Out of body experiences just the product of a confused mind

reply to post by hawkiye


Really? Then I'm sure there are some well documented cases that you could provide.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Really? Then I'm sure there are some well documented cases that you could provide.

Google can be your friend and there are threads here on ATS too. Here is one of many:

..the big question for the skeptics is; how can people have clear consciousness in a state of cardiac arrest with no brain activity (flat EEG)? Clearly these cases should not be called near death experiences but life after death experiences because people with cardiac arrest are clearly dead with no breathing or heart beat.

The best documented instance of this paradox is the case of Pam Reynolds. In 1991, Reynolds was diagnosed with a brain tumor and had to undergo very complex surgery called "hypothermic cardiac arrest." This is a procedure where the body temperature is lowered, the heartbeat and breathing stopped, the blood is drained from the body, and the brain waves are totally flat.

From 11:05 a.m. to 12:00 noon, Reynolds was clinically dead with flat EEG during the operation and in this timeframe she had a near-death experience. After coming back she was able to describe the instruments used during the operation and even conversations between the staff in the operating room. Both the instruments used and the conversations was later confirmed by the doctor and nurse.

Furthermore, her ears where plugged with a sound device that would make it impossible for her to hear anything. Dr. Spetzler, who carried out the operation, later said that, "At that stage in the operation, nobody can observe, hear, in that state...I don't have an explanation for it." There is no explanation and Pam's case is one of the strongest signs of life after death that have ever been recorded and monitored by science.

The case of Pam Reynolds is not only a case of clinical death beyond reasonable doubt, but also provides a clear case of "veridical perception," where things seen or heard by the person during the NDE are later confirmed by others. In the study of veridical perception some studies have shown remarkable results. In one study of 16 cases, 88 percent of perceptions outside the body appeared to be accurate and 31 percent could be confirmed by objective means. In another study involving 93 cases, 92 percent appeared to be completely accurate with 35 percent being confirmed by objective means...

...Interestingly, not only did he find that people who had poor eyesight could see clearly during the near-death experience, but he also found that some blind people were able to see for the very first time. In his study Ring found that 80 percent out of thirty-one blind people who had a near-death experience were able to see during their experience.

Vicky, one person who had been completely blind from birth and survived two near-death experiences, explained, "Those two experiences were the only time I could ever relate to seeing, and to what light was, because I experienced it. I was able to see." Another person, Brad, who had also been blind from birth said, "I know I could see and I was supposed to be blind...It was very clear when I was out. I could see details and everything."

This gets even more interesting when Ring then wanted to compare their eyeless seeing with their dreams. When asked to compare their near-death experiences to their dreams, both Vicky and Brad answered that there were no similarity at all. The big difference is that blind people do not see things in their dreams like sighted people do.

Vicky tells us that, "I have dreams in which I touch things...I taste things, touch things, hear things and smell things-that's it." And when asked whether she was able to see anything at all during her dreams she answers, "Nothing. No color, no sight of any sort, no shadows, no light, no nothing."

Brad explained the same, "I've had the very same consciousness level in my dreams as I've had in my waking hours. And that would be that all my senses function...except vision. In my dreams, I have no visual perceptions at all."

Here are examples of two people who have never been able to see, but in their near-death experience are able to see for the first time. How is it possible for these blind people to transcend the sensory restrictions?

ezinearticles.com...

reply to post by hawkiye

You think that's light you're seeing?

Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have said that. Are you implying that it is another stimulus that is responsible for the way we see things?

I don't really know how you can say it isn't light anyway, when the sun is up we can see clearly and when it goes down we can't see very well (without artificial light sources)

reply to post by hawkiye


The Pam Reynolds case is more easily explainable than you think, one of the reasons being simple bias.

www.infidels.org... (scroll down to the Pam Reynolds heading)


First, there's the amount of time between the supposed operation and the interview that the entire story is based on:

And although we are not given the exact date of the operation, Sabom reports that the procedure took place in August 1991 (38). He later tells us that he interviewed Pam for the first time on November 11, 1994 (186). That leaves over three years between the date of Pam's NDE and Sabom's interview—plenty of time for memory distortions to have played a role in her report of the experience.

This second quote illustrates that we can pinpoint when her out-of-body experience began, based on what she was able to hear. It turns out that it was not during the time that she lacked brain activity:

Unlike the other elements of her NDE, we can precisely time when Pam's OBE began because she did accurately describe an operating room conversation. Namely, she accurately recalled comments made by her cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Murray, about her "veins and arteries being very small" (Pam's words) (Sabom, "Light" 42). Two operative reports allow us to time this observation. First, in the head surgeon's report, Dr. Robert Spetzler noted that when he was cutting open Pam's skull, "Dr. Murray performed bilateral femoral cut-downs for cannulation for cardiac bypass" (185). So at about the same time that Dr. Spetzler was opening Pam's skull, Dr. Murray began accessing Pam's blood vessels so that they could be hooked up to the bypass machine which would cool her blood and ultimately bring her to standstill. Second, Dr. Murray's operative report noted that "the right common femoral artery was quite small" and thus could not be hooked up to the bypass machine. Consequently, Murray's report continues, "bilateral groin cannulation would be necessary: This was discussed with Neurosurgery, as it would affect angio access postoperatively for arteriography" (185). And although Pam's mother was given a copy of the head surgeon's operative report (which she said Pam did not read), the report did not say anything about any of Pam's arteries being too small (Sabom, "Shadow" 7).

But according to the story, she was not actually able to hear. Is this part of the story true?

Does he have any objective evidence that the earphones used to measure AEPs completely cut off sounds from the external environment?

Since Sabom does not back up this claim in Light and Death, I did a little research and discovered that his claim is indeed false. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as a matter of procedure, a patient who is monitored by the very same equipment to detect acoustic neuromas (benign brain tumors) "sits in a soundproof room and wears headphones" (NINDS).

If she was under anesthesia, how was she able to hear?

About one or two in a thousand patients undergoing general anesthesia report some form of anesthesia awareness. That represents between 20,000 and 40,000 patients a year within the United States alone. A full 48% of these patients report auditory recollections postoperatively, while only 28% report feeling pain during the experience (JCAHO 10). Moreover, "higher incidences of awareness have been reported for caesarean section (0.4%), cardiac surgery (1.5%), and surgical treatment for trauma (11-43%)" (Bünning and Blanke 343). Such instances must at least give us pause about attributing Pam's intraoperative recollections to some form of out-of-body paranormal perception

Etc. Etc.

reply to post by PieKeeper


You are really reaching on this one, also that is one of many cases. It seems you will go to any length to preserve your blindness.

I think we have gone about as far in this as we can go. Good luck. You can have the last word.

reply to post by hawkiye


Yeah. I guess scientific, rational explanation conflicts too much with your world view.

Confirmation bias much?

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Yeah. I guess scientific, rational explanation conflicts too much with your world view.

Confirmation bias much?

Ok I changed my mind since you are trying to pass off your arrogant ignorant drivel as rational explanation.

First you offer no proof of how the time of the OBE was determined. Did the doctor look at his watch when he said those things and then log it and then log whether there was brain activity? Second you did not read the whole article or if you did you completely ignored the evidence of blind people being able to see during OBE verified by them accurately describing the room it colors etc., and as for your saying people can hear while under anaesthesia you completely ignored the fact the she had ear plugs in.

And as i said this is one case of many, google is your friend. But we know you will of course not do anything to jeopardize your belief, and will use the same tactics of ignoring of the facts and circular arguing to try and preserve your illusionary bias.

This is what you do you pick and choose what you think supports your ignorant belief and completely ignore the facts that destroy it. You were probably a flat earther in a previous life and perhaps a church inquisition enforcer...

Even if you were right which you are not none of it proves chemical reactions in the brain equals a hallucination it is simply all speculation.

I wonder if any of the people on here who say they've had out of body experiences have ever taken '___'? I wonder if they would believe what they saw was real? I have had hallucinations naturally and artificially, so maybe I can be of some help here.

I ate a few tabs back in the day, and the first time I was cautioned to not do it if I wasn't "sure of myself in my mind" and to always remember that whatever I experience is just a drug and nothing more. Like someone said before it can cause ego death, this in itself is quite traumatic for some people and prone to producing vivid hallucinations via changes in brain chemistry because of intense emotions, I can't even begin to explain it briefly. I wonder if having the experience of taking a massive mind altering substance like '___' would change their belief on some things they think they might have seen. It is, in fact, not the substance of '___' that produces the hallucinogenic effects of the drug, but instead your brain. This also occurs naturally sometimes when you are under intense mental stress or badly injured and is not always accompanied by ego death, however I personally believe that near death experiences may cause it most of the time, though I don't have any way of knowing or proving. You can kind of control it and calm yourself, but it seems most people just 'submit' to the effects their brain is producing, for example what people say about going toward the light. In short, taking '___' may produce something similar to an artificial near death experience in your mind.

I know the things I saw were not real, however at the time they seemed VERY real to me and incredibly intense. There are still a few things I fail to understand how they happened even if intoxicated, for example one time it seemed me and a friend of mine experienced telepathy, and there is not really a way to explain it away other than genuine telepathy or both of our brains were doing the exact same thing at the exact same time, even saying that, I do not believe a legitimate out of body experience is possible unless your head is cut off, and then it may only be for a few seconds.

Quote of the day, "Be sure of yourself in your own mind".

Originally posted by hawkiye
First you offer no proof of how the time of the OBE was determined.

I addressed how this was determined with the second quote. She talked about hearing a conversation that took place before parts of her brain went inactive. This allows us to place when her OBE occured.

On the contrary, the claim that the OBE occured during her lack of brain activity has no evidence for it.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Second you did not read the whole article or if you did you completely ignored the evidence of blind people being able to see during OBE verified by them accurately describing the room it colors etc.

I am specifically addressing the Pam Reynolds case at this time, but the article doesn't specifically mention what the blind people actually saw. I'd also like to ask how people who have never seen color would go about describing it, or even know that they were seeing color in the first place.

I'd also like to point out how the article you posted doesn't contain citations.

Originally posted by hawkiye
, and as for your saying people can hear while under anaesthesia you completely ignored the fact the she had ear plugs in.

Addressed by the third quote.

Originally posted by hawkiye
And as i said this is one case of many, google is your friend. But we know you will of course not do anything to jeopardize your belief, and will use the same tactics of ignoring of the facts and circular arguing to try and preserve your illusionary bias.

Ignoring what facts? The "blind people seeing" was extremely vague and lacked citation, not exactly a "fact".

Originally posted by hawkiye
Even if you were right which you are not none of it proves chemical reactions in the brain equals a hallucination it is simply all speculation.

If you understood how the brain worked, then you would understand what hallucinations are.

reply to post by PieKeeper

Originally posted by hawkiye
First you offer no proof of how the time of the OBE was determined.



I addressed how this was determined with the second quote. She talked about hearing a conversation that took place before parts of her brain went inactive. This allows us to place when her OBE occured.

Same ole Same ole. NO YOU DID NOT ADDRESS IT. I specifically asked how did they determine the time. You said by the conversation she related, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHAT TIME that conversation occurred and the brain activity readings at that exact time of the conversation? A you telling me they logged every second of the conversation? Even with a time stamp on the EKG are you telling me they jotted down the exact time of the conversation in relation to the EKG time stamp? Sorry that dog won't hunt!

And once again you ignore the ear plugs so the whole BS excuse is moot.

Originally posted by hawkiye
, and as for your saying people can hear while under anaesthesia you completely ignored the fact the she had ear plugs in.

Addressed by the third quote.

Sorry son there is nothing in the 3rd quote adressing the EAR PLUGS. This is just another blatant attempt by you to obfuscate the facts and ignore anything that blows your whole paradigm out of the water. EAR PLUGS completely destroys any possible physical auditory possibilities.

Ignoring what facts? The "blind people seeing" was extremely vague and lacked citation, not exactly a "fact".

Like I said google is your friend. How long will you continue to deny and refuse to look at the large amount of evidence?

Here is a site the goes through many cases and the scientific evidence and a list of the types of evidence. In the site the list are links:

www.near-death.com... ''

Like I said google is your friend, there is a ton of evidence out there but you have to be willing to actually look at it and consider it which you are obviously not. I know you will just come back with some flippant answer however for the benefit of others who want to look at the evidence they can go to the site.

(1) People have NDEs while they are brain dead.
(2) Out-of-body perception during NDEs have been verified.
(3) People born blind can see during an NDE.
(4) NDEs demonstrate the return of consciousness from death.
(5) The NDE study by Raymond Moody has been replicated.
(6) Experimental evidence suggests that NDEs are real.
(7) NDEs can be considered to be an objective experience.
(8) NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.
(9) Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) have been validated in scientific studies.
(10) Autoscopy during NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.
(11) A transcendental "sixth sense" of the human mind has been found.
(12) NDEs support the "holonomic" theory of consciousness.
(13) The expansion of consciousness reported in NDEs supports consciousness theories.
(14) The brain's connection to a greater power has been validated by indisputable scientific facts.
(15) The replication of NDEs using hallucinogenic drugs satisfies the scientific method.
(16) NDEs are different from hallucinations.
(17) The replication of NDEs using a variety of triggers satisfies the scientific method.
(18) Apparitions of the deceased have been induced under scientific controls.
(19) People having NDEs have brought back scientific discoveries.
(20) NDEs have advanced the field of medical science.
(21) NDEs have advanced the field of psychology.
(22) NDEs correspond to the "quirky" principles found in quantum physics.
(23) The transcendental nature of human consciousness during NDEs corresponds to principles found in quantum physics.
(24) NDEs have advanced the fields of philosophy and religion.
(25) NDEs have the nature of an archetypal initiatory journey.
(26) People have been clinically dead for several days and report the most profound NDEs.
(27) NDEs have produced visions of the future which later prove to be true.
(28) Groups of dying people can share the same NDE.
(29) Experiencers are convinced the NDE is an afterlife experience.
(30) The NDEs of children are remarkably similar to adult NDEs.
(31) Experiencers of NDEs are profoundly changed in ways that cannot occur from hallucinations and dreams.
(32) NDEs cannot be explained merely by brain chemistry alone.
(33) NDEs have been reported by people since the dawn of recorded history.
(34) The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has serious flaws.
(35) Skeptical arguments against the NDE "survival theory" are not valid.
(36) The burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics of the survival theory.
(37) Other anomalous phenomena supports the survival theory.
(38) NDEs support the existence of reincarnation.
(39) The scientific evidence supporting reincarnation also supports the survival theory.
(40) Xenoglossy supports reincarnation and the survival theory.
(41) Past-life regression supports reincarnation and the survival theory.
(42) Contact with "the deceased" has occurred under scientific controls.
(43) After-death communications have been reported by credible people.
(44) Dream research supports the NDE and survival theory.
(45) Deathbed visions support the NDE and survival theory.
(46) Remote viewing supports the NDE and survival theory.
(47) The efficacy of prayer has been demonstrated under scientific controls.
(48) The "Scole Experiments" during the 1990s support the NDE and survival theory.
(49) Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) supports the NDE and survival theory.
(50) Prominent atheists have had NDEs which caused them to believe in the afterlife.
(51) Psychometry supports the NDE and survival theory.

Also there are several threads on ATS here is one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by hawkiye
Same ole Same ole. NO YOU DID NOT ADDRESS IT. I specifically asked how did they determine the time. You said by the conversation she related, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHAT TIME that conversation occurred and the brain activity readings at that exact time of the conversation? A you telling me they logged every second of the conversation? Even with a time stamp on the EKG are you telling me they jotted down the exact time of the conversation in relation to the EKG time stamp? Sorry that dog won't hunt!

They know what time the conversation occurred because they did indeed record it and were measuring her brain activity. Read the article, there's a chart that displays various events during the procedure.

Again, this is evidence that can help us pinpoint when the OBE took place, and there isn't any evidence to show that it took place during "brain death."

Originally posted by hawkiye
And once again you ignore the ear plugs so the whole BS excuse is moot.
-----
Sorry son there is nothing in the 3rd quote adressing the EAR PLUGS. This is just another blatant attempt by you to obfuscate the facts and ignore anything that blows your whole paradigm out of the water. EAR PLUGS completely destroys any possible physical auditory possibilities.

Again, this is addressed by the third quote. What she was wearing were not actually ear plugs but ear phones used to stimulate her brain, which you would know if you read the article. The author of the original interview didn't go into much detail about the ear phones, but the author of the article that I'm quoting from found that the ear phones (plugs if you will) don't entirely obscure sound, allowing her to hear the conversation through normal sensory input.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Here is a site the goes through many cases and the scientific evidence and a list of the types of evidence. In the site the list are links:

www.near-death.com... ''

(1) NDEs occur while patients are brain dead.
- This first point uses the exact case that we have seen debunked. There is no evidence that Pam Reynolds experienced her NDE while "brain dead." This website is losing credibility on the very first point.

(3) People born blind can see during an NDE.
- I skipped to this one because you keep repeating that people born blind can see during these experiences. The woman quoted in the resulting article is describing herself and what she is wearing, things that she would already know. The article doesn't mention her seeing color. I don't find this particular point to be credible either. She's describing rings that she's wearing, of course she knows how to describe them.

I'm not going to waste my time on any more of these. That's 0/2 on the first three, not the greatest first impression.

reply to post by PieKeeper


Sigh! I read the article they are guessing at the time of the conversation there is no recorded conversation just the EEG and thier guess at when the conversation occurred in relation to it. Too bad it's a moot argument since she had ear plugs in. Their argument that she could hear despite the earplugs is quite a stretch.

Also there attempt to discredit her accurate visual description of things is laughable. She didn't have a groove on the bone saw correct after three years. Even if for sake of further argument they were correct it still does not prove chemical reactions on the brain are the source of hallucinations.

All neurological theories that conclude hallucinations, OBE's NDE's are created by the brain must show how the core elements of them occur subjectively because of specific neurological events triggered by a chemical reaction in the brain. And then if true must show any other experience that correlates to brain chemical reactions is not created by the brain such as the hallucination you are seeing all around you right now. Good luck proving that

Your poor reading comprehension and failure to grasp information is impeading this conversation tremendously and causing us to tread water. As of this post, I've addressed the "ear plugs" claim three times. I honestly don't wish to continue this any further, it's been an incredible waste of time for me.

Originally posted by hawkiye
I read the article they are guessing at the time of the conversation there is no recorded conversation just the EEG and thier guess at when the conversation occurred in relation to it.

They recorded their observations, and Doctors typically relate their observations verbally. "Two operative reports allow us to time this observation. First, in the head surgeon's report, Dr. Robert Spetzler..." and "Second, Dr. Murray's operative report noted that..."

Originally posted by hawkiye
Too bad it's a moot argument since she had ear plugs in. Their argument that she could hear despite the earplugs is quite a stretch.

There's no evidence that the ear "plugs" (actually ear phones as explained earlier) totally obscured all auditory input.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Also there attempt to discredit her accurate visual description of things is laughable. She didn't have a groove on the bone saw correct after three years.

They gave a rational explanation for how she could have guessed the features of the bone saw. It was, to the layman, almost identical to dental drills being used at the time.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Even if for sake of further argument they were correct it still does not prove chemical reactions on the brain are the source of hallucinations.

At the moment, that is not what we are arguing. We are arguing the validity of the Pam Reynolds case.

All neurological theories that conclude hallucinations, OBE's NDE's are created by the brain must show how the core elements of them occur subjectively because of specific neurological events triggered by a chemical reaction in the brain. And then if true must show any other experience that correlates to brain chemical reactions is not created by the brain such as the hallucination you are seeing all around you right now.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Shouldn't you be trying to prove your position rather than relying on the opposition to fail? Tell me what you want to know and I'll try to give you my best answer.

reply to post by PieKeeper

They recorded their observations, and Doctors typically relate their observations verbally. "Two operative reports allow us to time this observation. First, in the head surgeon's report, Dr. Robert Spetzler..." and "Second, Dr. Murray's operative report noted that..."

Both of which were written reports after the fact hence those trying to pinpoint the time are guessing at the time in relation to the EEG.

There's no evidence that the ear "plugs" (actually ear phones as explained earlier) totally obscured all auditory input.

Are you mentally challenged? Stick some frigging earphones in your ears and turn on some music and see how well you can hear. Oh yeah just to make it interesting then take some anaesthetic till you are passed out, clinically dead, brain dead, and see how well you can hear... No evidence... Shakes head, BIG SIGH!!!

That pathetic attempt to try and say she could hear in that state is so ridiculously non credible as to convict thier entire report alone!

Quoting me: "All neurological theories that conclude hallucinations, OBE's NDE's are created by the brain must show how the core elements of them occur subjectively because of specific neurological events triggered by a chemical reaction in the brain. And then if true must show any other experience that correlates to brain chemical reactions is not created by the brain such as the hallucination you are seeing all around you right now."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Shouldn't you be trying to prove your position rather than relying on the opposition to fail? Tell me what you want to know and I'll try to give you my best answer.

And you accuse me of poor reading comprehension... LOL! I have proven my positions several times now and your best answer has been laughable at best, incredibly annoying and ignorant at worst. You are right about one thing finally, it has been a waste of time. I am done with you and will not respond to your ignorance and denial anymore.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Both of which were written reports after the fact hence those trying to pinpoint the time are guessing at the time in relation to the EEG.

Placing the time of the OBE is based on what she experienced. Then it was determined that the conversation that she heard took place at a time when she still had brain activity. Like I've already said, this is evidence that she had her OBE during a time when her brain was still active. Again, there is no evidence to show that she had her OBE when her brain was inactive.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Are you mentally challenged? Stick some frigging earphones in your ears and turn on some music and see how well you can hear.

If you read the article, you'd know that they didn't play music, but periodic clicks. In the article that I'm referencing, the author found from medical sources that the ear phones are used to test hearing, and that these tests take place in a soundproof room so that the test subject doesn't hear any outside noises. So, we have evidence that the ear phones don't entirely obscure sound, but we don't have evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Oh yeah just to make it interesting then take some anaesthetic till you are passed out, clinically dead, brain dead, and see how well you can hear... No evidence... Shakes head, BIG SIGH!!!

I've already addressed this with quote 4. Sometimes anesthetic doesn't completely work, and allows patients to hear and feel things going on during their surgery. You'd know this if you had read the article.

Originally posted by hawkiye
And you accuse me of poor reading comprehension... LOL! I have proven my positions several times now and your best answer has been laughable at best, incredibly annoying and ignorant at worst. You are right about one thing finally, it has been a waste of time. I am done with you and will not respond to your ignorance and denial anymore.

I asked you to restate what you wanted to know, you weren't being entirely clear. Rather than mocking you and ignoring the question, as you have done repeatedly, I asked you to simply explain. At least I am trying to understand rather than repeating my misunderstandings when confronted with evidence. You still haven't said anything about the links on gravity I provided or my debunking of the "blind being able to see".

Go drop some acid and then tell me that these scientists are right

reply to post by norsefire


They are right. '___' works via the secretion of several neurotransmitters in the brain (dopamine, adrenaline and serotonin)

reply to post by Griffo


Surely some obes may well be that from a quirk in the brain activity but some obes are real.
For eg, an obe when you are fast aslleep and you find yourself in a different time and space.
You can hear, touch, taste smel, see l etc.

I nshort some obes are quite real

Originally posted by Shadowfoot
I suspect this study in relationship to this thread is meant to be supportive of the doctrine of a certain western based religion whose adherents try at anything to discredit other forms of spiritual endeavor to make themselves feel superior and correct in their own acceptance of said doctrine.

Just QFT. Science has become synonymous with Absolute Truth and everyone disagreeing without any valid empirical data to back it up is put in the "not intelligent" corner. Scientists have become the new messiahs for many, delivering anyone who bows down to the scientific doctrine from the evil that is called belief and onto the world of knowing for certain. Just as people used to invoke Jesus' name (or any other holy saint) against whatever they don't like, so do people state researchers' names against anything they don't like.

But to try and look at from their perspective, trying to think along the lines of the scientists who performed the test and their conclusions, I would argue we don't exist, all humans (in fact, all lifeforms) are no more than mere robots. This is because I used to think "I" am moving my arm but since the brain can be electrically stimulated to move the arm it can't be that there is such a thing as a self. So in retrospect all things I believed I achieved myself in the past were not because of me but happened simply because of this physical body interacting as best it could with it's environment which included teachers etc.

Heck, Descartes was wrong when he said "I think, therefor I am"; sorry Descartes those were just a few chemicals which made the body say that, you have nothing to do with your thoughts, machines can make the body think so that doesn't prove the existence of an entity such as a self. It should have been "I believe I think therefor I believe I think I am".

All humanity is are just a bunch of brains fooling itself they exist as real and independently existing from eachother as individuals, right? No human spirit, no love, no compassion, just some cold hollow fantasy our brains makes up.

Originally posted by polarwarrior

Originally posted by madscientistintraining

getting a little sick of the usual crowd of sceptic physisists and biologists coming up with bs for things they don't understand..

Leave 'em be, this stuff makes them feel really uncomfortable so they need a way to explain it away. No need to go pointing out that it didn't prove anything or was a really flawed experiment.

Flawless execution my dear polarwarrior. It's indeed needless to point it.

Btw, I mostly agree with this, but correlation != causation. We can never prove nonexistence of god. That's the problem here. We cannot prove a non-spiritual element. It's pointless.

Don't ever pick a fight with a spiritual or religious man. They always win.