XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: RaanOne@One.org   
      
   "CAndersen (Kimba)"  wrote in message   
   news:o940i0p90j23snqjbloc6522lb062dh5vf@4ax.com...   
   > 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.   
      
   Belief need not enter into it whatsoever.  Your dichotomy is problematic and   
   arbitrary and serves no good purpose, but allows for the possibility of   
   complete fantasy to be taken for truth.  Note here that I did not say   
   anything in particular was in fact complete fantasy, lest you jump to that   
   distorted conclusion once again, due likely to you inability to read   
   objectively when you feel your precious beliefs are challenged.  Here is the   
   challenge then: Name anything demonstrably actual that is not natural.   
   --   
                  >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)