Scuse me for enjoying myself, but I just want to step back and savour that taste...

The taste of telling complete strangers that you are extremely erudite.

Allow me a momentary quaff on this bounteous experience outside my ken.


*cough cough* There's something you are all unaware of about me... I... well, how can I put this? Oh yes, I am extremely erudite, learned, intelligent, superior, wondrous, charming, charmed, stupendous, glorious, beautific, gorgeous, huggable, admirable, tantalizing, and awesome.

I just thought you should know.


Hmmm, yeah that was pretty good. Makes me feel like you all instantly appreciate me so much more. Thanks guys for being there.


Hold on though, I've yet to try out the full suite of experiences here. Allow me to try out that one too....

On top of what I've already humbly informed you of my effervescent attractive nature, I regret to inform you that you are all sad, pathetic and ignorant.


Hmmm, no; that didn't feel so good, I have to say. In fact, that's really quite disturbed. I don't know if I could ever truly consider thinking that about a group of people I don't know, who I've never bothered to ask even the most basic of details, who I've lumped together under a term of my own devising, to become examples of the dreck of humanity just because I'd decided to enter their community and shove my ridiculously unwarranted, overbearing arrogance down their throats.

Sorry, didn't notice this before. Usually when someone starts ranting about how wonderful they are and how stupid I am by default, I don't tend to pay much attention to what that person is saying - I know, how biased of me!

Christine wrote:My point is that all the other very real and genuine proofs that we do survive the illusory event termed "death" ARE NOT PROVABLE BY YOUR RIDICULOUS "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"; for, let me explain to you a basic fact: SPIRITUAL truths are NOT able to be proved by PHYSICAL (ie, your ridiculous "scientific method") means. Precisely because physical truths and spiritual truths are two different things entirely.

Christine wrote:This data is realised, by scientists, doctors, psychiatrists, etc, who are INFORMED on the available data, to be of vital significance, as regards the actual nature of reality, of existence

Is this the mark of high intelligence? Erudition? Learnedness? And other Unnecessary Synonyms?

No, actually it's just a hallmark of poor reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea

the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

christine wrote:I have just had another post I was in the middle of, wiped out, as I was typing it... which makes me very angry.

I will now have to retype what I'd already done. So here goes.
Briefly: for a long time, orthodox science has merely made the ASSUMPTION that the mind/consciousness is "nothing other than a by-product of brain activity", and (unfortunately for them) for many outdated materialist scientists, that is still the (incorrect) prevailing assumption.

how do you know? I hope you plan to back up this statement as so far the EVIDENCE points to the mind being a product of the brain (unfortunately for you).

christine wrote:
However, in more recent years, PROPER scientists (ie, those who are open-minded, and who wish to discover the real truth, as opposed to merely clinging on to an incorrect materialist view of reality) have studied this (it is called the "hard problem" - ie, where does consciousness TRULY come from?"), and these true scientists (including more and more neuroscientists and neurosurgeons) have discovered that there is data available which shows not only that the non-physical mind/consciousness CANNOT be "merely a by-product of brain activity", but also that the experiential data shows that the "mere" physical brain and the non-physical mind/consciousness are, truly, completely separate from each other.

Christine a proper scientist is one that looks at evidence and does research and is double checked every step of the way by his peers, so far everyone that you have mentioned in this thread has been a quack, liar or moron. I don't believe that you understand the methods of science. Also experimental data? Maybe you can spend some of the time used on insults to find it and present it.

christine wrote:
Ie, the extant data (do the research: for that is what truly intelligent people do, as opposed to listening to the provable rubbish of idiots like Dawkins) illlustrates (to open-minded, true scientists, as opposed to those who who are obstinate and thus wish to stay in the intellectual dark ages and maintain the (false) materialist mindset) shows that the non-physical mind/consciousness operates/manifests THROUGH the "mere" physical brain, that it is NOT a "mere by-product of the mere physical brain".

I've looked christine i've read up on the subject and i have no idea what extant data you could mean, all the data that i have read and questioned (its what actual intelligent people do, as opposed to just accepting it because it fits your worldview) has been either very poor or goes against you. As already stated the vast majority of supported evidence points to the mind being a product of the brain. Infact there is already a thread on RatSkep about this issue http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psychology/consciousness-a-product-of-the-brain-t30528.html

christine wrote:
One of the earliest modern-day neurosurgeons who discovered/realised that the non-physical mind is NOT a mere by-product of brain activity, but that it is completely separate from the brain, was Wilder Penfield (1891-1976). He wrote a book, "The mystery of the mind: a critical study of consciousness and the human brain".
He, and other neurosurgeons and neuroscientists since then, have realised/are realising that the "mere" physical brain is NOT the creator of the mind, but that it, the mere physical brain, is a "reducing valve",a filter, THROUGH WHICH the non-physical mind/consciousness operates/manifests.

And what about his book is considered evidence? Do you expect us to go away and read all the books you have provided before saying that this is a load of bull?

christine wrote:
It is because of this - that the non-physical mind and the mere physical brain are two separate things entirely - that people have what have been termed "Near-Death Experiences" (NDE's).

funnily enough NDE's have also been brough up in another thread that at the moment escapes me,

christine wrote:
And, as I said in post yesterday, and reiterated it in the post before this one, today,that a number of blind people and deaf people have also had NDE's.... and the content of their NDE's are exactly the same as the NDE's experienced by people who are not blind and/or deaf. Ie, blind people who have had an NDE (including some people who have been blind from birth) find themselves outside their physical body, and SEE and HEAR actions and words that are carried out/spoken, by doctors and nurses in the operating theatre, and the blind people having NDE's also SEE (whilst out of body) people in the nearby waiting room, and can describe what those people were wearing, precisely.

Unless the person does not have the part of the brain that in a healthy person would deal with seeing hearing and processing this information why do you think that its impossible to have the brain provide such sensory hallucinations? Although if you can actually provide some EVIDENCE that someone who cannot see had a near death experience and managed to describe in detail someone who they would be unable to otherwise then your argument might carry some weight, as it is you have just asserted that this is true, its no different than me saying "Dr. Smith Smitherson actually managed to 100% prove that there is no afterlife".

christine wrote:
And, when the blind people who are having an NDE are, eventually, resuscitated by the attending doctor(s), they tell them what they saw and/or heard, whilst they were in a deep coma, or having been pronounced "dead" by the attending doctor.. and the things they said they SAW were investigated, and proved to be 100% correct. Ie, blind people have VERIDICAL NDE's.
Ie, they prove, in this way, that they were able to SEE, whilst outside their physical body - when, from the perspective of their physical body, they had been blind from birth...

I've actually read about a study where something was placed on top of a shelf in a number of operating rooms for a number of years to see if anyone that experienced an out of body experience could see it. I'll find that study in a bit.

christine wrote:
This data is realised, by scientists, doctors, psychiatrists, etc, who are INFORMED on the available data, to be of vital significance, as regards the actual nature of reality, of existence... and it is for this reason that NDE's of blind people are being said to be the "smoking gun" for the reality of everyone's survival of physical body "death"...

There is the word data again... They are informed on the available data? I'm pretty damn sure that if the data exists then we can all be informed about it by going and reading it. If you have read this data then i'm sure you will be able to tell us where it is and if you have not read or checked the data then how the hell can you know its correct?

christine wrote:
Tomorrow, I will say a little bit more on VERIDICAL NDE's, and then I will proceed to explain the actual nature of the thing which makes us what is termed "alive" on Earth. And will explain why that is why we DO all survive (in sub-atomic energy form: the eternal soul we each are) the vey illusory event termed "death".

No christine no... instead of explaining how about providing something resembling evidence, something that actually supports your idea rather than just claiming its true. Funny enough i'm getting bored of asking you to provide something to back up your claims.

Christine, let me address a couple of things in your post, and hopefully help you a little at the same time.

christine wrote:... if you were trying to be funny, with the author Richard Lazarus' surname, then you should be ashamed of yourself, for the man who wrote that excellent book DOES have the surname Lazarus.

It matter not one iota that Lazarus is his real name or not, that someone with such a surname is writing about survival of death is funny. Nothing for anyone to be ashamed of.

But this is all you lot can do, isn't it...ridicule, make incorrectly patronising remarks, etc etc... I've looked at your profiles, when I've read your comments to me, and very many of them are so infantile and stupid... you will know full well what I mean...with made-up places, and, as I say, infantile words used.

You really do yourself no favours you know. From the off you have been casting aspersions on the scientific community, whilst all that time, many members of RatSkep are also members of that community. So you insult people here, then expect us to give you respect back. Amazing. In addition, you make wild claims to know the truth, whilst we are just ignorant, wallowing in science, that very science that gave you the computer you're working on when you post here, the science that provides the medicines & medical equipment that you might have need of if ill, and so on. And the nature of your claims, and how you go about presenting them, are just bound to get less than serious responses sometimes.

... there is only one aspect of the (multi-faceted aspects) data that can be and has been proven SCIENTIFICALLY, and that is the category called "materialisations" - I will explain in more detail in a later post, but this is where people who are what you lot assume to be "stone-cold dead" are able to manifest, physically, through a person who is a materialisation medium (I wish i could underline, on these posts); people who are wrongly thought to be "dead" have manifested physically,by the use of a very real substance called ectoplasm, extruded by such mediums, and doctors and scientists present at such materialisations have been able to confirm that the materialisation IS the same person who has done what is wrongly called to "die".

And this is a prime example of what I just mentioned. Firstly, 'proven SCIENTIFICALLY'. You do know that the standard web forum etiquette is that CAPITALS indicates shouting? So whenever you start SHOUTING, people tend to ignore what you're shouting about, and start looking for the pigeons you're probably shouting at. Stop it. People think maybe you're mad. And when you're talking about ghosts, you need to do everything you can to present yourself as rational & sane.

Secondly, science doesn't do proof. Here you are, castigating science & the scinetific method, yet by referring to scientific proof, you demonstrate that you really don't understand that which you so roundly criticise. Maths & philosophy do proofs, science does evidence, data, hypotheses, experiements, theories, and disproofs, but not proofs.

Third - reference to 'you lot think' - you don't know what any of us think, let alone 'us' as some homogenous collective, so don't make such silly, sweeping statements. Again, you're coming across to me as a foam-speckled fanatic, not a reasonable, rational person.

And then we come to the meat of it - ectoplasm & materialisations. You claim this is a real phenomena, but no evidence. You claim that doctors & scientists present at such materialisations confirm the status of them, yet cite no specific events, no specific accounts, no names, nothing a disinterested party could follow up & check. And yet we are to simply accept this as true? Why? Why would we do such a thing?

My point is that all the other very real and genuine proofs that we do survive the illusory event termed "death" ARE NOT PROVABLE BY YOUR RIDICULOUS "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"

But, but ... just now, scroll up a bit & see, you said that materialisations were scientifically proven. Now they can't be proven? And you want us to take you seriously? Really? And please, STOP SHOUTING!

... for, let me explain to you a basic fact: SPIRITUAL truths are NOT able to be proved by PHYSICAL (ie, your ridiculous "scientific method") means.

OK. I get that bit. But then science doesn't set out to prove anything. But yes, got it. BTW, whay is the scientific method ridiculous? I'd really like to know what in particular is so ridiculous about it. Please explain, and please ensure that you've read up thoroughly on the scientific method before you do so.

... in those NDE#'s, they see and hear things that were going on, in an operating theatre, whilst they, the NDE'r, were in a deep coma, or had just been pronounced "dead", with no brain-stem activity.

Do you really know what it is you are saying here? Do you know what 'no brain-stem activity' actually means? Do you know how to test for this (clue: there are generally 5 tests)? Do you know the circumstances in which brain stem death might be misdiagnosed?

... They were then resuscitated, and described what they had seen and/or heard, whilst in that condition.

Fact - there are no documented cases of brain-stem death where the patient has ever made any appreciable & long-term recovery, & certainly none where a patient has become conscious & able to speak. No documented cases whatsoever. Zero. If you have evidence (not assertion) to the contrary, let's see it. Note, cases where brain death has been wrongly diagnosed, and the patient has been revived, don't count, obviously.

And the things which they had SEEN (take note, this happens with blind people who've had NDEs) and the things which they heard, are subsequently verified. Ie, they are VERIDICAL NDE's. People who are, in physical life, blind (and there is at least one case where a woman who has been blind from birth, had an NDE, and, whilst she was in that deeply unconscious state, SAW many things... in the operating theatre, and elsewhere, proving that we each have another method of seeing: ie, with the spiritual vision we have, from the perspective of our eternal spirit (ie, sub-atomic energy) body.

I'll admit that some anecdotal accounts bear some deeper scrutiny than some here might think, and some of these NDE episodes raise interesting questions about consciousness, and are worthy of proper investigation. And that's as far as I'll go. You go much too far, with claims that a few accounts prove anything more than that we have these accounts. They do not prove that we have another way of seeing, do not prove spiritual vision, do not indicate an eternal spirit, nor that such a thing is sub-atomic energy. You have evidence of a claim being made. And that is it. Nothing more. Worthy of investigating further, maybe, but proof of anything? Not a bit of it.

...And these cases - NDE's experienced by people who are, in physical life, blind and/or deaf - have been referred to as the "smoking gun" for the reality of everyone's survival of the very illusory event termed "death".
I told you this, in a post yesterday, but (how "conveniently"..) not one of you has remarked on it.
I gave you a reference to one of the books about it: "Mindsight", by Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper. Ring is an Emeritus Professor of Psychology.

Interestingly, Ring never talks about dead people, but people who are near death, people on the verge of imminent biological death. Not dead people. People near death. It's what near-death experience refers to. Death is a process, and it can take hours. Sometimes, the pronouncement of death comes well before actual death. Did you know that you can remove a heart from the body & it will continue beating? Doesn't make the person still alive because they're heart is beating. You can remove the brain, liquidise it, and yet keep the body 'alive' for days. The person is still dead though. And someone can be pronounced dead & yet not be, just be in the process, and a point has been recognised where there is simply no coming back.

And finally, to underline text, highlight it, then click on the u, 3rd in from the left along the formatting icons above the text box you write in. The words highlighted will be underlined. Hope that helps.

I said that in my post here...
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/death-a-correct-scientific-approach-for-surviving-it-t15833-580.html

me wrote: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.

Spearthrower wrote:

twistor59 wrote:

D'oh!

You must admit though: it does fit! I bet you and Christine would get along famously.


Edit: I bet your're THE ONE ON THIS PAGE though aren't you? Intelligent, erudite, ....capitalization-overzealous..... yeah I MUST have it right this time.

I am a very highly-intelligent, knowledgeable, qualified, scholarly, erudite learned woman of 53 years, and became spiritually-enlightened as of 1994

Why does Christine feel the need to keep telling everyone this?

Are these qualities that one can judge about oneself?

Are people not permitted to form their own opinions of this?

My opinion of this, resulting from the posts she's made here, does not entirely match Christine's stated opinion of herself. Who is right? Who judges?

I dunno, but 'very highly-intelligent' does not seem to me to be something which a highly intelligent person would say.

Fallible wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

twistor59 wrote:

D'oh!

You must admit though: it does fit! I bet you and Christine would get along famously.


Edit: I bet your're THE ONE ON THIS PAGE though aren't you? Intelligent, erudite, ....capitalization-overzealous..... yeah I MUST have it right this time.

I am a very highly-intelligent, knowledgeable, qualified, scholarly, erudite learned woman of 53 years, and became spiritually-enlightened as of 1994

Why does Christine feel the need to keep telling everyone this?

Are these qualities that one can judge about oneself?

Are people not permitted to form their own opinions of this?

My opinion of this, resulting from the posts she's made here, does not entirely match Christine's stated opinion of herself. Who is right? Who judges?

I dunno, but 'very highly-intelligent' does not seem to me to be something which a highly intelligent person would say.

That is true, I know because i am also highly intelligent. In other news i'm also qualified, scholarly, erudite and became enlightened last Tuesday. I've also walked on the moon, broke the land speed record on a skateboard, snorkled the Marianas trench and have a black belt in full contact crochet.

I'm a qualified netball referee, so as I am sure you must realise, I cannot possibly continue to interact with someone as lowly as yourself. Good day.

Rhubis wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

twistor59 wrote:

D'oh!

You must admit though: it does fit! I bet you and Christine would get along famously.


Edit: I bet your're THE ONE ON THIS PAGE though aren't you? Intelligent, erudite, ....capitalization-overzealous..... yeah I MUST have it right this time.

I am a very highly-intelligent, knowledgeable, qualified, scholarly, erudite learned woman of 53 years, and became spiritually-enlightened as of 1994

Why does Christine feel the need to keep telling everyone this?

Are these qualities that one can judge about oneself?

Are people not permitted to form their own opinions of this?

My opinion of this, resulting from the posts she's made here, does not entirely match Christine's stated opinion of herself. Who is right? Who judges?

I dunno, but 'very highly-intelligent' does not seem to me to be something which a highly intelligent person would say.

That is true, I know because i am also highly intelligent. In other news i'm also qualified, scholarly, erudite and became enlightened last Tuesday. I've also walked on the moon, broke the land speed record on a skateboard, snorkled the Marianas trench and have a black belt in full contact crochet.

A black belt? How typical of the ORTHODOX monochromatic mindset that blinds you to the TRUTH of the very misunderstood FACT about the experience known as 'belts'.

I, on the other hand, wouldn't type in a public forum unless I had at least 4 colours on my belt.

How sad and pathetic!

Me too! I have qualifications and degrees (which lets me claim scholarship). My measured intelligence is fantastically high. Not sure what erudite is, but I bet I'm that, too.

But, making no claim to owning a spirit or any evidence suggesting I do, I can't claim spiritual enlightenment.

You know, just a couple days ago I nearly broke my goddamned neck flying over a car with my bicycle at ridiculous speed. No life flashing before eyes or nothing. Must be lacking that enlightenment.

I do have to take it easy here, though. My broken ribs hurt like a motherfucker when I laugh.

And I am a six sigma black belt with tons of professional certifications. Beat that, motherfuckers.

Hmm. Well, I attended the prestigious New England Conservatory of Music, although we always said that NEC stood for "Not Exactly College". Other than that...I got nothin'.




Actually, I do have some other certificates, degrees, qualifications, awesome super powers, etc. But I'm not allowed to talk about them...

I don't have anything to brag about academically, but I do have to say I look fucking awesome in my spacesuit.

I got a badge for something when I was cub scout.

Now all we need is a "learned woman of 53 years" and i believe together we cover all the bases on this and can debate on even footing.

campermon wrote:I got a badge for something when I was cub scout.

The Has Not Achieved Any Badges Badge?

Spearthrower wrote:

campermon wrote:I got a badge for something when I was cub scout.

The Has Not Achieved Any Badges Badge?

The "I went to cub scouts and all i got was this lousy" badge?

iamthereforeithink wrote:And I am a six sigma black belt with tons of professional certifications. Beat that, motherfuckers.

I have two tons of professional certifications. So there.

patient zero wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:And I am a six sigma black belt with tons of professional certifications. Beat that, motherfuckers.

I have two tons of professional certifications. So there.

Shit. I'll weigh them again tomorrow to see if I can add an ounce or two...

I won a Crackerjack Pencil, assholes.

Alright well, I didn't.

But I've seen one.




On Crackerjack