You can't dismiss the evidence that easily. Being asleep and clinically dead (no brain activity for dreams) are completely different things. I mean this could be evidence of an afterlife.
I am saying that the brain can trick us into having very vivid dreams or hallucinations and we can mistake them as being real. That means that all NDE's are patently falsifiable. There can be no evidence that the hallucination of NDE's described by people take place when the brain is actually 'clinically dead' or on the epoch of being 'clinically dead'.
And if you think perfhaps when the patient started to have brain activity, the brain started doing "trippy things," that doesn't fit in with the timeline.
Did the patient merely state he had an NDE at a certain time?
If thoughts are physical how come they have no physical characterisitcs. Another way of putting this is there is nothing from investigating the material brain that would lead one to be able to show in any way shape or form that it produces thoughts. The only way we know that it does is through direct experience.
What you are talking about his how information is transmitted between cells. And if you still think it's metaphysical after reading the following link, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential
If you activate certain brain areas a person is more likely to have certain mental experiences. The reverse is alos true, certain mental experiences are likely to make certain brain areas more active.
That sounds like circular logic to me. If the brain causes mental experiences, then saying that mental experiences cause brain activity doesn't make any point of being immaterial. There are many brain activities that 'fire' and as a result, cause brain activity elsewhere.
proves nothing about the brain being material.
Now you're just not making any sense. I assume you are referring to brain functions rather than the brain itself. In either case, it is irrational beyond words.
(note: the areas of the brain more active during meditation is the prefrontal cortex (the seat of higher functions, what separates us from animals). So, doesn't that give you an indication that people are seeing things more realistically while meditating?
Well your use of the word 'realistically' is very vague. It also doesn't serve to make a point since higher order brain functions also lead us towards irrational practices such as religion, astrology, etc.
There is a connection between conscious thought and brain, but it is a two way street. What are you saying, that consciousness is a propery of brains like heat is a property?
I don't even know what you mean by that - I can not see your point here. My definition of consciousness is that it is an emergent property of the brain which draws upon many different functions of the brain. ie. Sensory awareness, emotions, memory, personality and pretty much all parts of the brain contributes a part of we call consciousness.
But all brain functions are emergent - not just consciousness. There is no single neuron in the brain that on it's own can tell your heart to beat, or give you a memory or an emotion.
DId I say it is conclusive? I said there is evidence. And it is more than "hinted at tentative," it's legitimate science. Stop dismissing science just becasue doesn't fit in with your worldview - it's no different when you do it than when a Christian dismisses evolution.
It barely qualifies of evidence, and since the majority of studies show it to be
nothing more than a placebo, I think it's clear that Acupuncture is just that.
But I am showing why reincarnation and accupuncture are not as "stupid" as you are assuming. Here is Carl Sagan on reincarnation: "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study:...(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true." I'm just suggesting that Sagan is a pretty sceptical guy, right? Maybe these things aren't "stupid."
Acupuncture is already disproved comprehensively. As for reincarnation, there may be cases that require study to come to a conclusion, but if there is no conclusion to be made, it is not evidence for reincarnation. I could just as easily call it evidence of a conspiracy - the more plausible scenario.
No, this is just you making arbitrary metaphysical assertions that don't have scientifc evidence to back it up.
You have completely lost your way on this subject. Nothing you have said has made any sense, and you have yet again contradicted yourself.
You stated that meditation uses areas of the prefrontal cortex and at the same time claim meditation experience to be non-physical? And you are saying I am making arbitrary metaphysical assertions?!
No, this is just you taking your opinion to be truth. It's no different than someone saying the Bible is 100% true. Stating your opinions as fact does not make it so.
The part in bold is correct (the rest is just deliberate twisting of my words on your part), but logic and critical thinking will get you very far in determining the likelihood of metaphysical claims, miracles etc.
Occam's razor states that all things being equal the simplest solution is the one most likely to be true. What you are siggesting is that a massive conspiracy has taken place instead
So are you suggesting that reincarnation is more likely than a conspiracy between two families? Sounds like a retarded use of Occam's Razor to me...
We are talking about whether or not there is evidence. There is.
If you qualify this as evidence for the supernatural... Then there is also evidence for ghosts, aliens visiting earth, etc. But isn't it interesting that for all this 'evidence', we are no closer to determining the actual existence of the object of these extravagant claims?
Here's what a Washington post journalist had to say on it: "In scores of cases around the world, multiple witnesses confirm that children have spontaneously supplied names of towns and relatives, occupations and relationships, attitudes and emotions that pinpointed a single, dead individual -- often apparently unknown to their present families. Trying to make sense of these cases is what has involved Stevenson for almost 40 years. It is what we have been doing in Lebanon and India: examining records, interviewing witnesses and measuring the results against possible alternative explanations...
If Stevenson is largely ignored by his mainstream peers, in some circles he is a scientific legend. His dogged collection of cases -- closing in on 3,000 now -- his meticulous documentation and cross-checking, his prodigious and scholarly publication have made him a hero to many people who would like respectable reasons to distrust the radical materialism of Western science. For his own part, Stevenson has reached this conclusion: "I think a rational person, if he wants, can believe in reincarnation on the basis of evidence."
So he his fundamentally basing his evidence on eye witness testimony that the child 'spontaneously' came out with accurate information on a dead person he is reincarnated as? His methodology may be - in a way - very scientifc, but eye witness testimony relating to a metaphysical matter is surely
not science.
He has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Science is a method, not some monolithic body that gets convinced or not. The way you talk about "science" is the same way people in the middle ages talked about "the church."
Right, that's my exact point. You haven't looked at the peer-reviewd science. Stevenson was published in peer-reviewed journals. Yet you hypocritically dimiss this as "stupid" despite the fact that it falls under "the best tool for knowledge man has created." In other words, you only accept science that fits in with your worldview. You are no different than Christians that dismiss evolution, and you are a hypocrite.
That is not what I meant. What I meant was that his findings never amounted to conclusion via scientific peer review. Needless to say, his findings were inconclusive.
