More near-death nonsense

[xris]

it's not my fault that you're a snivelling idiot. You keep posting shite, I'll keep laughing at you.



If it's trying to troll then it's doing as piss-poor a job of that as everything else. Trolls usually try to wind us up, not post meaningless boring garbage.

Your such a boring twat friend, every forum has one and your it. I find that when in real life they have the same opportunity they shite their pants. Your just like all boring bullies, have the courage of a ball point pen. The only good thing about your posts is your ability to attach a funny face.

[Croydon Bob]

Your such a boring twat friend, every forum has one and your it. I find that when in real life they have the same opportunity they shite their pants. Your just like all boring bullies, have the courage of a ball point pen. The only good thing about your posts is your ability to attach a funny face.

Pathetic!

You're threatening me now? Do you want to meet up and see who shits their pants?

You have to be the saddest troll we've had yet.

Unfortunately you'll probably get banned now.

[xris]

Pathetic!

You're threatening me now? Do you want to meet up and see who shits their pants?

You have to be the saddest troll we've had yet.

Unfortunately you'll probably get banned now.

Yes friend i do want to meet you.

[Mulder]

Ye right, no chance you might accept that you conceded, that there are different levels of consciousness, is there? Your view of it appears to change when challenged on your opinion of it. First its a crow throwing stones but not gazing at stars and then its reduced to accepting that you dont really know.

The crow illustration was specifically about showing how animals demonstrate reason. This was because you claimed that reason was part of consciousness, though it is not part of the scientific view of consciousness, as I have stated already.

It's entirely possible that animals have different types or levels of consciousness to humans (there is no evidence either way on this currently) but I see only one 'level' in humans. I am not 'changing position', merely reporting the current scientific position. As with all science, it is a fluid position that depends on new evidence.

I have no more intention of debating with you on a subject you obviously refuse to even acknowledge. Being obtuse and goading is your only effort.Bye...

In some ways that's a pity because there's a lot of interesting new science around this subject. On the other hand, since you seem reluctant to reveal your own thoughts on the subject, even though I have set mine out clearly, we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Reading between the lines, you appear to believe consciousness to be much larger than sensory awareness and to be a uniquely human trait. There may well be some philosophical support for such a position but the science, which has moved rapidly in the last decade, tends to contradict it.

[xris]

The crow illustration was specifically about showing how animals demonstrate reason. This was because you claimed that reason was part of consciousness, though it is not part of the scientific view of consciousness, as I have stated already.

It's entirely possible that animals have different types or levels of consciousness to humans (there is no evidence either way on this currently) but I see only one 'level' in humans. I am not 'changing position', merely reporting the current scientific position. As with all science, it is a fluid position that depends on new evidence.



In some ways that's a pity because there's a lot of interesting new science around this subject. On the other hand, since you seem reluctant to reveal your own thoughts on the subject, even though I have set mine out clearly, we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Reading between the lines, you appear to believe consciousness to be much larger than sensory awareness and to be a uniquely human trait. There may well be some philosophical support for such a position but the science, which has moved rapidly in the last decade, tends to contradict it.

Thanks for your reasoned response and sorry if others abuse caused me to respond with anger rather than answer your more pointed questions.

I have come to no conclusions but by certain experiences, I have had to examine certain areas that sceptics find almost insulted to debate. Take the heading of this thread ,its hardly conducive to an open and frank debate ,is it? Consciousness can be read in two ways and the philosophical aspect of it is far removed from the ability to keep your eyes open.

The nde's only interest me in that the reports say they occur when no brain activity is present. Strangely enough, i was merely asking if this is the case, if there is any proof? Without that knowledge my question is not valid..

I am not here to explain my belief system nor open my heart to those who wish to examine it. I will say I am an agnostic on most subjects.

[DrS]

you appear to believe consciousness to be much larger than sensory awareness and to be a uniquely human trait. There may well be some philosophical support for such a position ...

it's primarily a religious stance, surely.

[Mulder]

The nde's only interest me in that the reports say they occur when no brain activity is present. Strangely enough, i was merely asking if this is the case, if there is any proof? Without that knowledge my question is not valid...

There are three basic ways to measure brain activity (I'm sure DrB will correct me if I'm wrong!). There is EEG, which is similar to the stuff used in clinical wards where NDEs are reported, which shows overall rhythms. These rhythms, like alpha and beta waves, involve the co-ordinated action of huge numbers of neurons. Then there is MRI, which can show activity in specific areas within the brain. This involves the patient being inside a huge MRI machine. Then there are deep brain measurements involving inserting electrodes physically inside the brain. These give the highest resolution in terms of location and electrical activity.

I can't say for certain, but I doubt any NDE case has involved a patient with anything other than scalp electrodes recording rhythms only. This does not preculde, therefore, some low level residual brain activity that could only be seen by MRI or electrodes.

Another possibility is that the brain really IS inactive for a while and that the NDE occurs directly before or after this period when the brain is active. Given the subjective nature of time in dreams, it is entirely possible that the patient may believe they were conscious throughout the experience when, in fact, they had a 'compressed' experience with the brain confabulating later to 'fill in the gap'.

[xris]

I was only interested in the fact, if it could be said that certain areas of the brain have no recorded activity, it would dispel the idea that consciousness resides in any one part, or is not dependant on any one part of the brain. Many believe it to be like an electromagnetic field created by the neocortex.

Science is desperately trying to prove where it originates from and it has now becomes more philosophical than scientific. These nde's deserve investigation on more than one level and scoffing those who have them is not going to encourage anyone to admit to their experiences. I hate witch hunts of any kind.

[xris]

it's primarily a religious stance, surely.

Religion ,that demands a belief in some type of god and not all are religous, who experience these nde's.

[Croydon Bob]

Thanks for your reasoned response and sorry if others abuse caused me to respond with anger rather than answer your more pointed questions.

Actually, if you look back a page, you'll see that you started the anger and abuse in response to a perfectly reasonable post by Mulder.

I only joined in once you started being a twat.

Lying about it now won't get you off the hook. And threatening people over the internet is a guaranteed lose.

[Admin]

These nde's deserve investigation on more than one level and scoffing those who have them is not going to encourage anyone to admit to their experiences. I hate witch hunts of any kind.

Can you point out where anyone has "mocked" those who have NDEs or show evidence of a "witch hunt"?

NDEs occur and there's no doubt about it. It's the explanation for them that is the contentious issue.

If you want to put the case forward for the dualism interpretation then do so, but try to argue the case intelligently and don't mischaracterize other people's positions.

[xris]

Actually, if you look back a page, you'll see that you started the anger and abuse in response to a perfectly reasonable post by Mulder.

I only joined in once you started being a twat.

Lying about it now won't get you off the hook. And threatening people over the internet is a guaranteed lose.

Who have i threatened? its you that made the offensive remarks and still continue to do so. Its you that have resorted to gutter remarks and requested i meet you ,so dont give me that crap. I am only returning your request, anytime my Croydon rent boy.

[xris]

Can you point out where anyone has "mocked" those who have NDEs or show evidence of a "witch hunt"?

NDEs occur and there's no doubt about it. It's the explanation for them that is the contentious issue.

If you want to put the case forward for the dualism interpretation then do so, but try to argue the case intelligently and don't mischaracterize other people's positions.

Its a characteristic you see with sceptics they cant differentiate scepticism with scoffing ,your blind to the insinuation you pile on to any thread. Your arrogance is apparent to all who view these posts, thats why you only have your silly few devotees up each others arse for comfort.

[Admin]

Its a characteristic you see with sceptics they cant differentiate scepticism with scoffing ,your blind to the insinuation you pile on to any thread. Your arrogance is apparent to all who view these posts, thats why you only have your silly few devotees up each others arse for comfort.

Any chance of you making an intelligent case supporting your position as requested?

[Croydon Bob]

Who have i threatened? its you that made the offensive remarks and still continue to do so. Its you that have resorted to gutter remarks and requested i meet you ,so dont give me that crap. I am only returning your request, anytime my Croydon rent boy.

I've already pointed out that lying won't wash. Or are you mentally ill in some way and genuinely don't remember what you wrote on page 6 of this thread thus spurring me into joining in? Everything I've written has been in response to some shite from you. Why try and lie about it when the evidence is right here to see? Why not just apologise for your twattery and try to post something sensible? Like a response to JJ that isn't pathetic? But you can't, so you'll lie and whine instead.