Jim Cross wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:59 pm
One of the things I learned from this interview that I didn't know was about the spike in electrical activity found just before death in humans.
I knew this spike had been detected in rats but didn't know it had been detected in humans.
I managed to track down the study that Blackmore mentions.
In each case, loss of blood pressure, as monitored by indwelling arterial line, was followed by a decline is BIS/PSI activity followed by a transient spike in BIS/PSI activity that approached levels normally associated with consciousness.
We further speculate that since this increase in electrical activity occurred when there was no discernable blood pressure, patients who suffer "near death" experiences may be recalling the aggregate memory of the synaptic activity associated with this terminal but potentially reversible hypoxemia.
These spikes are temporally associated with the loss of measurable blood pressure, and immediately after the spike, the BIS/PSI signal drop to zero and the patient is soon pronounced dead. The BIS spikes last for a few minutes at maximum, but usually last between 30–180 seconds.
The thing is, drugs are well-known to cause bursts of brain activity before death. The only way to fairly judge the near-death experience and to see if there could be a spike in brain activity before death is to look at undrugged patients.
Secondly, even if there was a burst in brain activity, this fails to explain the near-death experience from a physicalist point of view. Veridical OBEs such as the case of Pam Reynolds cannot be explained by hypothetical, unproven bursts of activity.
This is the sort of engagement I find productive.
Of course, it is almost impossible to do such experimentation on humans. I was actually astonished to find that this particular experiment was done. In any case, Pam Reynolds was drugged (an anesthesiologist offered anesthesia awareness as an explanation) as have been probably all of the operating room cases which would allow even a small amount of monitoring of cardiac and brain activity.
If you look at Wikipedia on Pam Reynolds, there is alternate explanation that doesn't require a veridical OBE.
You already had said it and probably didn't even realize it.
Jim,
I am sure you have been asked this a million times, but what is your interest in being on this forum? Do you feel we idealists are too insulated and it is your duty to expose us to all those arguments for materialism we don't consider? If you pay attention at all to other threads, you know some people hold to vastly different versions of idealism, ones which you also have not considered, given how all your critiques of idealism being too vague about its claims do not apply to that version. I am talking about The Philosophy of Freedom, not Steiner's spiritual science. Have you read PoF? Who knows, maybe you would find it a refreshing idealist take, since it only deals with the givens of our experience and makes no added metaphysical assumptions. Until some serious consideration of that sort is done, you should not be surprised if I say you are not thinking about these things carefully before making critiques. Heidegger said "we are [all] still not yet Thinking", so it's not even really an insult in that sense. That is one of the first things we need to realize before having any hope of understanding matured forms of idealism. Materialism truly is not even plausible to that living Thinking, and while other forms of idealism are plausible and valid at low resolution, they practically make no positive difference in anyone's life more than materialism. So we probably agree there.
So now Ashvin, I suppose you want to decide who should and should not be on this forum, which ideas are worthy of consideration and which ideas are not?
Where did you get that from anything I wrote above? I am actually making serious suggestions to you so maybe, just maybe, the discussion can advance from endless repetitive mechanistic abstractions which lead nowhere closer to any agreement or richer understanding of the topics being discussed. Tell me one thing of practical metaphysical significance you have learned from idealists or you think they have learned from you. Seriously, some people on this forum (and I can name them all at this point) are so very predictably egoistic that they take any suggestion to consider an alternative viewpoint as threatening their individual sovereignty. Put the ego on the back burner for once and try to focus on the meaning of what is being written.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
I am sure you have been asked this a million times, but what is your interest in being on this forum? Do you feel we idealists are too insulated and it is your duty to expose us to all those arguments for materialism we don't consider? If you pay attention at all to other threads, you know some people hold to vastly different versions of idealism, ones which you also have not considered, given how all your critiques of idealism being too vague about its claims do not apply to that version. I am talking about The Philosophy of Freedom, not Steiner's spiritual science. Have you read PoF? Who knows, maybe you would find it a refreshing idealist take, since it only deals with the givens of our experience and makes no added metaphysical assumptions. Until some serious consideration of that sort is done, you should not be surprised if I say you are not thinking about these things carefully before making critiques. Heidegger said "we are [all] still not yet Thinking", so it's not even really an insult in that sense. That is one of the first things we need to realize before having any hope of understanding matured forms of idealism. Materialism truly is not even plausible to that living Thinking, and while other forms of idealism are plausible and valid at low resolution, they practically make no positive difference in anyone's life more than materialism. So we probably agree there.
So now Ashvin, I suppose you want to decide who should and should not be on this forum, which ideas are worthy of consideration and which ideas are not?
Where did you get that from anything I wrote above? I am actually making serious suggestions to you so maybe, just maybe, the discussion can advance from endless repetitive mechanistic abstractions which lead nowhere closer to any agreement or richer understanding of the topics being discussed. Tell me one thing of practical metaphysical significance you have learned from idealists or you think they have learned from you. Seriously, some people on this forum (and I can name them all at this point) are so very predictably egoistic that they take any suggestion to consider an alternative viewpoint as threatening their individual sovereignty. Put the ego on the back burner for once and try to focus on the meaning of what is being written.
I don't think you quite realize how condescending you are to others on this forum.
" Until some serious consideration of that sort is done"
"you are not thinking about these things carefully"
"some people on this forum (and I can name them all at this point) are so very predictably egoistic"
"Put the ego on the back burner"
Do you think we need your suggestions? Most of your "suggestions" are really veiled (or not so veiled) ad hominem attacks.
So now Ashvin, I suppose you want to decide who should and should not be on this forum, which ideas are worthy of consideration and which ideas are not?
Where did you get that from anything I wrote above? I am actually making serious suggestions to you so maybe, just maybe, the discussion can advance from endless repetitive mechanistic abstractions which lead nowhere closer to any agreement or richer understanding of the topics being discussed. Tell me one thing of practical metaphysical significance you have learned from idealists or you think they have learned from you. Seriously, some people on this forum (and I can name them all at this point) are so very predictably egoistic that they take any suggestion to consider an alternative viewpoint as threatening their individual sovereignty. Put the ego on the back burner for once and try to focus on the meaning of what is being written.
I don't think you quite realize how condescending you are to others on this forum.
" Until some serious consideration of that sort is done"
"you are not thinking about these things carefully"
"some people on this forum (and I can name them all at this point) are so very predictably egoistic"
"Put the ego on the back burner"
Do you think we need your suggestions? Most of your "suggestions" are really veiled (or not so veiled) ad hominem attacks.
No, there is nothing condescending about pointing out the human condition of the modern age we are all in. Apparently I need to caveat every single post now with the fact that I am speaking of everyone and myself included - egoism, lack of careful Thinking, total dependence on abstract intellect, unexamined dualist assumptions, and all related criticisms go much deeper than any one individual or even any one worldview in the modern age. They apply to everyone and every worldview, including theosophy, anthroposophy, and spiritual science. Steiner was well aware of that and called out such prejudices within his own movement very often. Add that to the list of modern egoistic prejudices - feeling victimized because every criticism is somehow taken to be all about you and not about the culture at large. And then using that egoistic "victimization" to deny the possibility anyone else might have insight into these deeply rooted problems which you don't have yet, worthy of listening to. I'm sorry but there is no time for that sort of infantile treatment of others - I consider everyone here to be an adult who does not need to feel coddled before they will open their minds to other considerations. There is enough of that condescending infantile treatment of voters, audiences, readers, etc. by politicians, the media, the schools, the entertainment industry, and just about every other sector of Western culture. We don't need to impose it onto this forum as well. That is one of the things I respect the most about BK - he rarely if ever resorts to pandering and infantilism to curry favor, but instead speaks sternly and forthrightly about his positions and his critical views of others positions.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:19 pmI don't think you quite realize how condescending you are to others on this forum.
So now I'm curious why I don't take it that way? While I find some intriguing ideas therein, I certainly don't take anything Ashvin is espousing as some definitive view, yet clearly he comes across that way to quite a few others here, which I suspect has to do with his lawyerly persona, which is all about assertively and confidently convincing the jury of a given view ... apparently it's a hung jury ... apparently he's not about to give up ... apparently some knickers are in a knot over it ... Maybe that's why the site is glithcy today, it's over-heating ... I am not amused ... though perhaps I should be.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:19 pmI don't think you quite realize how condescending you are to others on this forum.
So now I'm curious why I don't take it that way? While I find some intriguing ideas therein, I certainly don't take anything Ashvin is espousing as some definitive view, yet clearly he comes across that way to quite a few others here, which I suspect has to do with his lawyerly persona, which is all about assertively and confidently convincing the jury of a given view ... apparently it's a hung jury ... apparently he's not about to give up ... apparently some knickers are in a knot over it ... Maybe that's why the site is glithcy today, it's over-heating ... I am not amused ... though perhaps I should be.
In two comments, he said I wasn't thinking carefully, wasn't giving serious consideration to other viewpoints, and that I needed to put my ego on the back burner. None of that is lawyerly. None of it is even an argument for a view.
It doesn't really bother me but it is all an implication that anyone who doesn't arrive at Ashvin's point of view hasn't put any effort into thinking about the issues.
Compare to Paradox's approach where he/she came back with some arguments against what I was saying.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:44 pmIt doesn't really bother me but it is all an implication that anyone who doesn't arrive at Ashvin's point of view hasn't put any effort into thinking about the issues.
Perhaps, I guess the trick is not to get one's knickers in a knot if Ashvin thinks that what I think is not Thinking ... Though I do do wonder if in theory Ashvin could use Thinking to get in touch with my Daemon to give me a kick in the metaphysical butt, so as to kickstart my thinking more about Thinking, and save Ashvin the trouble
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:44 pmIt doesn't really bother me but it is all an implication that anyone who doesn't arrive at Ashvin's point of view hasn't put any effort into thinking about the issues.
Perhaps, I guess the trick is not to get one's knickers in a knot if Ashvin thinks that what I think is not Thinking ... Though I do do wonder if in theory Ashvin could use Thinking to get in touch with my Daemon to give me a kick in the metaphysical butt, so as to kickstart my thinking more about Thinking, and save Ashvin the trouble
I am telling you (Jim) to put ego on back burner because it is causing you to misunderstand everything I am writing, just like Eugene and Justin on the other thread. I never said you are not Thinking because you haven't arrived at my conclusions, rather because you are not even considering the questions my idealist approach asks (see new thread I started for examples of these questions). I guess it was initially my fault for commenting on this Blackmore thread, because really I couldn't care less about her or what she is saying. But if you are going to criticize idealism in general for being mindless or simplistic or whatever, then don't you think it is incumbent on you to actually explore idealist views you are not familiar with? And if you can find a materialist view I am not familiar with, I would be happy to consider it, but I think we both know there aren't many truly different formulations of materialism, only different ways of abstractly stating the exact same materialist argument.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
I guess it was initially my fault for commenting on this Blackmore thread, because really I couldn't care less about her or what she is saying.
That says it all right there. You can't resist spouting your view even if you have no interest in the topic.
But if you are going to criticize idealism in general for being mindless or simplistic or whatever, then don't you think it is incumbent on you to actually explore idealist views you are not familiar with? A
Where on this thread did I criticize idealism except in a mocking response to your own off thread remarks.
I guess it was initially my fault for commenting on this Blackmore thread, because really I couldn't care less about her or what she is saying.
That says it all right there. You can't resist spouting your view even if you have no interest in the topic.
But if you are going to criticize idealism in general for being mindless or simplistic or whatever, then don't you think it is incumbent on you to actually explore idealist views you are not familiar with? A
Where on this thread did I criticize idealism except in a mocking response to your own off thread remarks.
The thread is about the science of NDEs.
I can resist, but I can also admit the one time I failed to resist (this thread). Apparently admitting mistakes is so foreign to your ego that it is even offended when someone else does it.
Mocking response or not, you said - "On the contrary idealism is shallow. Materialism provides a complex view with much still not understood. Idealism just provides a superficial, unthinking one."
That is a variation of the same lazy criticism of idealism you have been making for a long time now (probably before I even joined the forum). You make zero effort to understand BK's idealism, let alone more nuanced forms, and keep harping on the same points with little to no coherent argument against idealism. Sometimes I get the feeling you are not quite sure what the metaphysical definitions "materialism" and "idealism" even mean.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
... Though I do do wonder if in theory Ashvin could use Thinking to get in touch with my Daemon to give me a kick in the metaphysical butt, so as to kickstart my thinking more about Thinking, and save Ashvin the trouble 