the issue here is that the evidence is too sparse for most people to take it seriously as a falsification of the most successful paradigms of knowledge in human history. — Apustimelogist
What’s an NPC? — Wayfarer
It would put into question things we know about how physics and biology works. — Apustimelogist
If the probability is, say, 50/50, I would agree, but the probability is high based on the evidence. Most of our knowledge is probabilistic, but we don't say "It may or may not be true." Moreover, we don't claim "to know" if the probability is relatively low. I'm claiming to know that the conclusion follows, not, obviously, with absolute certainty. — Sam26
French operating-suite amputation (Toulouse)—During surgery under general anesthesia, a patient described rising above the theater and then “looking” into an adjacent operating room where a leg amputation was underway, — Sam26
Updating yields a posterior probability of approximately 0.95 (95%). — Sam26
(Are the scare quotes around "looking" an acknowledgement of my question about Nancy Rynes looking behind her?) — Srap Tasmaner
First, the consciousness that has separated from the body on the operating table seems to have a location in physical space. Doesn't that strike you as odd, for something non-physical?
Second, with or without scare quotes, this consciousness seems to have a definable perspective, a field of view that can be turned this way or that, much the way humans normally see using their front-facing eyes.
Third, this consciousness seems to do one thing and then another thing, meaning it is bound by time. Isn't that also odd, for something non-physical? — Srap Tasmaner
I could write it out, but my argument doesn't depend on this Bayesian framework. Most people won't understand it anyway. What I think is funny is that I estimated the probability of my conclusion being correct at 95% even before the Bayesian analysis. — Sam26
Can you explicitly write out this calculation? — Apustimelogist
I could write it out — Sam26
the OBE reports often describe a vantage point, like above the body or in the room, that seems spatially anchored. But why assume that's "odd" for something non-physical? — Sam26
a perspective that's detached but still oriented toward — Sam26
it's often like a movable viewpoint, not omniscient 360-degree (although 360-degree vision has been reported) god-mode — Sam26
Without grounds to do so, such challenges, or questioning, is, at best, idle. You've not provided any compelling grounds which throw how either physics or biology works into question. Poor epistemology.It would put into question things we know about how physics and biology works.
— Apustimelogist
But that's the whole point: It's questioning those paradigms. It's challenging what you believe you know, which is why I emphasize epistemology. — Sam26
Where did you take that from?Because non-physical entities do not have spatial locations... — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.