NDEs and no singularly true faith

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

I am very skeptical of some of these accounts, especially when they have a strong religious element to the narrative. 

I would suspect that a religious element would be the most important part.  I can't see a NDE having much elements about politics, economics, or predictions of who would win the Super Bowl.  Secular issues for the most part lose their meaning or relevance once death occurs.  Its a sad part of life.  We spend so much time and attention on secular things but when we die, little of it will have any value as we move on. Nobody is going to care about what college degrees we got or how much money we made while alive. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would suspect that a religious element would be the most important part.  I can't see a NDE having much elements about politics, economics, or predictions of who would win the Super Bowl.  Secular issues for the most part lose their meaning or relevance once death occurs.  Its a sad part of life.  We spend so much time and attention on secular things but when we die, little of it will have any value as we move on. Nobody is going to care about what college degrees we got or how much money we made while alive. 

Some of the dead might still care:

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would suspect that a religious element would be the most important part. 

Let me clarify ==I am speaking of  theological issues.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not quite sure how calling water "H20" makes it more "real" to you than calling it "water".

I guess a chemical definiton is better than a definition in words?  Or suppose we take it down to defining the quarks or whatever comprise the atoms / particles etc

Somehow those are better descriptions- though also man made obviously- than the word "water"?  Is talking about quarks "more real" than talking about  water?

Certainly thinking in terms of chemical reactions one  needs to know the elements.  But if I am asking for a glass of water, it will communicate better than asking for H20

I  don't know.  It seems so obvious to me.

They are all  verbal descriptions.   When you say H20 or "water" nobody gets wet.

How you can say that H20 is more real than "Water"  is beyond my understanding.   

There are dozens of famous philosophers who would agree- some of best- and probably none in large universities who  would disagree.  Virtually all universities in which English is the language of instruction teach "analytic philosophy" which essentially proposes that what is important is not some metaphysical realm that cannot be shown to exist but how we SPEAK about such  things and the logic behind how we think about  these issues which then become semantic issues and not about a "reality" that is unknowable

Whether referring to it as water or H2O I guess doesn't matter.  I think I was trying to highlight that we do know much about H2O and its makeup, even if we both acknowledge that our perceptions about H2O or water are limited and filtered through the human senses.  

I'm not sure how you go from limited human perceptions on one hand to saying that reality is unknowable.  I think we know much about reality, thanks to the scientific method, we can with great accuracy predict all kinds of things and have accomplished amazing things in the process.  So, I'm not comfortable saying reality is unknowable, besides, isn't that somewhat of a contradiction in terms.  If reality is unknowable, then how do you KNOW that with 100% certainty.  

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes and that is the difference between Rorty and Berkeley and is why I often quote R rather than B!!

I quoted B to show an extreme version of this view- and strictly speaking I think he was right but simply not as logically sophisticated as Rorty in chosing his descriptions  of his position.

Rorty is what-300 years after B?  One would expect a little bit better description after 300 years of debate!   Yet the position is at it's heart, the same.

Rorty had to put that in there just for guys like you!! 

For me though even speaking of "causes" of perception violates the appearance/ reality distinction.  How can you know there are "causes" which are invisible and cannot be sensed?  Strictly speaking ALL we have is raw experience

BUT if you can understand and accept the Rorty position that is about  as far as I can hope to go!!

So you think the notion of "solidity" is NOT a human perception and neither is "space"?   Neither depend on human experience or perception?

What is "solidity" when we are talking about quarks and photons that might be a wave or a particle depending on......  wait for it....   how it is perceived?? 

"Space" might be an analytic idea  though- a tautology-  along with words  like  "existence"- notions that are "true  by  definition"

If  you can think  of something that  you cannot see feel or touch that "exists" I would be interested in  that idea.  In other words I think the word "exist" is  pretty vacuous- in speaking of things.  If you can't see feel touch etc the "thing" how is it then a  "thing"?   

I won't argue that one if you have at last understood Rorty though!!

Its seems to be a very important difference from my vantage point.  I'm glad to at least be learning a little more each time I engage in these conversations.  Thanks

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether referring to it as water or H2O I guess doesn't matter.  I think I was trying to highlight that we do know much about H2O and its makeup, even if we both acknowledge that our perceptions about H2O or water are limited and filtered through the human senses.  

I'm not sure how you go from limited human perceptions on one hand to saying that reality is unknowable.  I think we know much about reality, thanks to the scientific method, we can with great accuracy predict all kinds of things and have accomplished amazing things in the process.  So, I'm not comfortable saying reality is unknowable, besides, isn't that somewhat of a contradiction in terms.  If reality is unknowable, then how do you KNOW that with 100% certainty.  

Its seems to be a very important difference from my vantage point.  I'm glad to at least be learning a little more each time I engage in these conversations.  Thanks

 

The problem is that people think reality is something fixed and unchanging and that anything we perceive on this side of the veil is sure "knowledge" and that includes this statement. All we can predict are other experiences, if you want to call that "reality" that's your decision.

It makes no sense to me to do so, and opens up everything you say to error.

Science gives no ultimate knowledge and neither does religion. And yes of course relativists know that they are only relatively "correct" and that objection simply shows that the one making it still thinks of reality as fixed and beyond sense perception.

All we are able to get are reasonable guesses of what works.

This is important to show that human intelligence creates the world as we know it.

As we know it

As we know it

Don't know how many times I have to say that.

As we know it

And if God is a Human, LDS cosmology is justifiable philosophically.

That's all.

So what did you like about the posts that you found very clear?

I would appreciate if you answer that for me please. It will be very helpful in explaining this stuff.

[Alaris]

Though it's been a few years, I've studied many NDEs and agree with what's already been said here... By far what's being reported is far, far more consistent with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' doctrine. 

Take reports of spirits waiting to be born for instance and reports of Jesus. How many religions believe both in Jesus and in premortal spirits? That's basically us and offshoots of us. 

What I don't recall is any reports on what the op claims which is the claim that many come back reporting no single religion is needed. It's possible I just don't remember, but shouldn't we substantiate that first? 

Another possibility is the fact folks come back without being told what the true religion is as that would be slightly subversive. I can imagine what it would be like on the other side of the veil watching nde experiencers rejecting to the missionaries and shaking my spirit head at my fellow nde support team. Then they assume because their being of light didn't say "the Mormons," then therefore no religion is necessary. 

Speaking of the veil, I've had a few experiences where I've either approached a thin veil or received from the other side. Sometimes pulling memories back is like trying to pull cotton candy through a thin metal strainer. This is consistent with many nde experiences where folks know they were told something or given an answer and were unable to return with the complete memory. 

Some likely have experiences and are forbidden from bringing back any memory. 

I will say this: my studies of NDEs both confirms my testimony and convinces me these NDEs are legitimately happening. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Alaris

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether referring to it as water or H2O I guess doesn't matter.  I think I was trying to highlight that we do know much about H2O and its makeup, even if we both acknowledge that our perceptions about H2O or water are limited and filtered through the human senses.  

I'm not sure how you go from limited human perceptions on one hand to saying that reality is unknowable.  I think we know much about reality, thanks to the scientific method, we can with great accuracy predict all kinds of things and have accomplished amazing things in the process.  So, I'm not comfortable saying reality is unknowable, besides, isn't that somewhat of a contradiction in terms.  If reality is unknowable, then how do you KNOW that with 100% certainty.  

Its seems to be a very important difference from my vantage point.  I'm glad to at least be learning a little more each time I engage in these conversations.  Thanks

 

Let me just ask this.

When you Know something or learn something, is that  a "mental state"?

Are there changes both in the brain and in one's general understanding of "how the world works"?

Could it be that we are using two different definitions for  "reality", one for for what is "filtered through human experience", and the other for what is  outside human experience?

Like "what we don't know yet"?

Edited November 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

On 11/19/2018 at 9:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

It's worth reading NDE accounts from other cultures. They really do differ in significant ways. 

I'll confess to being a skeptic of most NDEs although I believe real visions/visitations do occur. I just don't think most are authentic.

 

How could someone tell the difference between an authentic NDE and an inauthentic one?

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

How could someone tell the difference between an authentic NDE and an inauthentic one?

An inauthentic one is where somebody made up the story.  That happens occasionally.  An authentic one is where a person has truly suffered a condition that lead them to the brink of death.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

How could someone tell the difference between an authentic NDE and an inauthentic one?

By not coming back.

[Storm Rider]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 12:45 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Hey, I’ve always found near death experiences fascinating. I’m aware of many Mormons who have taken these experiences to be literal representations of the spirit world or at least some kind of transitory state. 

I’m curious, for those who believe these are literal experiences, how do you deal with the common aspect where the individual is told by a spirit, and angel, or God that no single religion is the exclusively true church. Instead, the truth of each is appropriate for different people in different contexts.

It sounds like a distortion of LDS theology. God gives differing degrees of truth to all peoples of the earth; some less and some more depending upon the ability of the people to be obedient. 

You called it a "common aspect" of NDEs. However, this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. Maybe not so common, but rather what individuals want to hear. 

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

How could someone tell the difference between an authentic NDE and an inauthentic one?

Skepticism during the NDE helps. Look for things that are testable. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Skepticism during the NDE helps. Look for things that are testable. 

What do you test during an NDE.  The experiences are fairly short but profound.  There is no way to prove the experience anymore than you can prove the contents of a dream you recently had.  Nobody comes back with a selfie of them in a NDE.  The only testable evidence I would say is seeing how the individual changes afterward.  What else can one do.

Edited November 24, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Those are good questions, and I do think there may be changes in the brain as well as our understanding at the same time.  

As for definitions of reality I think for the purposes of this discussion I was trying to assert that there is somekind of reality that exists independent of human experience and human mental states, in support of what that Rorty quote says.  Now clothing that reality in descriptions are where we apply our human lens to the process.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't something out there independent of human experience.  I think that reality also contains very much of "what we don't know yet."  And I think there is so much more that we don't know about this reality that we ought to be very humble about what we claim 100% certainty with, and we should be willing to change our operating paradigms to follow the evidence.  

Ok well then this is all I am saying!

As long as you understand the Rorty quote and stick to it, and talk of descriptions of reality while speaking philosophically, and not reality itself, we would be in alignment. 

Of course there is much more to be discovered about our experience and what we can know of the causes of experience, as long as we we are aware that what we experience is not what causes experience.

As a shortcut in ordinary discourse we can talk about reality actually being our experience, as long as we are aware that reality then is always a human interpretation of causes beyond our abilities you know.

That is what it means to erase the appearance/ reality distinction.

We may call all appearances "reality" as long as we are aware of that distinction, just as we can speak of Truth being an interpretation, and undefinable. So as Rorty says we can use the word and know what it means but we can't define it.

Using the word that way, "reality" itself is always a human interpretation.

And that applies to spiritual experience as much as anything else. The problem of course with spiritual experience is that it cannot be replicated by others in the exact way we have our personal spiritual experience.

So then reality is as we know it, since all we can know is appearances and our human interpretations.

 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

An inauthentic one is where somebody made up the story.  That happens occasionally.  An authentic one is where a person has truly suffered a condition that lead them to the brink of death.  

So no one hallucinates in a state of brain distress? The only false ones are deliberate inventions?

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You called it a "common aspect" of NDEs. However, this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. Maybe not so common, but rather what individuals want to hear. 

From a materialist perspective I find some NDE's difficult to reconcile with extant existence. But, I do believe them too.

My current hypothesis is that for some/most the transition from the physical realm to the spiritual realm is difficult for the mind. To ease that transition the mind is given a virtual/simulated reality (e.g. tunnel, disembodiment, relatives, etc.).

[hope_for_things]

On 11/21/2018 at 11:27 AM, mfbukowski said:

I would appreciate if you answer that for me please. It will be very helpful in explaining this stuff.

What I really liked was just your candor was in how you described what spiritual insight can be used for in clear terms, and distinguished that the spiritual insight people seek from God can't answer questions about the objective world in a scientific way, but that spiritual insight can only answer questions related to the world of the spiritual and religious paradigms.  Of course this seems obvious when I summarize it that way, but in our religion and many others there is a lot of baggage around supernatural thinking and blending of these things where people think their religious ways of knowing apply equally to other categories of learning. 

I particularly liked these statements you made:

On 11/19/2018 at 2:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

The biggest problem that has beset Western Civilization in the last 2000 years is the notion that revelation is about verifiable facts.  It is not.

I don't know why this is so hard  for people to understand.   God does not tell us natural facts- he tells us about spiritual matters.

On 11/19/2018 at 2:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

The instructions i think  in DC 6 say to "study it out  in your mind" when there is a factual portion, make your decision and THEN ask the Lord if your SPIRITUAL decision is one he wants to confirm.

So study which college to go to, taking as long as the research takes, then ask the Lord about what?  Facts of which is the "best school"?  No- the question should be about which school will lead me farther on my spiritual quest.

Whether or not our perception of water at a distance turns out to be a perception of something we can drink to survive is a factual question, and not a spiritual one.   IF one sought out water by asking God where it was, they might get lucky or actually be inspired to find it, but that is not obviously a reliable way to get factual information.   

"Circular reasoning and confirmation bias?"

Can you see that that is ONLY about objective observations??   YES confirmation bias is exactly what spirituality IS for Pete's sake!!!

Did you have "confirmation bias" in favor of the woman you chose to become your wife???   I sure hope so!!!

Spiritiuality is about emotions and what makes us feel peace and calm in our  lives- what gives us psychological comfort and the feeling that "all is right with the world"- the warm fuzzies but on  steroids.

 

[hope_for_things]

On 11/21/2018 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

Let me just ask this.

When you Know something or learn something, is that  a "mental state"?

Are there changes both in the brain and in one's general understanding of "how the world works"?

Could it be that we are using two different definitions for  "reality", one for for what is "filtered through human experience", and the other for what is  outside human experience?

Like "what we don't know yet"?

Those are good questions, and I do think there may be changes in the brain as well as our understanding at the same time.  

As for definitions of reality I think for the purposes of this discussion I was trying to assert that there is somekind of reality that exists independent of human experience and human mental states, in support of what that Rorty quote says.  Now clothing that reality in descriptions are where we apply our human lens to the process.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't something out there independent of human experience.  I think that reality also contains very much of "what we don't know yet."  And I think there is so much more that we don't know about this reality that we ought to be very humble about what we claim 100% certainty with, and we should be willing to change our operating paradigms to follow the evidence.  

[Glenn101]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Skepticism during the NDE helps. Look for things that are testable. 

You mean by the person actually having the NDE? Not having ever had one personally I have no idea how I would even think about being skeptical. From the accounts that I have read, the experiences were all of such an extraordinary nature that being skeptical was something that never crossed any of their minds, not even those whose mindsets were slanted towards skepticism, such as atheists. But I do not see how a person could test an NDE.

There have been attempts to test out of body experiences with mixed results and I do not believe there is anything like a consensus in the medical community on the subject, but there are some interesting stories non-the-less of veridical experiences which defy explanation.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

On 11/24/2018 at 9:11 AM, hope_for_things said:

Those are good questions, and I do think there may be changes in the brain as well as our understanding at the same time.  

As for definitions of reality I think for the purposes of this discussion I was trying to assert that there is somekind of reality that exists independent of human experience and human mental states, in support of what that Rorty quote says.  Now clothing that reality in descriptions are where we apply our human lens to the process.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't something out there independent of human experience.  I think that reality also contains very much of "what we don't know yet."  And I think there is so much more that we don't know about this reality that we ought to be very humble about what we claim 100% certainty with, and we should be willing to change our operating paradigms to follow the evidence.  

This is interesting because I never claimed that Rorty was wrong about there being causes of experience. my perennial quote says that explicitly.

The problem is the word "reality" because if it is reality we can't know anything about it because of our filters, just that something is out there. As he says, the causes of our perceptions

 He explicitly does not use the word reality for a reason because it is the source of the entire problem. That sets up the whole divide between reality and the appearance of reality. The purpose of pragmatism is to erase that divide, so the word is inappropriate in that context.

The only problem is we can't know anything about these causes of experience except through our filters. At some point there's no reason to even mention them because they are irrelevant. They are like zeros after the decimal point on a check.

I give you 1.000000000000 dollars.

The zeros become superfluous because there's nothing there to talk about.

In that context reality IS what we experience. No need to talk about causes of experience that we know nothing about, as Rorty in fact does mention them.

But no one ever disputed that causes didn't exist. 

That's psychotic brain in a vat stuff.

That aint Rorty at all.

Edited November 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

On 11/23/2018 at 10:53 PM, carbon dioxide said:

What do you test during an NDE.  The experiences are fairly short but profound.  There is no way to prove the experience anymore than you can prove the contents of a dream you recently had.  Nobody comes back with a selfie of them in a NDE.  The only testable evidence I would say is seeing how the individual changes afterward.  What else can one do.

There's some well known ones for NDEs that take place in the location of ones body. Look for places you could see but couldn't see from your bed or operating room. Remember them and describe them. There's a well known science experiment doing this by putting letters on the top of cabinets that a floating "body" should be able to see. (None have) Ask specific questions. It'll be dependent on what then nature of the experience is. I think just having a skeptical stance during the event would significantly help.

On 11/24/2018 at 4:53 PM, Glenn101 said:

From the accounts that I have read, the experiences were all of such an extraordinary nature that being skeptical was something that never crossed any of their minds, not even those whose mindsets were slanted towards skepticism, such as atheists.

Not all atheists are skeptics - indeed I'd say most don't really have a skeptical stance. I think the big difference between regular people and those who have a more skeptical stance is their background and training particularly in science. Those with that more scientific attitude when they encounter something extraordinary their first thought is to start understanding it and seeing it's nature. 

To give a more ridiculous example, when I was on splits on my mission I remember going to a house and the closer we got the stronger the spirit was. (We were meeting up with the other missionaries at that house) I assumed something profound was going on inside but my first thought was to ask if the spirit was like an electric or magnetic field and if the strength varied like the cube of the distance or some other way, whether it was affected by the types of material of the walls, and then to see if we could relate it to what's going on inside. That is, to think about it as a phenomena rather than just taking it as it comes. That's the skeptical attitude I'm getting at. Ask testable questions and test them.

Edited November 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Not all atheists are skeptics - indeed I'd say most don't really have a skeptical stance. I think the big difference between regular people and those who have a more skeptical stance is their background and training particularly in science. Those with that more scientific attitude when they encounter something extraordinary their first thought is to start understanding it and seeing it's nature. 

 

Atheists are skeptical (at the very least) about God and life after death.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

There's some well known ones for NDEs that take place in the location of ones body. Look for places you could see but couldn't see from your bed or operating room. Remember them and describe them. There's a well known science experiment doing this by putting letters on the top of cabinets that a floating "body" should be able to see. (None have) Ask specific questions. It'll be dependent on what then nature of the experience is. I think just having a skeptical stance during the event would significantly help.

In the recent AWARE study the only two instances of people who reported NDE's with awareness of the physical environment one was verified as being accurate, but they both were outside an acute area where there were no hidden visual targets. Have there been other studies using the same techniques, i.e. with hidden visual targets that could only be seen from above?

The Pam Reynolds case is the closest thing that I know of to a documented veridical out of body experience. There are some interesting stories of blind people being able to see when describing an out of body experience also. Not enough evidence to convince a skeptic, but fascinating non-the-less.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Atheists are skeptical (at the very least) about God and life after death.

I have met atheists who believe or at least suspect there is an afterlife.

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Atheists are skeptical (at the very least) about God and life after death.

Atheists don't believe in God. That doesn't mean they're skeptical anymore than you're not believing in Krishna means you're skeptical. We should be careful not to conflate disbelief and skepticism although some people do use skepticism as a synonym for disbelief.

Likewise one could easily accept the idea of an eternal soul without buying into a personal God or even a deist conception of God. Arguably Buddhists who believe in reincarnation have just such a set of commitments. Now most Buddhists also believe in supernatural beings of various sorts but some, like Zen Buddhists, tend to reject as superfluous such commitments.

24 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Have there been other studies using the same techniques, i.e. with hidden visual targets that could only be seen from above?

The AWARE study was what I was thinking of. One of the tests in AWARE was symbols that could only be seen from above. No one passed that test. Only one person out of 2060 could even be described as "a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected." Which is of course not the same as an NDE/OBE.

There have been various other reports such as describing events while on the operating table such as external ambulances or the like. That's partially why I don't want to dismiss NDEs even if I think the majority likely aren't authentic. Which is not to say they aren't meaningful to the people involved. (Mark's sense of the appearance/reality distinction not mattering)

Edited November 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

On 11/25/2018 at 7:12 PM, mfbukowski said:

This is interesting because I never claimed that Rorty was wrong about there being causes of experience. my perennial quote says that explicitly.

The problem is the word "reality" because if it is reality we can't know anything about it because of our filters, just that something is out there. As he says, the causes of our perceptions

 He explicitly does not use the word reality for a reason because it is the source of the entire problem. That sets up the whole divide between reality and the appearance of reality. The purpose of pragmatism is to erase that divide, so the word is inappropriate in that context.

The only problem is we can't know anything about these causes of experience except through our filters. At some point there's no reason to even mention them because they are irrelevant. They are like zeros after the decimal point on a check.

I give you 1.000000000000 dollars.

The zeros become superfluous because there's nothing there to talk about.

In that context reality IS what we experience. No need to talk about causes of experience that we know nothing about, as Rorty in fact does mention them.

But no one ever disputed that causes didn't exist. 

That's psychotic brain in a vat stuff.

That aint Rorty at all.

I think this is matter of what points one wants to emphasize.  I want to emphasize that this reality actually exists and that there is significant value and meaning for us humans to want to be more closely aligned with accurate descriptions of that reality from a pragmatic perspective.  We gain value in this life the better we understand how things are working and our relationship to those things, in that we are able to better navigate all the challenges of life and hopefully alleviate suffering and serve others better.  

For example, if I am someone that still believes that I need to sacrifice the very best products that I produce via my work, i.e. the first fruits of my harvest and the best livestock on my farm, to an unseen yet very powerful deity, in order to appease this deity's wrath.  Then I am literally wasting important resources that could be put to much better use if shared with my society.  

Understanding how the mechanisms of the universe work better will help us navigate this universe.  Not all paradigms are created equal and some paradigms contain concepts that have a negative impact on society and if discarded and/or revised and updated to be more in line with "reality" then the collective will benefit.  

So when you say that reality doesn't really exist in a philosophical sense, I can understand what you're saying, but its really just academic because reality is what all of us are living every day, and the closer we can get to useful and accurate (in the sense that they work better) descriptions of reality, the better.