Science is only a death trap if you do not have the reasoning skills to properly make decisions and distinguish between multiple forms of alternatives and alternative thinking-styles to optimize toward ones betterment. — Cobra

Agreed, science in itself is just a knowledge generating machine, a tool, a neutral phenomena, neither good nor bad in itself. And, "more is better" science was appropriate in the long era of knowledge scarcity. We no longer live in that old era, so it seems reasonable to question whether the "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus science, is still appropriate.

So far we do have adequate reasoning skills to manage a great deal of the knowledge explosion. The problem is that the knowledge explosion now creates powers of enormous scale that brief failures of rationality can lead to game over events.

It is not the science that is the death trap, but the poorly made decision-processes diminished by underdeveloped forms of reasoning. — Cobra

We've suffered from poor decision making since the beginning. But previously the powers available to us were sufficiently limited that even huge mistakes did not crash the system. It is science which gave us powers of sufficient scale to crash the system.

We are being seduced by irrelevant examples from the past. Example, WWII was a horror show, but the mess was cleaned up in about a generation or so. WWIII will be a horror show too, but the mess won't be cleaned up for centuries, if ever.

We look back at WWII and see we got over it, a very long established pattern. That pattern is outdated, irrelevant, it no longer applies. Our technology races ahead, while our philosophy (relationship with knowledge) remains stuck in the past. The gap between the two is widening at an ever accelerating pace.

Otherwise your thinking, and this discussion, will just be nothing more than, to quote Dostoevsky "pouring from the empty into the void". — Janus

If only it were so. A philosophy aligned with the vast majority of reality would be rational.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with believing those things; but intellectual honesty demands that you should acknowledge that they are faith-based. — Janus

Yes, this is VERY COMMON internet atheist dogma. Everyone should acknowledge their position is faith based, except for the atheist. There is a factory assembly line somewhere which cranks out such identical thinkers, each one thinking they are unique and special.

That's how you will see it, but that in itself is also a statement of belief. — Wayfarer

Thank you. Now break the news to him that it's a faith based belief.

Thus Hippyhead's patterns do not really exist — FrancisRay

Yes, real, but non existent (no mass or weight etc).

Civilisation is competition, evolution and survival of the fittest at meme level — Chris1952Engineer

So I'm suggesting an evolution from a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which was appropriate in a long era when knowledge was scarce, to a more sophisticated relationship appropriate to an era of knowledge explosion. Moving beyond "more is better" will inevitably involve learning how to say no to some knowledge.

"they" didn't do just one thing. They were split 50/50 on whether Iraq was "liberated" or "humiliated". No-one at all predicted such a split. — Paul Edwards

Right. My point too. No one predicted it. Someone in charge should have.

We Americans are technically brilliant, and culturally clueless. So, invasion went great, occupation a mess.

No, the occupation was done perfectly too, given the information available at the time — Paul Edwards

The missing information, imho, was that we didn't fully grasp how traumatized the Iraqi people were. Once Saddam's knife was off their neck, a great deal of bottled up rage came poring out. And it couldn't be directed at Saddam, so they rebelled against us.

Bush thought the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. He thought he was invading Belgium in WWII.

Basically they're not putting themselves into the shoes of an Iraqi. Let's see if we can get agreement with your/my position in this thread. — Paul Edwards

Good luck with that. :-)

A key problem in such discussions is that Americans (and many other Westerners) have had freedom for so long we typically no longer appreciate it. Understandable, but an obstacle.

As example. A forum user may wail against the war in a thousand posts, but the moment a mod deletes one of their posts they go hysterical. All perspective and context lost. They can rationalize Saddam all day long, but would launch rockets against the mod if they could. So long as it's somebody else's freedom being discussed it's all theory, once it's MY freedom being affected, reality returns.

In my opinion, it was conducted near-perfectly, given what was known at the time — Paul Edwards

Invasion, near perfect. Occupation, a mess.

However, the Iraq war was a mess, the plan changed several times and the US answers to establishing a democracy seem to be flawed. — Judaka

Yes, goal was moral, execution of plan incompetent. That said, nobody in Iraq is pining for the days of Saddam. The Iraqi government appears to be incompetent and corrupt, but it's not invading it's neighbors, not terrorizing Iraqis to the degree of Saddam, not seeking WMD.

If Saddam had remained in power we'd now be seeing a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran, leading to a wider arms race across the region.

But the combination of these 2 goals requires a hell of a lot of thought to devise a cunning plan for world liberation. — Paul Edwards

I like this, thumbs up. Yes, not a simple right/wrong equation.

Unless we are for psychopathic dictatorships, it's really a tactical question, not a moral one.

I really doubt it'll ever be proven. — TLCD1996

Agreed, never proven, just made more credible.

Partly because we're talking about something which could be called "subjective", something which many have trouble even describing or even teaching to their students. — TLCD1996

Have you ever worked a hard low paying job for years? If the guy next to you is always happy, at peace and contented while you're burning out, you'd probably take note of that and wonder how they did it.

There's a guy like this who loads lumber for customers at my local HomeDepot. Hard sweaty job, 8 hours a day. Been there for years. Probably makes about $10/hour. Always cheerful, always a smile, always helpful, always fun to see again. One day I asked him, how do you do that? Jesus he said. Credibility.

Pretty much all the gurus and teachers I've seen sit on a pillow at the center of a crowd of adoring followers. Even I could be enlightened in such a circumstance.

Just saying, one more way to look at it. Not "the" way. Just another way.

Dodging the incoming fire now, are we? :-)

But besides the fact this might not solve suffering at the very core — TLCD1996

Very unlikely to be possible, except maybe for a rare few. This is what thousands of years of evidence reveals. If that is true (debatable of course) then the next question could be, if something isn't possible, why chase it?

simply sitting down in meditation - perhaps in the forest - are a good starting point of letting go — TLCD1996

A good starting point and a good ending point. The idea of "starting point" assumes a process of becoming. Become what? Something impossible?

I'm really not arguing with what anybody chooses to do. Really I'm not.

Just doing the analysis dance with you and pointing out the obvious that this entire discussion is all about "me and my situation". A focus on "me and my situation" is proposed as the solution. Could it instead be the problem? Not the cure, but the disease?

Two key points which may define the divide between our perspectives:

1) What is the source of suffering? The content of thought, or the nature of thought?

2) Is a fundamental shift in human psychology generally possible?

If we answer the content of thought, philosophy seems advisable. If we answer nature of thought, perhaps not.

If we answer fundamental shift is within reach, then a process of becoming seems advisable. If we answer otherwise, perhaps not.

I'm really not being cynical, just empirical. What if we took one of the teachers and put them on the grill at McDonalds 40 hours a week for a few years living on minimum wage? That is, living an ordinary life. That experiment would interest me.

What most of us are suffering from is that we think about ourselves too much.

Seeing that we have a problem we go looking for a solution. Sometimes we bump in to various philosophies which essentially say each in their own way, "the solution to your problem is to think about yourself some more".

That sounds pretty good, because that's what we've been doing all along already. It's a pattern which we're comfortable with, and a form of psychic junk food which we've become addicted to. So when somebody says, "let's eat more junk food together" we nod in agreement, thumbs up, ok, good plan.

And so we become part of some system which is built upon thinking ourselves even more, but now the junk food has been rebranded from what used to sound kinda like selfishness, but now sounds more like something glamorous.

We could choose to stop thinking about ourselves right now, not forever, just for awhile. But wait, before we do that, let's insert a process which takes many years. Also, a process which promises to make us bigger and better than ever before.

So instead of letting go of suffering right now, our plan is to let go after we've become rich, or famous, or popular, or better looking, or enlightened, or anything, anything at all really. Except for right now.

I guess I'm being Mr. GrouchyPants again, but isn't there a degree of absurdity in the assumption that any of us know anything about issues of such enormous scale?

Example: When will science end? When we have learned all there is to learn? Thousands of years? Never? If it's true that science will continue at an ever accelerating pace for a very long time it logically follows that we currently know almost nothing, in comparison to what humans can know. And then there's all the stuff we'll never be able to know because of the limits built in to the human condition.

Philosophy can be very sophisticated, articulate, intelligent and educated. But is it rational? Is it rational to have centuries of endless debate when we probably only currently possess .0000001% of the information? Ok, fun. But rational?

If we are willing to consider such a debate as one would a game of bridge which is meaningless but entertaining, then I withdraw the complaint. Even Mr. GrouchyPants isn't against fun.

What if it is 'empirical reality' itself that is the delusion — Wayfarer

He doesn't understand that his position is as faith based as anyone else's, on issues of this scale. He believes in the qualifications of his chosen methodology as a matter of faith, but doesn't know he's using faith. To him, those qualifications are an obvious given. Thus it never occurs to him to challenge them. So therefore he feels in a position to challenge faith, as if he's outside of it.

Extremely common sincere misunderstanding which powers the entire atheist internet. Nothing can be done about it. Once one's personal image is attached to this misunderstanding, it's game over.

Hey Hippy, contrary to what you'd probably rather hear, this was not meant to discourage trying to know — ChatteringMonkey

You've read all my posts on that topic, and still don't understand anything I've said. No worries.

What has happened to that creative zaniness, where you expect at least one protestor to show up in a multi-colored Cat in the Hat hat, another on stilts, and at least one naked guy with gold chains? There are no more bongo drums, poetry recitals, or prayers to made up gods or goddesses anymore. That's not to say that the protests of the 60s weren't deadly serious and meaningful, but there has been a full circle shift in the persona of the rebel, where it began as the audacious and impudent school boy and now it's the prim schoolmarm at its best, to an outraged rioter at its worst. — Hanover

It's the revenge of the Catholics. While everyone is falling all over themselves to leave the Church, meanwhile we are also becoming more sanctimoniously moralizing with each passing day.

Just when you think you're out...

They pull you back in!

I think all these concepts are an acknowledgement of the fact that we are limited as human beings in what we can perceive and what we can know. The world, the universe is an ever changing whole of which we as human actors always only can perceive a very limited part of. — ChatteringMonkey

When will science end? When will the scientists hold a news conference to announce they've finished their work? Thousands of years? Never?

Even in the realm of what we can know, very long way to go yet I suspect.

And then there's all the stuff beyond what we are capable of knowing.

Are ‘Near-Death Experiences’ Real?

By John Martin Fischer - a professor of philosophy.

NDERF is the largest Near-Death Experience (NDE) website in the world — nderf.org

I think these folks are the site owners:

Jeffrey Long is a medical doctor specializing in the practice of radiation oncology, using radiation to treat cancer in Houma, Louisiana. As a scientist, Jeff founded NDERF in 1998. He wanted to know if NDEs were real by directly asking the NDErs themselves. The answer is a resounding YES! As a result of his research, he is the author of the New York Times Best Seller, "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences." As a leading NDE researcher and a medical doctor, Jeff has appeared on national media including O'Rielly Factor, NBC today, ABC with Peter Jennings, the Dr. Oz Show, the History Channel, the Learning Channel, and National Geographic. He has also appeared on Fox News Houston and at the New York Academy of Sciences.

Jody Long is an attorney, licensed in Washington, New Mexico, Louisiana, and the Navajo Nation. She is webmaster for the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) for the past 13 years and provides support and a forum for NDErs and those who want to know about the afterlife. She has several decades of experience researching paranormal and related phenomena. She is also webmaster for After Death Communication Research Foundation (ADCRF) www.adcrf.org and the other consciousness experience website which is everything that is not an NDE or ADC (OBERF) www.oberf.org . Jody helped with "Evidence of the Afterlife," the New York Times best selling NDE book. She has written "God’s Fingerprints: Impressions of Near Death Experiences," "From Soul to Soulmate: Bridges from Near Death Experience Wisdom" which will be the first book of it's genre published in mainland China before the end of 2016. The newest book, "Living Like an Immortal" will be coming out the first part of 2017.

Is a life experience and not a death experience — tim wood

Here we get in to definitions and word games, but my understanding is that these experiences are classified as death by the medical community. Emergency room doctors are highly educated specialists and deal with life and death on a regular basis. So while I wouldn't claim they should automatically have the final word on how to define NDE, if we are to concern ourselves with experts, that's who they are.

but suspend judgement on the interpretation — jamalrob

I'm questioning the degree to which judgment has been suspended.

Are you stunned yet? :-)

I'm not worried about that. If it's bias, I think it's one that's shared by philosophers and intellectuals in general. — jamalrob

Yes, those who have, generally speaking, no experience with the phenomena in question. Which is not to say they are therefore wrong in their views. I'd like to hear from them. Just not only them.

But that's a conversation about the relative roles of personal experience versus familiarity with the literature, rather than about NDEs as such. — jamalrob

It's relevant in this thread, which is not really about NDEs, but forum policy. Again, I'm not all wound up about this, just desperately making a pathetic attempt to stun someone, anyone, in to silence. Like that could ever happen. :-)

It is my mission to explain how profoundly simple metaphysics is — FrancisRay

In theory at least, profoundly simple things might be best explained in profoundly simple language.

First, I was clear that my stated preferences were my preferences — jamalrob

Right, that's where I got the impression I did.

I don't think it's an unfair imposition to expect people to engage with research rather than speculate in ignorance like Jimmy down the pub. — jamalrob

Well, ok, but isn't that your bias? Research=good, experience=meritless?

If that is your bias, I'm not arguing against it so much as wondering why it couldn't be part of such a conversation, instead of the boundaries of such a conversation.

This could reasonably be declared off topic, but personally I'm more interested in reports from DMT experiences, as these would seem to be reproducible, at least generally speaking to some degree.

Best I can tell (not used DMT myself) the experiences revolve around ego death more than physical death, but then ego death is why we're worried about physical death.

PS: If all drug inspired experiences are to be discredited, then posted submitted while high on caffeine should be included.

I don't think so. — jamalrob

It appears you would want a NDE thread to represent your own views, and you are the forum owner, and so have the final word. I'm cool with that, no problem.

But intellectually, why does one view of such an unknown realm automatically have more value than another? If that is what you're saying.

It's not a difficult ideas intellectually, but conceptually challenging in the extreme. — FrancisRay

Say more if it interests you to do so, interested here, but this particular reader may require more dumped dumbed down translation in to armadilloese.



PS: It appears armadillos don't excel at spelling either.

Anyway, probably my main point is that there's been a lot of work on NDEs by various kinds of academics, and a discussion would be better off engaging with it to fend off unmoored speculation. — jamalrob

Aren't all opinions about death, mine included, unmoored speculation?

We do not experience extension. We are always here and now — FrancisRay

This part I get. The rest, kinda beyond the reach of armadillos. :-)

never said it should be unregulated. — Benkei

Never said you did. I hear you, a meeting place for mechanical transactions. In theory, neutral. Trouble is, in the real world, such places can routinely lead to chaos on a large scale.

I would put forward ideas about the philosophers of near death experiences but think any serious discussion would be lost amidst pointless banter. — Jack Cummins

I hear ya brother. One solution is a blog, a site where you control the conversation. But then you'd have to build your own audience from scratch, kind of a lot of work. In that case you'd probably wind up spending hours crafting an intelligent post, which would be consumed by maybe 3 readers.

Stock markets are excellent systems to bring lenders and borrowers together. Its insanity is caused by other things. — Benkei

Market collapse of 1929 caused by hyper-speculation, leading to Great Depression, leading to re-emergence of Hitler, leading to WWII, leading to mass death camps, and nuclear weapons.

Market collapse of 2008 leading to untold suffering for millions, and a near miss global catastrophe.

Just arguing for tight control of a very dangerous mechanism.

Or, we can keep debating until the next crash where you lose your home and Net connection, and then I'll be able to go "Nana nana na na!" and you won't be able to counter. :-)

It implies that extension is not real — FrancisRay

What is extension?

So, at the moment I am rather disappointed that the main page discussion of near death experiences is failing to offer what its title promised. — Jack Cummins

Not making any demands here, but it might be interesting if in some limited number of cases the original poster had mod control over the thread they started, making one person responsible for whatever happens.

Some junior officer on a ship in the South China Sea hits the wrong button sending a torpedo in to somebody else's ship, leading to full scale escalating chaos in minutes.

Stock market = Insanity