Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey Occam,
Maybe you will need to repeat yourself somewhat, but that would be better than just making vague disparaging remarks against various researchers. At the very least, put up the details somewhere and link to them. You can't assume everyone has read each of your posts in minute detail!
Just what neuroscience results are you referring to here in connection with NDE's.
David |
I am certainly not repeating myself - you don't have to leave your armchair to find discussions here and elsewhere on the matter. There are at least two threads in this forum where quite a bit of detail is discussed.
The result of that discussion is that the NDE is a fascinating, striking and very meaningful experience. However, it poses no serious challenge at all to current views of consciosuness (i.e., survival). Most survivalist arguments are based on, or include, fallacious arguments due to recruting premises that are demonstrably false or recruting fallacies in the reasoning. Both lead to error.
I think the NDE should be researched intensively and we can learn a great deal from it. My current view is that the dying-brain framework presents the most parsimonious account of the evidence - but it is not complete and much refinement is needed. Whether that refinement will be to the benefit of survivalists is open to debate - but if the advances of the last 20 years are anything to go by - I would say it they won't like the data that is likely to emerge in thecoming years.
