenomenon because they do not need any evidence to back up their claims. Do you notice how religions created at a certain time seem to mirror the level of scientific understanding at that time, and how usually once science has enough time to progress the old religions start to seem antiquated and silly? People want the answers for things now, and religion provides a nice easy out. But that's part of the harm of religion, they give people answers for things we do not yet understand, and if everybody were to just take their word for it, then we would not be constantly gaining a better understanding of the universe through scientific study, which is something I value deeply.

Well, although I could stretch myself to define the Law of One material as some form of belief system, I strongly disagree with defining it as a religion.
In my opinion, a religion comes with these things:

1) Worship of a God entity.
2) Strict rules with the threat of eternal damnation if the rules are not followed.
3) Some form of salvation to its followers.

The Law of One material requires none of this, in fact, free will is the most important aspect to the universe according to it.

Your definition of religion is stricter than mine. I take it to mean a faith-based belief system, but since you do not feel the same way go back and read what I wrote but replace every instance of "religion" with "faith-based belief system" and we can continue on with this discussion. Also, I am not sure how you can call it a stretch to consider your set of beliefs from the "Law of One" material a belief system, I am really not sure what else you would consider a set of beliefs to be.

For me to hold a belief it either has to be the conclusion of a reasoned argument or to be supported by experimental/statistical/historical evidence, and preferably both. Faith-based belief systems come solely from having confidence or trust in the person or thing who is making the claims, and do not require rational argument or empirical evidence to support the claims. I can not honestly understand this way of thinking, do you just go with who sounds the most right or do you pick whatever beliefs appeal to you the most? But faith-based belief systems are more than just harmless stupidity, they are dangerous and counterproductive, which is something that has been shown over and over again throughout history.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Let's meet halfway and call the Law of One material a nonreligious belief system with specks of verifiable science in it.

Can you point me to specific areas in the material where I can see the scientific method being applied?

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Also, the Law of One material does reach out to science by stating that the Reciprocal System of Dewey B. Larson is a more accurate model of the universe. This reciprocal system states that the universe is in fact composed of not only spacetime, but its reciprocal timespace. Don't ask me to elucidate this topic any further, though, I only understand the very basics. I'm not a physicist. [smile]

See the problem here? This is trying to take a faith based belief system and applying it to a scientific theory, and this does nothing but pollute science. Are we now supposed to accept the theory based on our faith in Ra? If this theory becomes generally accepted it should not be because so higher power told us that it was true, but because a large amount of evidence that supports this explanation builds up. To do this would be to destroy the entire purpose of science. The "Law of One" does not become any more scientific because it supports this explanation, and this theory does not become any better because it is supported by the "Law of One."

Quote: Original post by MSW
Recurring wasn't your claim.

Simular != Same

You chose to ignore my question as to how a dying malfunctioning brain generates the beautiful ecstatic experience that the NDE is. I'd expect random noise from a dying brain - not an Utopian afterlife world.

Quote: Original post by MSW
But instead of admiting your claim is incorrect...You are now going to cherry pick NDEs that fit your conclusion.

By saying "some people make stuff up, therefore all stuff is made up.", I was attacking your way of reasoning, not that particular NDE you provided me with. The point is that you look for inconsistencies in one reported NDE, and then try to generalize those inconsistencies in order to prove that all NDEs must be false.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote:
But, that's not really what we are debating: what we are debating is whether the genuine NDE occur at all.

Quote: Original post by MSW
A distraction. You are unwilling to admit your claim that all NDEs are the same is incorrect.

What do you mean by the same? I have never said that all NDEs are exactly alike, as you seem to think - obviously there is going to be some variation.
What I said, or at least meant to say, is that NDEs follow the same basic chronology. What I'm saying is that, the probability of this exact chronology repeating for all possible instances of a dying brain is probably very small.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote:
You state that absolutely all NDEs are a result of the brain malfunctioning.

Nope. I believe NDEs are the result of deep seeded notions of superiority, inferiority, anxiety and insecurity funneled through preconcieved notions of death in a unconcious mind susceptible to shapeing the experience into something meaningful. In short, not brain malfunction, but a dream.

That doesn't make sense to me. Do you think a dying brain cares about everyday neurotic phenomena such as insecurity and anxiety?
What you're saying is that the NDE is the brain's way of making death into something meaningful.

You're really going to have to decide, is the NDE a result of a dying brain or a dreaming brain?

Quote: Original post by MSW
So Pam Reynolds' NDE was made up? Is this account of a NDE that even Dr. Moody considers to be one of those death-blows to NDE sceptics actualy one of those non-genuine NDEs?

Really hoped you would have backed this case as irrefuteable proof...

Again, I was attacking your way of reasoning, not that particular NDE.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote:
Trust me when I say that there are documented cases of people knowing things they should be unable to with a non-functioning brain.

TRUST YOU!?

Yes, take my word for it being a lot of documented NDEs in existence. You present this one NDE like it makes or breaks the entire phenomenon.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote:
The case of the old man whose heart had stopped for 45 minutes before being revived, knowing where his dentures was located after awakening from a week in a coma springs to mind.
That particular case was covered in a NDE documentary, too bad I can't remember what it was called.

Indeed.

I'll see if I can find that documentary again.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote:
I'd like to end this post by saying that these documented cases are death-blows to science's explanation of the NDE being a result of a malfunctioning brain. A malfunctioning brain can not perceive anything while it is dead, this is a fact. The fact that there are documented cases of this occurring is something science is unable to even begin to understand, therefore it is ignored.

Remember, we are suppost to TRUST you on this...when your own record of representing "honest" NDE research is far from trustworthy.

I think you read too much into that one comment I made, which was aimed at your reasoning - not that particular NDE.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote:
Let's apply Occam's razor to this and say that consciousness is not generated by the brain. These impossible scenarios are then easily explained - the consciousness leaves the body for a short while which leaves it able to experience the body and its surroundings objectively. In other words, the consciousness is not the brain. Case closed. [grin]

You arn't applying Occam's razor correctly. In fact your observations are in defiance of it. Consciousness not generated by the brain is an ASSUMPTION. Case closed.

I'm applying it correctly if you take the available evidence into consideration.

Quote: Science's way of reasoning

When the brain dies, it generates an ecstatic experience. This ecstatic experience is either a result of the neuronal death process - or some form of evolved trait. If this is an evolved trait - it increases reproductive success by associating death with something ecstatic, or else it would've been removed from the gene pool. If this is just a random event caused by neuronal death, then the fact that NDEs share a lot of common characteristics is just a coincidence. Either that, or the neurons in the brain die in some form of standard sequence, regardless of cause. It could also be a psychological phenomenon, where the brain tries to make sense of a disintegrating bla bla blaah

Quote: My way of reasoning

We have a soul. When the body dies or become severely traumatized, the soul leaves the body.

In my opinion there is no doubt about which viewpoint needs a shave from Occam's razor.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Science's way of reasoning
When the brain dies, it generates an ecstatic experience. This ecstatic experience is either a result of the neuronal death process - or some form of evolved trait. If this is an evolved trait - it increases reproductive success by associating death with something ecstatic, or else it would've been removed from the gene pool. If this is just a random event caused by neuronal death, then the fact that NDEs share a lot of common characteristics is just a coincidence. Either that, or the neurons in the brain die in some form of standard sequence, regardless of cause. It could also be a psychological phenomenon, where the brain tries to make sense of a disintegrating bla bla blaah

Quote: My way of reasoning
We have a soul. When the body dies or become severely traumatized, the soul leaves the body.

In my opinion there is no doubt about which viewpoint needs a shave from Occam's razor.

I'm trying to not get too into it, but yes, each of those possible explanations that science offers is simpler and requires less assumptions than the soul explanation (I understand you wanted to lump them all together to make it look long, but this does not make it all one long explanation). There are A LOT of things that need to be assumed about the soul for that explanation to work, never mind its mere existence. I am still bewildered by the fact that you are trying to use Occam's razor to defend the law of one material.

Quote: Original post by MTT

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
But what I don't understand is how you go from looking at these unexplained phenomenon to jumping on board with religion. I am sure it explains many of the questions you have in the world, but that is what religions are designed to do, and it is very for easy for a religion to explain every one of the worlds phenomenon because they do not need any evidence to back up their claims. Do you notice how religions created at a certain time seem to mirror the level of scientific understanding at that time, and how usually once science has enough time to progress the old religions start to seem antiquated and silly? People want the answers for things now, and religion provides a nice easy out. But that's part of the harm of religion, they give people answers for things we do not yet understand, and if everybody were to just take their word for it, then we would not be constantly gaining a better understanding of the universe through scientific study, which is something I value deeply.

Well, although I could stretch myself to define the Law of One material as some form of belief system, I strongly disagree with defining it as a religion.
In my opinion, a religion comes with these things:

1) Worship of a God entity.
2) Strict rules with the threat of eternal damnation if the rules are not followed.
3) Some form of salvation to its followers.

The Law of One material requires none of this, in fact, free will is the most important aspect to the universe according to it.

Your definition of religion is stricter than mine. I take it to mean a faith-based belief system, but since you do not feel the same way go back and read what I wrote but replace every instance of "religion" with "faith-based belief system" and we can continue on with this discussion. Also, I am not sure how you can call it a stretch to consider your set of beliefs from the "Law of One" material a belief system, I am really not sure what else you would consider a set of beliefs to be.

For me to hold a belief it either has to be the conclusion of a reasoned argument or to be supported by experimental/statistical/historical evidence, and preferably both. Faith-based belief systems come solely from having confidence or trust in the person or thing who is making the claims, and do not require rational argument or empirical evidence to support the claims. I can not honestly understand this way of thinking, do you just go with who sounds the most right or do you pick whatever beliefs appeal to you the most? But faith-based belief systems are more than just harmless stupidity, they are dangerous and counterproductive, which is something that has been shown over and over again throughout history.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Let's meet halfway and call the Law of One material a nonreligious belief system with specks of verifiable science in it.

Can you point me to specific areas in the material where I can see the scientific method being applied?

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Also, the Law of One material does reach out to science by stating that the Reciprocal System of Dewey B. Larson is a more accurate model of the universe. This reciprocal system states that the universe is in fact composed of not only spacetime, but its reciprocal timespace. Don't ask me to elucidate this topic any further, though, I only understand the very basics. I'm not a physicist. [smile]

See the problem here? This is trying to take a faith based belief system and applying it to a scientific theory, and this does nothing but pollute science. Are we now supposed to accept the theory based on our faith in Ra? If this theory becomes generally accepted it should not be because so higher power told us that it was true, but because a large amount of evidence that supports this explanation builds up. To do this would be to destroy the entire purpose of science. The "Law of One" does not become any more scientific because it supports this explanation, and this theory does not become any better because it is supported by the "Law of One."

You present a lot of good viewpoints and I understand what you're saying.
I can't say anything else than that the Law of One material was never intended as definite scientific proof for how the universe works. Think of it as a hypothesis instead - and I'd say that it does a pretty kickass job at being a good hypothesis.

I see that you've actually looked at the material since you've figured out that the actual bulk of the material was provided by an entity who calls itself Ra.
I've been avoiding mentioning this fact from the very beginning, because this sort of thing tend to make people's bullshit detector go off pretty quickly.

The fact that this entity calls itself Ra is not important, in fact, Ra only calls itself Ra because the Egyptians named them Ra, which is the last society besides ours that Ra contacted.
The Law of One material goes into how Ra left the Egyptians when Ra started becoming worshipped as a God, because this worship conflicted with the Law of One that Ra was trying to present to them.
An interesting fact is that Ra is actually a group-consciousness which constitutes an entire planet worth of entities.

What else to say... By making this thread I never intended to convince anyone of anything, but to rather have an interesting discussion on various philosophical hypotheses for the universe's creation and inner workings. Everyone wants proof, but I don't have definite proof. But you have to ask yourself, do you have definite proof? Even modern science finds itself unable to answer the bigger questions.

The Law of One material does confirm Dewey's Reciprocal System as being valid. I'm not saying that you should embrace Dewey's theory because of the Law of One material. Rather, look at Dewey's theory as a form of test for the Law of One material. If Dewey's theory is determined as a fallacy, then obviously the Law of One material is false as well.

I thoroughly enjoy reading the Law of One material due to its all-encompassing scope. It goes into the details of human (and alien) interpersonal relationships, but also the grandest question of them all: the origin of the universe. I'm fascinated by the pure detail of the material, and it really makes me wonder if a human could come up with all of this. I haven't found any contradictions in the material yet, and to my knowledge, no one else has either.

In fact, as time goes on, more and more of the predicted events in the material is manifesting in our reality.

Quote: Ra in 1981
Ra: I am Ra. The possibility/probabilities exist for situations in which great portions of your continent and the globe in general might be involved in the type of warfare which you might liken to guerrilla warfare (polymorphed: trrzm, anyone?). The ideal of freedom from the so-called invading force of either the controlled fascism or the equally controlled social common ownership of all things would stimulate great quantities of contemplation upon the great polarization implicit in the contrast between freedom and control (polymorphed: Surveillance laws, modifications to the US constitution, the list goes on). In this scenario which is being considered at this time/space nexus the idea of obliterating valuable sites and personnel would not be considered an useful one. Other weapons would be used which do not destroy as your nuclear arms would. In this on-going struggle the light of freedom would burn within the mind/body/spirit complexes capable of such polarization. Lacking the opportunity for overt expression of the love of freedom, the seeking for inner knowledge would take root aided by those of the Brothers and Sisters of Sorrow which remember their calling upon this sphere.