A thought experiment...

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Ok, I'm game to explore it. why don't you present the message as you see it and let's try and figure out how it should affect our behaviour.

Arouet,

Game, huh? As in playing games?

Coming up on 6000 posts and you still don't know what some of the common things are that NDE'ers say?

Does that really need to be explored?

Sorry, not a game I feel like playing.

[Arouet]

Is "I'm game" not an expression you are familiar with? Did I say something insulting - certainly didn't mean to! OP suggested a thought experiment that I agreed to participate in. You suggested there is a universal message from NDEs that should affect my future behaviour under the thought experiment. I suggested you set out the way you see it then we can explore how we think it should affect our behaviour.

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Is "I'm game" not an expression you are familiar with? Did I say something insulting - certainly didn't mean to! OP suggested a thought experiment that I agreed to participate in. You suggested there is a universal message from NDEs that should affect my future behaviour under the thought experiment. I suggested you set out the way you see it then we can explore how we think it should affect our behaviour.

No worries, I didn't take it as an insult.

But, I'm not really interested in exploring the topic if, after 6000 posts, you are not aware of the common things NDE'ers report of their experience.

Sounds like the beginnings of a useless conversation to me.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by EthanT

No worries, I didn't take it as an insult.

But, I'm not really interested in exploring the topic if, after 6000 posts, you are not aware of the common things NDE'ers report of their experience.

Sounds like the beginnings of a useless conversation to me.

Do what you want, but that was the purpose of the thought experiment.

[Kai]

First of all, let me respond purely to the thought experiment.

The results of a "best of all possible worlds" outcome in the Aware Experiment (far from likely, I think) would (imo) be something as follows:

1) Those already 'somewhat' open to the idea of survival of consciousness would be encouraged.

2) Armchair philosophers and scientists definitively opposed would not alter their stance or behavior unless and until coerced by more or less undeniable mounting data.

3) A moderate degree of increased interest, professionally, might take place in the medical realm, pending further confirmations, but it would be slow to gear up, imo, and would require a nourishing stream of confirming data to prevent it drying up.

(/thought experiment response)

For what it's worth, my prediction for what I reckon is *really* going to happen with the Aware Study is this

1) I suspect no one will see a target
2) The discourse in the release will talk along the lines of "consciousness survving further into the process of death than we have supposed" (or similar language) to offset the non-result.
3) Rumors may emerge about patients who saw "other things" perhaps apparently out of body, but which were not under information control. Scientists will admit that these cannot be considered experimental results, but many people in popular discussions will process them as evidence.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by EthanT

So, you wouldn't even think about it? wonder about it? or, anything?

This wouldn't give any credence to millenia of religious thinking or, if you prefer, spiritual thinking, coming from the East, or the the West?

You don't think NDEs jive up with any of what folks have been saying for 1000's of years?

It would change my views on OBE's. I see nothing in that study or the results that would change anything about validity of religious thinking weather they have been thinking of that for 1000's of years or not.

The study asks the question of 'Can these images be seen while being on the table?' Where is there a religious component?

[fls]

Originally Posted by docpoco

What kind of changes do you think we would see in people?

I don't actually think we'd see much change. People's habits of thinking will probably lead them to incorporate the results in a way similar to what they already believe. For example, the discovery that to some extent conscious awareness has a component separate from the body's senses doesn't make any of the rest of the claims people make any more true. It doesn't make visions of the 'afterlife' veridical, for example. If you already think that it does, then you will continue to do so. If you realise that it doesn't, this isn't sufficient to change that.

Do you think there would be a religious shift?

What does religion have to do with it? It doesn't make all of the wrong stuff religion has come up with any less wrong, so why would anyone suddenly look to religion for a reasonable interpretation of this new information?

Do you think skeptics are truly "scientific inquirers" who are capable of being convinced?

Skeptics will go along with whatever scientists make of the results, so this will depend solely upon what conclusions can be validly and reliably supported by the information.

Linda

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Scott

It would change my views on OBE's. I see nothing in that study or the results that would change anything about validity of religious thinking weather they have been thinking of that for 1000's of years or not.

The study asks the question of 'Can these images be seen while being on the table?' Where is there a religious component?

Where is there a religious component? Right after that when they report floating out of the room, flittering into some spiritual realm, and seeing God. It just seems really silly to say that the NDE experiences do not have spiritual overtones to them.

Anyhow, in our thought experiment, we are saying the AWARE study has shown that, during an NDE, consciousness has had an experience outside and separate/independent of the body and our test validates that as a legitimate, real experience. Somehow consciousness has seen the hidden visual cue, or picture.

Then, are we going to deny the further elements of NDEs and what patients report seeing (God, dead relatives, etc) immediately after that? Why? And, on what basis? Why would the NDE go from having valid, real experiences (seeing a cue card) to suddenly having experiences that are invalid?

Since the AWARE study (even in this thought experiment) does not prove consciousness exists indefinitely outside the body, I guess one can claim that the later part of the NDE is a delusional psychosis of a disembodied consciousness flittering out of existence, rescued at the last minute and brought back to sanity.

I'm sure all sorts of explanations along these lines could pop up if AWARE does actually show several hits. But, more than likely it won't even get that far, if it was just one hit. Then, one can say it was spurious, experimental error, information leakage, etc.

That is why this test won't result in any huge paradigm shift, imo.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by EthanT

Where is there a religious component? Right after that when they report floating out of the room, flittering into some spiritual realm, and seeing God.

A definitive, empirical demonstration of mind-body separation, that nobody could deny, would have a huge impact on science. It would open up the biggest can of worms you could imagine, surely! We would be faced with the problem of how to apply the scientific method to this other plane of existence without the role of third-person perspective. How could science deal with that? The scientific method itself would have to be reconsidered, or perhaps just its limits. I expect some would find that exciting, others would find it abhorrent.

We would start to view the value of our lives on earth differently. Again, this might swing both ways depending on the person. For example, knowing that death is not the end (where's sniffy when you need him ), would suicides increase? Would it provide an excuse for those who find it acceptable to kill in the name of ideology?

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

We would start to view the value of our lives on earth differently. Again, this might swing both ways depending on the person. For example, knowing that death is not the end (where's sniffy when you need him ), would suicides increase? Would it provide an excuse for those who find it acceptable to kill in the name of ideology?

And how would we judge based solely on the NDE experiments? That's my point: even accepting mind =/ brain we have precious little reliable information.