XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: KimbaWLionATaolDOTcom@127.0.0.1   
      
   farchy@u.washington.edu (Floyd) wrote:   
      
   >I second Card XII's recomendation that Paul should consult with a   
   >medical professional, particularly since his last paragraph seems to   
   >suggest that he is not happy with these experiences.  If the   
   >experiences are causing him emotional stress, as he seems to imply, he   
   >may need to have his medications changed or his dosage altered in   
   >order to feel comfortable.   
      
   A reasonable suggestion, and you mention one of the three reasons why I'm   
   inclined to believe that (at least) a significant portion of his   
   experiences are due to some sort of physical cause.   
      
   Just a couple of minor points... (well, one's not so minor)   
      
   >Researchers like Blackmore and Jensen were   
   >never trying to disprove, or even dispute, the existence of an   
   >afterlife; that's not what science does.   
      
   From what I read of Blackmore, I believe she _was_ actively trying to   
   disprove the existence of an afterlife. Jensen, after initially being   
   satisfied that ketamine provided a full (physical) explanation for NDEs   
   came to the conclusion that there must be a spiritual (supernatural)   
   component to them as well. No disagreement on the point that good science   
   does not try to disprove the existence of anything.   
      
   >We do not know, and indeed can not know,   
   >whether the experiences are also "supernatural" in any way because, by   
   >definition, the "supernatural" is outside of nature and therefore not   
   >measurable.   
      
   I realize this statement doesn't reflect just you, it reflects practically   
   our entire society. But this is the type of thinking that most needs to   
   change. "Supernatural" is an artificial definition. Somehow "physical" and   
   "natural" became synonymous when they aren't, and somehow measurements   
   became the new god of nature. Talking about what is and isn't inside or   
   outside of nature is like talking about what's inside or outside a Mobius   
   strip.   
      
   >Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, but we can not   
   >determine that from the experiences themselves.   
      
   The scientific method can be applied to anecdotal evidence; it's done all   
   the time. See the works of Ian Stevenson and Carol Bowman. In fact, I   
   would say that it is far more scientific to analyze the wealth of reports   
   of "supernatural" phenomena than to reject them as unknowable. If   
   investigation is not the heart of science, what good is it?   
      
   My own first experience with what is labeled outside of nature left me   
   with a frightening dilemma: either I was going insane, or everything I had   
   been taught to believe was wrong. Faced with experiential evidence I could   
   not deny, I investigated. I sought out reports from others who had had   
   similar experiences. I read what was written in and about religions around   
   the world. I found that I was not alone, and that there is a strong   
   correllation at the basis of all approaches to the "supernatural" (i.e.,   
   religions). More practically, if what I was experiencing was the result of   
   brain malfunction, I could not expect the quality of my life to improve.   
   But it has, both from my point of view and that of the people around me.   
      
   Objectively, the best I can offer as proof woud be my accounts of a trial   
   of telepathy that proceded exactly as intended and had the desired   
   outcome, and of seeing and conversing with the spirit of a deceased friend   
   hours before being informed of her death (that is, there was no element of   
   desire or wishful thinking in that encounter).   
      
   There are many more experiences I have had that are far more subjective in   
   nature, such as remembering a portion of a past life--this memory   
   accounted for a lifelong problem I have had, and remembering it and being   
   able to consider it from the point of view I have now enabled me to get   
   over that problem. This experience correlates perfectly with many others'   
   accounts of past life memory and the effects of remembering, and this   
   correlation leads to my contention that such things are fully natural.   
      
   I have also had a spirit encounter that shares many aspects with many   
   reports of NDEs, although there was no physical trauma to me at the time   
   (certainly no clinical death).   
      
   My reason for focusing on the "natural"/"supernatural" dichotomy is that   
   the human mind has an unlimited capacity for denying reality. When talking   
   about experiences of the mind, the state of mind is a key factor, and   
   notions of unreality and unknowability are actual hindrances to knowing.   
   We can know these things. But it seems we need to first abandon the   
   idolatry and dogma of our golden instruments.   
      
      
   --   
   Reply address munged. You can figure it out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)