• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Science and "Spirit"

Started by EvB, June 01, 2009, 08:29:30 PM

EvB

"Spirit" is in quotes because I think there is a better word - I just don't  know what it is. 

We've all heard the theories on how the classic NDE (tunnels - white lights and so on) are neurological reactions of a dying brain.  But, the question of how the person who had the NDE could report on events that occurred while they were clinically dead was a sticking point usually explained away by comment like "oh, someone was talking about it as they "came back" - and they hallucinated the visual" or some such . .   The dying brain misfire makes sense to me - the memory explanation seems lame - but as every one of these reports in anecdotal -there really isn't any way to prove it.

NPR's All Things Considered reported on another perspective.  I don't find it particularly satisfying either - but at least it's not the same old same old.  This link will take you to both a print story and a 10 minute stream of the original report:  Decoding The Mystery Of Near-Death Experiences

nika01

Quote from: EvB on June 01, 2009, 08:29:30 PM

NPR's All Things Considered reported on another perspective.   [/b][/url]

Scientists have cast a skeptical eye on these accounts.... from NPR.

Geez EvB, you really know how to get my goat. First of all, "All things Considered" give me a break. I hate NPR. They are so fucking pretentious. The so called "scientists" are nothing but scientific reductionists. They deny all possibility of the non physical reality.

Here is where they all go wrong. Acquisition of Hidden Knowledge. Many NDErs come to know things, facts, that they should not, could not know. It is impossible to reproduce these things in a laboratory, but the facts speak for themselves.

The idiot so called scientists just dont go there with their pathetic attempts at explanations. They love to delve into pseudotechnological/scientific explanations that boil down to absolutely nothing. It is really easy to make a highly technical argument sound good, problem is, they ignore really pertinent information.

EvB

Well okay then!  My job here is done - this looks like a potential discussion.  ;D

nika01

What discussion ?

Case is closed as far as I am concerned.

Then we have nothing to discuss.

....

......


.........



/thread


nika01

We can discuss how the "scientists" overlook data to arrive at their reductionist promouncements.

I can't respect anyone that overlooks Data!!!!!



Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod