Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Post by Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:53 pm

Confidencia wrote:This is the problem with education, it destroys your sense of intelligence.
LunaNik wrote:Wait...what? That makes, quite literally, no sense at all.
Confidencia wrote:It all depends on how you look at it. The body sense is misleading.
No, it doesn't. Language is the way in which we communicate. Semantically, your statement makes no sense. Education means learning and acquiring knowledge. Intelligence means the ability to apply knowledge. Therefore, your statement, in effect, states that acquiring knowledge destroys your ability to apply knowledge. Nonsense. Semantically null.
——————————
LunaNik wrote:Education provides you with factual knowledge.
Confidencia wrote:Education provide you with conventional wisdom. What you call facts are mere fancies. The minority rule in this case. You like a particular idea and so do many others thus you have an established academic protocol, this you call fact. But you have already been brainwashed with the various modes of thought required to reach a particular conclusion. Your methodology and approach to critical analysis has already been compromised so that it veers towards the status quo. Mind is moulded to the conditions in which it is exposed to, so you are caught before you can know what real intelligence is. You learn by rote so instead of thinking for yourself you have learnt to repeat information. Naturally with such an outlook you will not get the full import of what I said earlier.
No. Conventional wisdom is what motivated people to locate their privies conveniently next to their wells. Factual knowledge is what motivated people to move their wells far away from their privies, preferably uphill. Conventional wisdom caused people to be offended when doctors washed their hands before an examination. Factual knowledge helped them understand that this practice was for their benefit.

You feel free to call these facts "mere fancies" and take for granted the vast number of times these "mere fancies" have saved, benefitted, and extended your pathetic life. As for me, I absolutely like the idea of there not being human waste in my drinking water, thanks. I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your paragraph, as it's logghorrea that belongs in the above mentioned privy.
——————————
LunaNik wrote:Intelligence is the skill you use to manipulate and integrate, think critically and theorize about, and form conclusions from the knowledge you've learned.
Confidencia wrote:There is a contradiction in what you say here, manipulation is disintegration. Intelligence does not displace. You cannot talk of manipulating and integrating in the same vein where intelligence is concerned. Critical thinking based on some modality only serves to disrupt the natural flow of things.
There is no contradiction. Disintegration is not a synonym for manipulation, nor does manipulation of knowledge cause its disintegration. One learns words, then phrases, and then is able to manipulate them into comprehensible sentences. (Well, you clearly haven't learned that last skill, since you failed to provide an object in the sentence, "Intelligence does not displace." Without an object, that fragment is nonsense. Although, I'm willing to bet it will be nonsense once you complete the sentence.)

If you are not integrating all the knowledge you've learned, then you're not intelligent. And critical thinking based on a modality is called problem solving. The scientific method would be such a modality. Your so-called "natural flow" is emotive thinking. It's useless for problem solving and decision making, since it abandons critical thinking in favor of hormone-driven impulses.
——————————
LunaNik wrote:Without education, your innate intelligence, if you have any, has nothing with which to work. Clearly.
Confidencia wrote:On the contrary, there is awareness the cognisance of consciousness with which it can work with. Awareness and intelligent understanding go hand in hand. They clearly foster each other and without any displacement whatsoever.
Being self-aware without knowledge doesn't constitute intelligence. If your toilet is overflowing and you have no knowledge of how a toilet works, your "awareness of the cognizance of consciousness" will not help you. What will help you is the factual knowledge of the location of the shut-off valve and the proper use of a plunger and snake. If you're driving and suddenly have a flat, your "natural flow" will abandon you, cold and alone. But the factual knowledge of how and where to use a jack, knowing to loosen the lug nuts before you lift the car, and the trick for tightening them down when you're a 130-pound female will be your best friends.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9782
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Post by Poodle » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:01 pm

You catch on quickly, LunaNik :lol:

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Post by Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:12 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
LunaNik wrote:So, does the "be nice" rule not apply to them, then? Asking purely for purposes of information, and to join in on the fun. Today's my first day, and I'm not sure where the real boundaries are yet. :D
The general rules are indeed, "be nice" "supply evidence for claims" "Attack the argument and not the arguer" and "apply the scientific method". The specific forum rules are at the bottom of the main index page, which I have linked here.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Pyrrho is the moderator and his is a sensible, knowledgeable and friendly person. Although he checks the forum, you need to notify him by "PM" (private message) if you see anything going haywire, like people threatening suicide or being unusually abusive.

This particular thread
For reasons unknown, we get religious dualists spreading dualist propaganda here. Three of them are actually the same person who has a personality disorder. (Skaka, Clarifyit4me, and Confidentia). He will blatantly lie, get caught, post the same crap again and eventually just throw insults, open a new account name and start again. For this reason you can probably be a little blunter with him, than in other topics.


The Rogue's Gallery
We also keep as a pet, "Gorgeous" a bloke who spams pro-trump propaganda, believes alien lizards and the illuminati run the world and keeps offering advice from "Seth" a fictional alien channelled by a dead alcoholic in the 1970s. He's posts are simply so ridiculous that they are funny.
:D

There are other extreme and nutty people posting here. We have a Christian poet who posts in threads about God, regardless of the topic. We have an extremist anti-Muslim. As there is a Anti-holocaust denial sub forum, we also get the occasional neo-nazi. (Most of the people currently posting in that sub forum are highly educated people who, like me, hate neo-nazis) The best thing is to simply observe and pick up on "who's who". I like the nutty scientists the most. :D
Thank you for the detailed primer, Matthew! That was incredibly helpful. Generally, I do prefer to address the argument rather than indulge in ad hominem attacks...it's more fun that way.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32219
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Post by Gord » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:39 pm

Pyrrho seems to give the more established posters a lot of leeway when it comes to "be nice" and "don't attack the arguer". I suppose newcomers get a lot of leeway as well, but they're more likely to get banned than simply warned or given a week off from the forum.

Occasionally a thread will get closed down for a while to give Pyrrho time to decide what to do with us.

Of course, one thing to remember is that an ad hominem isn't a fallacy because it's an attack on the arguer, but because it's used as a way to counter the argument. For instance, if someone said "the nation of Brazil is made entirely of cheese", it would be an ad hominem to say "no it isn't because you are an idiot", but it wouldn't be an ad hominem to say "here is a photograph taken in Brazil, and it is not made of cheese; you are an idiot". Or if someone said "we have places in London and other places that are so radicalised that the police are afraid for their own lives", it would be an ad hominem to say "no we don't because you are an idiot", but it wouldn't be an ad hominem to say "you absolute moron, I live in London and I can tell you there is absolutely nowhere that the police will not go".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Post by Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 08, 2017 12:51 am

Gord wrote:Pyrrho seems to give the more established posters a lot of leeway when it comes to "be nice" and "don't attack the arguer". I suppose newcomers get a lot of leeway as well, but they're more likely to get banned than simply warned or given a week off from the forum.

Occasionally a thread will get closed down for a while to give Pyrrho time to decide what to do with us.

Of course, one thing to remember is that an ad hominem isn't a fallacy because it's an attack on the arguer, but because it's used as a way to counter the argument. For instance, if someone said "the nation of Brazil is made entirely of cheese", it would be an ad hominem to say "no it isn't because you are an idiot", but it wouldn't be an ad hominem to say "here is a photograph taken in Brazil, and it is not made of cheese; you are an idiot". Or if someone said "we have places in London and other places that are so radicalised that the police are afraid for their own lives", it would be an ad hominem to say "no we don't because you are an idiot", but it wouldn't be an ad hominem to say "you absolute moron, I live in London and I can tell you there is absolutely nowhere that the police will not go".
Absolutely!
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri May 04, 2018 1:36 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:For normal Skeptics
Our forum receives regular waves of propaganda posts from "dualist" and "non-dualist" religious followers. We currently have Steve Klinko claiming quantum mechanic religious bull-{!#%@} causes us to see "red" in our minds. Previously we had Placid saying Hitler's extermination of the Jews was an act of love because of quantum mechanics and magical observers.

Most of these people are sock puppets of the one person. For example Azania, Shaka, Placid and Clarifyit4me are all the same person. He simply makes all his claims, gets destroyed by skeptics, starts calling skeptics idiots, then opens another account and starts all over again. It is probable that Confidencia is just another sockpuppet of Azania.


Azania in action.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27660&hilit=azania&start=40#p554672
So, does the "be nice" rule not apply to them, then? Asking purely for purposes of information, and to join in on the fun. Today's my first day, and I'm not sure where the real boundaries are yet. :D
For the record I don't claim anything about QM. I just Suggest that QM could be involved in Consciousness. It would be irresponsible not to at least talk about QM in the context of discussions on Consciousness. The Physicalists on these forums think that Consciousness is all explained. Sorry but there is still an Explanatory Gap and there is still a Hard Problem. Basically all I ever do is ask this question ... Given:

1) Red Neural Activity Happens.
2) A Conscious Red Experience Happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?

See http://www.TheinterMind.com for the whole story.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32219
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Post by Gord » Sat May 05, 2018 4:38 am

SteveKlinko wrote:1) Red Neural Activity Happens.
2) A Conscious Red Experience Happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?
To some of us, 1) and 2) are the same thing. Or at the very least, 2) is encompassed within 1).

An analogy of the first sort would be:

1) I drive the car to the store.
2) The car and I go to the store with me driving it.

An analogy of the second sort would be:

1) I start the car and drive to the store.
2) I drive to the store.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Why does Confidencia lie so much?

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat May 05, 2018 1:22 pm

Gord wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:1) Red Neural Activity Happens.
2) A Conscious Red Experience Happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?
To some of us, 1) and 2) are the same thing. Or at the very least, 2) is encompassed within 1).

An analogy of the first sort would be:

1) I drive the car to the store.
2) The car and I go to the store with me driving it.

An analogy of the second sort would be:

1) I start the car and drive to the store.
2) I drive to the store.
Your basic premise that the Red Neural Activity actually is the Red Experience is a possible speculation. But you can't just say it you have to explain how that oneness or sameness conclusion is arrived at. I would ask you to start with the proposition that the Red Neural Activity and the Red Conscious experience are two separate Categories of things. All we know is that when Red Neural Activity happens a Red experience happens. The Red Conscious experience is obtained through a further stage beyond Neural Activity in the Visual system. The Red Conscious experience has a Property of Redness. The Red Neural Activity has no Property of Redness. (You can't just say it does.) The Red Conscious experience is something Extra beyond the Red Neural Activity. The Property of Redness exists only in the Conscious experience and not in the Physical Neural Activity. if you are going to say that the Red Neural Activity is actually the Red Conscious experience then you have to explain how the Redness Property of the Red experience is located in the Neurons. In other words you have to explain how these two categories of things are really only one category. You can't just proclaim that they are.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32219
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Post by Gord » Sun May 06, 2018 12:19 am

Correlation does not imply causation, but it's a pretty good start.

I do not think you can conclude that Consciousness is not a Physical Neural Activity.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Does this debunk oxygen theory for NDEs?

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun May 06, 2018 1:34 pm

Gord wrote:Correlation does not imply causation, but it's a pretty good start.

I do not think you can conclude that Consciousness is not a Physical Neural Activity.
Since Science has not figured out what Consciousness is yet all options must remain on the table. I think Consciousness could all be in the Neurons but I also recognize that this might not be true. We just don't know yet. I think it is counterproductive to insist that Consciousness is definitely all in the Neurons.

Think about the Redness of the Conscious experience of the color Red. Physicalists say that the Redness is somehow in the Neurons but they cannot say how that could be. This oneness of Conscious phenomena and Physical phenomena is more of a Hope than any kind of Scientific finding. I think the Redness of the Red is something so different than any Physical World thing that it Logically must be given the status as something separate from what we know about the Physical World so far. It is more Scientific to start with the premise that it is something different than to start with the premise that it is in the Neurons. It is probably a symptom, of taking the "It's all in the Neurons" starting point, that Science has not figured out what Consciousness is yet.

The Conscious Red experience exists. It must be explained. Think about the Redness of the Red. Just the Redness. What is it and how do we See it?