Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

Does consciousness survive death?

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#581  Postby Rhubis » Sep 13, 2012 10:47 pm

Why the fuck is this evidence apparently going to take a few days? Is it so damn hard to provide URL's to the articles or studies? I'm a big boy and i don't need someone to hold my hand and explain this stuff to me, i'm quite capable of reaching conclusions from data. Christine you have spent more words telling us the evidence is coming than most threads do presenting the evidence, examining it and reaching a conclusion.
Rhubis
 
Posts: 123
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#582  Postby Matthew Shute » Sep 13, 2012 11:30 pm

Page 30 into this surreal fiasco, and you're expecting her to come up with some compelling science, worthy of a Nobel Prize win? Let's face up to it, establishing as a matter of science fact that there's an afterlife, would be quite a feat, worthy of the Nobel. You can call me a cynic but, having read the posts in this thread, I'm not not "ABSOLUTELY" convinced that christine is up to the job.
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 43

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#583  Postby Macroinvertebrate » Sep 13, 2012 11:48 pm

Double post.
Last edited by Macroinvertebrate on Sep 14, 2012 12:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
It's so cold in the D.
User avatar
Macroinvertebrate
 
Name: Gawd
Posts: 806
Age: 44
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#584  Postby Macroinvertebrate » Sep 14, 2012 12:00 am

Just wait until the post after the next one after the next one after the next one. That one will be mind blowing with all the data and incontrovertible evidence! Oh boy!
It's so cold in the D.
User avatar
Macroinvertebrate
 
Name: Gawd
Posts: 806
Age: 44
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#585  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 14, 2012 12:07 am

christine wrote:Hello, once again.
As I said in that last post, this next post will be a list of about 50 people (present-day and going back in time) - scientists, doctors, psychiatrists, philosophers, etc etc - who discovered the very real data which shows that the event termed "death" is emphatically NOT what it merely seems to be.

Here goes:

Dr George Ritchie psychiatrist (he had his own NDE, in 1942)
Dr Carl Wickland psychiatrist
Dr Elisabeth Kubler-Ross psychiatrist
Dr Bruce Greyson psychiatrist
Frederik van Eeden psychiatrist
Raymond Moody MD psychiatrist
Dr Arthur Guirdham psychiatrist
Dr Joel Whitton psychiatrist
Emmanuel Swedenborg scientist, philosopher
Dr Melvin Morse doctor (paediatrician)
Dr Michael Sabom doctor (cardiologist)
Dr Pim van Lommel doctor (cardiologist)
Dr Sam Parnia honorary senior research Fellow at the Univ. of Southampton's School of Medicine
Dr Ian Stevenson psychiatrist
Dr Jim B Tucker psychiatrist
Dr Fred Alan Wolf quantum physicist
Ron Pearson physicist, mechanical engineer
Erlendur Haraldsson Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
Neal Grossmann Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
Henry Stapp physicist
David A Ash physicist
Dr Helen Wambach psychologist
Professor William McDougall psychologist
Dr Robert Crookall geologist
Thomas Alva Edison inventor
Dr Charles C Tart psychologist
John Logie Baird engineer, inventor (of the TV)
Emmanuel Kant philosopher
Julius Weinbarger Radar Engineer and recipient of U.S. Modern Pioneer Award
Dr Carl Jung psychologist, psychiatrist
Dr Edith Fiore psychologist
Sir William Barrett FRS scientist
Sir Oliver Lodge FRS physicist
Sir William Crookes FRS chemist and physicist
Professor James Hyslop Professor of Logic at Colombia University
Alfred Wallace naturalist, biologist, and anthropologist
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle physician, writer
Camille Flammarion the great French astronomer
Professor Charles Richet physiologist
Professor F W H Myers poet, classicist, philologist
Guglielmo Marconi inventor
Professor William James psychologist, philosopher
Dr Michael Newton psychologist, hypnotherapist
Lord Dowding Air Chief Marshal Commander-in-=Chief of the British Air Force @[color=#CC0000][b] Battle[/b][/color] of Britain 1940


Just 1 more post, after this one, and THEN I will begin describing and explaining to you, some of the ACTUAL data.



Why all this foreplay?

Because you don't understand the notion of argumentum ad verecundiam?

What you appear to have is data that would prove a library's existence.


I realise you are (most of you...) (WRONGLY) assuming that I'm not going to give you any actual data; well, I am, but you'll have to let me present it in the order I see fit.


Any minute now, right? You tease.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28946
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#586  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 14, 2012 12:16 am

christine wrote:I'm sorry, but I forgot to separate the names in that list, above, from their status, with a dash sign.... only realised I'd forgotten to put the dash in, when I saw it printed.

I'll be back in about half an hour.

One day you will all realise I was NOT "trolling"; I do so despise all these stupid modern "words" -like "troll", "tool", etc etc etc...



Ahhh your academic abilities to the fore again?

Tool is from the early 19th century.

Troll is an Old Norse word - so stupidly modern!


Nevermind, no one actually thinks you know anything about anything anymore Christine - that's of your own doing by the way,



christine wrote:I'm a very straightforward, sincere person, I don't play mindgames with anyone. Why does 99% of the world population accept these "words", and perpetuate them???? People who do that are just "sheep".


Sheep that use words.

It couldn't be that they're just using the variety and flexibility of our linguistic heritage, right? Instead they should use proper words that you use, like ABSOLUTELY, WRONG, ORTHODOX..... these nice woody words!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gwXJsWHupg[/youtube]


christine wrote:What I'm telling you is genuine, so please, all of you, please disabuse yourselves of the idea that I'm a "troll", for you couldn't be any more off the mark, if you tried..!!


If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's obviously a boeing 747.


christine wrote:Will be back in half an hour, or so.


This isn't facebook.


christine wrote: It will take several days to type out my summary of the 12+ categories of the data, explaining them all to you, with examples.


Errr 12 categories of data? No one asked you for categories, they asked you for the data. Why are you typing it out? Don't you have links to the studies we're all awaiting?

Incidentally, if you're working under the WRONG (random caps is fun) impression that people here have no idea about those topics and have never looked into them prior to your witty and engaging entrance into this community, you're sorely mistaken as you apparently are with so many things.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28946
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#587  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 14, 2012 12:17 am

Rhubis wrote:Why the fuck is this evidence apparently going to take a few days? Is it so damn hard to provide URL's to the articles or studies? I'm a big boy and i don't need someone to hold my hand and explain this stuff to me, i'm quite capable of reaching conclusions from data. Christine you have spent more words telling us the evidence is coming than most threads do presenting the evidence, examining it and reaching a conclusion.



I have a feeling that what Christine eventually produces actually needs all this foreplay to let us rise to the occasion.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28946
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#588  Postby byofrcs » Sep 14, 2012 12:26 am

christine wrote:Hello, all of you.

I realise you are (most of you...) (WRONGLY) assuming that I'm not going to give you any actual data; well, I am, but you'll have to let me present it in the order I see fit.
I am a researcher by occupation, everyone who knows me knows that I am never without a pen in my hand, and they also know that I do marshal my data/content in a very specific, orderly manner.
I realise that you all, to a man, are not able to accept anything as true unless it has been reported in a paper in a peer-reviewed journal... well, that's your prerogative, of course, but there actually IS proof of reality of things without the demand for a "paper in a peer-reviewed journal". (But, hey, that's for me to know, and you lot to (eventually) find out"!!).
..................

I will give you some specific details about that aspect of the data, 3 posts from now. And after that, will continue to present you with detail and explanations for a number of the other categories of the data.



Christine, I think you misunderstand how trust works. We cannot trust what you say. It is that simple. Why you are untrustworthy is because of little clues you leave behind for instance, you said...

"... are not able to accept anything as true unless it has been reported in a paper in a peer-reviewed journal... well, that's your prerogative, of course, but there actually IS proof of reality of things without the demand for a "paper in a peer-reviewed journal""

...and we have already pointed out that we do not think that what any peer-reviewed journal is TRUE but that it is more trustworthy and so more probably correct. It is never true.

I don't know what more we can say if you have this presumption. It is a systemic flaw in your understanding of what evidence you need to bring to the table. Is there any way you can please alter your understanding about why and how we judge material to reflect what is done ?

So you can produce 54 pages, 540 pages, 1000 pages and if it is anecdotal or subjective then it will never be trustworthy and there is no way that you can change this because to do so is to ride rough shod over all our methodical naturalism and the scientific method. We might as well be looking at tea leaves or animal guts. I don't even trust what I see unless I repeat it. The adage of measure twice and cut once applies for a reason. Humans are very poor eye witnesses.

Sorry but skeptical is what we are and it is the approach we use to trust what we see to use this and alter our behaviour. It is not like life-after-death is undesirable - it is intrinsically attractive a proposition. It is not like we are selling an alternative product. We are not making money from religion.

But if it is a desire built on a tissue of false memories, poor data and bad maths then we're only lying to ourselves.

You should be able to convince us in less than a page. Every sentence should be verifiable outside of the page from trustworthy primary sources.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 57
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#589  Postby Beatrice » Sep 14, 2012 1:05 am

Oh this thread is so much fun! I don't think Christine is a poe though, I think we have the real deal here.
Phew... for a minute there, I lost myself, I lost myself.....
"GOD" is an acronym which stands for "GOD Over Djinn".
User avatar
Beatrice
RS Donator
 
Name:
Posts: 3428
Female

Country: New Zealand
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#590  Postby orpheus » Sep 14, 2012 2:02 am

byofrcs wrote:
christine wrote:Hello, all of you.

I realise you are (most of you...) (WRONGLY) assuming that I'm not going to give you any actual data; well, I am, but you'll have to let me present it in the order I see fit.
I am a researcher by occupation, everyone who knows me knows that I am never without a pen in my hand, and they also know that I do marshal my data/content in a very specific, orderly manner.
I realise that you all, to a man, are not able to accept anything as true unless it has been reported in a paper in a peer-reviewed journal... well, that's your prerogative, of course, but there actually IS proof of reality of things without the demand for a "paper in a peer-reviewed journal". (But, hey, that's for me to know, and you lot to (eventually) find out"!!).
..................

I will give you some specific details about that aspect of the data, 3 posts from now. And after that, will continue to present you with detail and explanations for a number of the other categories of the data.



Christine, I think you misunderstand how trust works. We cannot trust what you say. It is that simple. Why you are untrustworthy is because of little clues you leave behind for instance, you said...

"... are not able to accept anything as true unless it has been reported in a paper in a peer-reviewed journal... well, that's your prerogative, of course, but there actually IS proof of reality of things without the demand for a "paper in a peer-reviewed journal""

...and we have already pointed out that we do not think that what any peer-reviewed journal is TRUE but that it is more trustworthy and so more probably correct. It is never true.

I don't know what more we can say if you have this presumption. It is a systemic flaw in your understanding of what evidence you need to bring to the table. Is there any way you can please alter your understanding about why and how we judge material to reflect what is done ?

So you can produce 54 pages, 540 pages, 1000 pages and if it is anecdotal or subjective then it will never be trustworthy and there is no way that you can change this because to do so is to ride rough shod over all our methodical naturalism and the scientific method. We might as well be looking at tea leaves or animal guts. I don't even trust what I see unless I repeat it. The adage of measure twice and cut once applies for a reason. Humans are very poor eye witnesses.

Sorry but skeptical is what we are and it is the approach we use to trust what we see to use this and alter our behaviour. It is not like life-after-death is undesirable - it is intrinsically attractive a proposition. It is not like we are selling an alternative product. We are not making money from religion.

But if it is a desire built on a tissue of false memories, poor data and bad maths then we're only lying to ourselves.

You should be able to convince us in less than a page. Every sentence should be verifiable outside of the page from trustworthy primary sources.


(bold mine)

byofrcs, you bring up an important point that I'd like to elaborate on a bit. It's precisely because life-after-death is desirable that we should be wary of claims that it's true. As has been proved time and time again, you are the easiest person for you to fool. Especially when it's about something you want to believe.

This is why peer review is so important, Christine. Peer review is a process in which experts in the field try as hard as they can to disprove your claim. They repeat the experiment. They double and triple check the data. They do their best to find weaknesses in your claim. If your claim can stand up to that kind of attack, then it stands a much more likely chance of being correct.

Now, this isn't always a pleasant procedure. Nobody likes having their claim attacked, much less disproved. So why is it necessary? Because humans are fallible, and, as said above, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Peer review is the best way we've come up with to compensate for this fallibility. We act as a check against one another. It's a cutthroat competitive process, yes, but in another way, it's highly collaborative: everyone is working to be as transparent as possible and as honest as possible. They double-check one another really carefully - all for the common goal of eliminating human bias and error as much as possible, and arriving at a more accurate understanding of the world.

Another thing: you've said several times that we don't think anything is true unless it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. (I'm sorry if I'm misquoting you, but I think that's more or less what you said.) That's not true. Plenty of things are true about the world that aren't published in these journals. But we can't know how accurate a claim is until it's gone through the peer-review process.

So when we ask for links to papers published in peer-reviewed journals, it's not because we think journals like Nature or Science (to name two) are the only repositories of truth and nothing outside of them is true. It's just that these journals have, over time, built a solid reputation for rigorously adhering to the peer-review process, and as such, we can have a fair degree of confidence in claims that have made it through their peer-review process. Someone simply publishing a book based on their own experience - or even their own research - is not as trustworthy. Even if they're totally honest, it's not as trustworthy, simply because of the inherent probability of human bias or error. Peer review acts as a check to minimize this.

Moreover, the peer-review process is transparent. You can see not only the claims, but the process of experimentation set up to test the claim, the results, and the interpretation of those results. You can also see this for the reviewers; they show their methods and results as well, and point out any differences. So we don't have to take anything on authority; the journals lay out the nuts and bolts so we can see for ourselves - and even repeat the experiment ourselves if we like.
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 56
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#591  Postby Made of Stars » Sep 14, 2012 7:38 am

christine wrote:"The case against death", by Richard Lazurus

christine, I think someone's been pulling your leg with that reading list. :(
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9821
Age: 53
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#592  Postby virphen » Sep 14, 2012 8:37 am

Beatrice wrote:Oh this thread is so much fun! I don't think Christine is a poe though, I think we have the real deal here.


Indeed, if she is a Poe then I'll be going

:o

Maestro!

Do a Scientologist next!
User avatar
virphen
 
Posts: 7288
Male

Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#593  Postby Fallible » Sep 14, 2012 8:37 am

Has it been half an hour yet? :coffee:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#594  Postby The_Metatron » Sep 14, 2012 8:44 am

Macroinvertebrate wrote:Just wait until the post after the next one after the next one after the next one. That one will be mind blowing with all the data and incontrovertible evidence! Oh boy!

We're all very excited.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21276
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#595  Postby twistor59 » Sep 14, 2012 8:44 am

christine wrote:
Our Dad passed back to spirit


Sorry about your having to see your dad die - very distressing. Just wondering - from your choice of phrasing - are you a spiritualist?
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#596  Postby Rhubis » Sep 14, 2012 12:22 pm

I'm on tenterhooks here waiting for this evidence that is 100% proof of an afterlife... TENTERHOOKS!
Rhubis
 
Posts: 123
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#597  Postby chairman bill » Sep 14, 2012 12:50 pm

Has anyone read Robert Kirk's The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns and Fairies? Clear evidence, drawn from a range of accounts, indicating that a number of non-human species of intelligent humanoids co-habit this earth.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28350
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#598  Postby Fenrir » Sep 14, 2012 12:57 pm

chairman bill wrote:Has anyone read Robert Kirk's The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns and Fairies? Clear evidence, drawn from a range of accounts, indicating that a number of non-human species of intelligent humanoids co-habit this earth.


Taken together with consilient evidence from other disciplines the conclusion is inescapable.

Image
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3621
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#599  Postby Rhubis » Sep 14, 2012 12:59 pm

Fenrir wrote:
chairman bill wrote:Has anyone read Robert Kirk's The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns and Fairies? Clear evidence, drawn from a range of accounts, indicating that a number of non-human species of intelligent humanoids co-habit this earth.


Taken together with consilient evidence from other disciplines the conclusion is inescapable.

Image


I'm sorry but i'm a skeptic and a materialist and thus i will bury my head in the sand and ignore this evidence since it doesn't fit with my world view.
Rhubis
 
Posts: 123
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#600  Postby Fallible » Sep 14, 2012 1:03 pm

Well done, Rhubis. A fairy has just died. :nono:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest