XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins
From: sfct@aol.com
Von Smith wrote:
>
> stevefct wrote in message news:<4124AC57.1B68@aol.com>...
> > Von Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > olive wrote in message news:<41218DE2.29A4@aol.com>...
> > > > Raan wrote:
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Raan you didn't understand the post at all, did you? It wasn't about
the
> > > > speed of light, but about learning to accept what seems to be the
> > > > impossible when you're forced to face new objective facts. Einstein
> > > > understood the lesson, you can't, even when it is pointed out to you by
> > > > another.
> > > >
> > > > Rudy was a young Phd. student in excellant health when he had his NDE
> > > > dream about Godel dying that night. His young brain was in excellant
> > > > shape with no reason for having any dream about Godel's death or the
> > > > white light in it. GET THE POINT? It was easy enough for me.
> > >
> > > I haven't been following this thread for long, but when did NDEs
> > > become expanded to include any dream that includes an element of white
> > > light? By that standard I have had a few NDEs myself.
> > > And I don't see in the passage you quote where Rudy had a dream about
> > > Goedel dying. He had a dream about him knocking over a chessboard.
> > > I'm sure if Goedel had gotten better, Rudy could have decided
> > > afterwords that the dream was somehow a premonition of that, too.
> > >
> > > Von Smith
> > > Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
> >
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************
****************************************************************
********************
> >
> > Von Smith huh? I bet.
> >
> >
> > Gee Von you sound like Raan. Just kidding. Anyone with any sincere
> > interest or knowledge on the subject of NDEs should know seeing a white
> > light is a very common NDE experience. You didn't know that? Tsh, tsh,
> > shame....shame. I'm going to conclude your interest in NDEs isn't quite
> > up to snuff. But forget this. Not important.
>
> I realize that white light is a common feature of NDEs. It is also a
> very common experience for people using a flashlight to find the
> fusebox. It isn't exactly an exotic phenomenon. To say that Rudy's
> dream is an NDE simply because it had a white light expands the
> definition of NDE to the point of meaninglessness. As I said before,
> I can remember several dreams that I have had that involved white
> light. Is that sufficient to make them NDEs?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing lack of logic here Raan. May I call you Raan? How do I make
this simple?
Point 1:
Is seeing a brilliant white light a common experience with people who
have experienced a NDE? Yes or NO? YES!! Most NDE experiences have had
a white light in them. Not only that, many feel God is rather close to
them when they see it. Common knowledge.
Point 2:
But percentage of all dreams have a brilliant white light in them? High
or very low? SUPER LOW!! And even if they see a white light in an
ordinary dream[like your pretend flashlight], how many of those white
lights come with a FEELING THAT GOD IS THERE TOO?
Question :
What are the odds of someone having a dream about a friend who happens
to die that particular night with a white light in it?
Answer:
Too low for anyone to rationally assume it was due to simple accidental
coincidence. At least not as the first plausible explanation. Does it
mean its true? No, and I never said that, did I? But can you be rational
and intelligent not to look into the question as a probable cause if
you're sincerely open minded? Fuck no.
I didn't state Rudy had a NDE himself. Nope, no, NOOOO! Read carefully.
I said Rudy picked up on Godel's NDE. If you can assume NDEs then
assuming having souls is a small jump. And assuming the existence of ESP
is a very short step.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
> >
> > Let's examine Raan's underlying logic shall we? How does it go in the
> > professional debunker manual? Gee I forgot! Oh yea I remember now.
> >
> > If someone has a dream about a future event and that future event does
> > indeed happen it can still be contributed to chance. We'll also assume
> > most people forget their misses. Another assumption we'll make. Helps
> > our case by setting up all the presupposes doesn't it? A good lawyer
> > trick.
>
> And a reasonable assumption, since confirmation bias is a
> well-documented quirk of human behavior. I learned about it in
> Psychology 101. Even Francis Bacon commented on it almost 400 years
> ago: "Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss."
> Any evaluation of anecdotal evidence that does *not* take
> confirmation bias into account is analytically flawed.
>
> >
> > So naturally we'll logically conclude [and rightly also in our all
> > deserved smuggness] that the number of misses usually out number the
> > hits, therefore, the whole question of psychic abilities is questionable
> > at best, but most likely absurd.
>
> I can't speak for Raan, but that would not be my argument at all,
> being a complete non sequitur. The fact of confirmation bias does not
> make the prospect of psychic phenomena absurd. What it does do is
> call into question the validity and rigor of using selected anecdotes
> as evidence for *anything*.
>
> > It makes us look a lot smarter to not
> > believe in psychic dreams than to believe in them. This always helps the
> > ego of the non-believer. To know how much smarter he is than the average
> > person. Almost gives you a right to lecture them. Damn, almost gives you
> > a right to run society for poor confused saps. Notice how most lawyers
> > have done such a good job with it? A joke.
> >
> > Do you believe the above superficial reasoning? It sounds good, it
> > smells good, but you'll suffer from logical ingestion if you swallow the
> > bullcrap.
> >
>
> On the other hand, it makes us look like we don't have an argument
> when we spend several paragraphs sneering at our opponent, rather than
> critiquing his reasons, or presenting supporting evidence for our own
> position.
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
I only sneer when the other does it first. Lets them feel how it feels
to be on the other side.
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > OK, let's really get logical shall we? Lets really talk about odds.
> >
> >
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
