XPost: sci.math   
   From: jesse@phiwumbda.org   
      
   JohnF  writes:   
      
   > In sci.math Jesse F. Hughes  wrote:   
   >> JohnF  writes:   
   >>> In sci.math Jesse F. Hughes  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And, if I recall the article I read yesterday correctly, no numbers are   
   >>>> involved.  Rather pictures are placed high on a shelf, a few inches   
   >>>> beneath the ceiling and facing up.  This is starting to sound like a   
   >>>> much more interesting experiment, at least for those who are puzzled by   
   >>>> the phenomenon and believe it's plausible that it represents a real   
   >>>> out-of-body experience[1].   
   >>>   
   >>> Didn't read the whole thread, but did anybody point out that   
   >>> out-of-body doesn't necessarily imply afterlife? If true, all   
   >>> out-of-body proves is that living people can somehow experience   
   >>> far-away events. Weird, yes. But it doesn't prove dead carcasses   
   >>> can experience anything ("Night of the Living Dead" notwithstanding).   
   >>> That would be even weirder.   
   >>   
   >> I am so glad that you excepted "Night of the Living Dead", because what   
   >> George Romero says is true, dammit.   
   >   
   > Personally, I preferred that "Night of the Comet" spinoff/satire,   
   > valley girl versus zombie. But I guess there's no accounting for   
   > taste (especially considering that zombie diet).   
      
   Yeah, evidently there *is* no accounting for taste.   
      
   I regret our previously friendly discussions.  To think that I could   
   converse with someone who fails to recognize Romero's genius.  Bah.   
      
   >> But, to be fair to the afterlife folk,   
   >   
   > Oh, yes, that's what I want to do -- "be fair to the afterlife folk."   
   > When the time comes, they've got eternity to make all the fun of me   
   > they want. In the meantime, it's my turn first.   
      
   Ha!  Very good.  Don't let me spoil your time to shine.   
      
   >> it isn't literally dead carcasses   
   >> that experience something, but rather some nebulous mind or soul,   
   >> distinct from the physical self.  Ignoring the various philosophical   
   >> puzzles of mind/body dualism, one can see that the existence of a   
   >> non-physical soul distinct from a mind may be a non-scientific claim ---   
   >> with nothing counting as evidence for or against it.  Unless, that is,   
   >> there is some sort of physical confirmation that could be had, like the   
   >> experiment here provided (which requires that sometimes, your soul   
   >> leaves your body at death or at least a death-like state and returns   
   >> when the body revives).   
   >   
   > When Great Caesar's Ghost, or even Casper the Friendly Ghost,   
   > shows up for a chat, be sure to let me know. And that's distinctly   
   > after death. A near-death experience where the person eventually   
   > revives means the person never died. As far as "afterlife" is   
   > concerned, definitive proof (for me) requires a strict interpretation of   
   > death=after life is over, i.e., all brain cells biologically/metabolically   
   > dead, decayed, putrefied. But I'll accept Jesus' three days dead (not   
   > breathing) as an acceptable working definition.   
      
   Well, I've no idea what the current reports of NDE experiences and brain   
   activities are, but even if these reports happen when literally no   
   (measurable) brain activity exists, it seems that there's a big question   
   left.  Did the person have experiences (real or hallucinatory) when he   
   had no brain activity, or did he have false memory of these experiences   
   thereafter?   
      
   >> But, yeah, it's not clear that even if we could show these NDEs are real   
   >> OBEs[1], it would mean that the person lives on after real, permanent,   
   >> physical death.  Still, it would be an interesting if wildly implausible   
   >> result.   
   >   
   > Sure, I have no doubt that within, say, the next hundred years,   
   > at least several things that we today consider "wildly implausible"   
   > will in fact come to pass,   
   >    "Astrologers used to believe that Man's destiny is controlled   
   >     by the stars. But one day it may come to pass that the stars'   
   >     destiny is controlled by Man." -- Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008   
   > But that doesn't mean you should believe every stupid thing that   
   > any fool utters,   
   >    "You should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains   
   >     fall out." -- I don't know the source, but he's a funny guy.   
   > The vast, vast majority of wildly implausible things are wildly   
   > implausible for very, very good reasons.   
      
   Sure.   
      
   >>>    I'd have to guess that, if true, out-of-body means that your   
   >>> living brain is somehow responsible for generating your out-of-body   
   >>> persona. Kill off your in-body brain and it's bye-bye to that   
   >>> out-of-body you, too.   
   >>   
   >> But your guess is not what most believers in the afterlife would think.   
   >> At least, as far as I reckon, they are dualists, believing that the mind   
   >> is not merely identical with (or some sort of feature of) the brain.   
   >   
   > "Believe" is the word, all right. Anybody's free to believe whatever   
   > they want. The rub here is that many of these believers try to   
   > shove their beliefs down other people's throats, as if their   
   > beliefs are more than just beliefs. Some get argumentative, angry,   
   > red-faced enraged at any contradiction to their beliefs.   
   > And some can get violent.   
      
   Well, I haven't seen any evidence of such despicable behavior in this   
   particular discussion.  In any case, no one is trying to defend bad   
   behavior.   
      
   >    What I believe is that such people shouldn't be tolerated.   
   > Anyone asserting a belief as more than a belief should be   
   > immediately and emphatically put in their place.   
   > Failure to do so just leads to escalation of their dogmatism,   
   > and danger that they'll assert it more and more aggressively.   
   > ...And you'd better not disagree with anything I've just said!   
      
   I suppose that, since I don't know what "asserting a belief as more than   
   a belief" means, I won't disagree.   
      
   >>>    Anyway, I'd go along with those 0% successes, and guess that   
   >>> it's all a bunch of malarkey. Why does anybody follow up on   
   >>> this kind of foolishness? If you've got nothing better to do,   
   >>> then just trying to think of something better to do would still   
   >>> be better than this. Right?   
   >>   
   >> The people carrying out the experiment had some earlier results that   
   >> they interpreted as suggestive that NDEs are real, not hallucinatory,   
   >> events, if I understand correctly.  You can imagine that such a belief   
   >> would be good motivation to investigate further.  Seems to me that their   
   >> experiment (depending on its details) appropriately tests for a   
   >> negative result and so this is a pretty good reaction -- far better than   
   >> we usually see for similar claims.   
   >>   
   >> Anyway, my guess is that the actual results have not yet been reported,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)