Re: More near-death nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dr B
Basically, why do survivalists think that cogentially blind people don't have a form of graphical imagery?
Because they've never asked them, I guess. Believers do a lot of 'not asking' when they really ought to!
Re: More near-death nonsense
Blind people don't have an imagination?
Edit: Screw that, just read the last sentence of your post again. Something to do with fact that not all blind people have NDEs or non-blind people have NDEs.
Re: More near-death nonsense
I listened to a podcast recently on the subject of NDE. It was very informative and opened my thinking to things I had not considered before.
I tried to find you a direct link to the episode, but there seems to be a problem with the site.
Here is the feed to start subscribing to the podcast, I think you'll find it interesting, and it might bring new depth to your paper.
http://rss.mac.com/mcrislip/iWeb/Qua...dcasts/rss.xml
The episode is "QuackCast 23. NDE’s. They all had change in their pockets."
If you are not familiar with podcasts, you may need to download a program that can download it for you. Pasting that link directly into your browser may not work (as it does not for me).
*Edit* Tried using a different net browser, got that direct link. Here it is;[LINK] I would still recommend subscribing to the podcast as it is very informative. It deals with other stuff, such as what causes and the misconceptions people have about "the cold",vitamin C etc.
Re: More near-death nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FarSideOfTheMoon
Blind people don't have an imagination?
According to survivalist interpretations of the NDE - yes - that is what they argue. It is simply untrue of course.
Quote:
Screw that, just read the last sentence of your post again. Something to do with fact that not all blind people have NDEs or non-blind people have NDEs.
The survivalists assume that if you can show congentially blind people can have NDEs then this means it cannot be hallucination or psychological - as they have no visual knowledge of the world built up through their visual sense. Therefore, it must be a paranormal perception working via 'mind' and not brain.
Note - I am talking about congentially blind and not just people who become blind over time. O0
Re: More near-death nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nudles
I listened to a podcast recently on the subject of NDE. It was very informative and opened my thinking to things I had not considered before.
I tried to find you a direct link to the episode, but there seems to be a problem with the site.
Here is the feed to start subscribing to the podcast, I think you'll find it interesting, and it might bring new depth to your paper.
http://rss.mac.com/mcrislip/iWeb/Qua...dcasts/rss.xml
The episode is "QuackCast 23. NDE’s. They all had change in their pockets."
If you are not familiar with podcasts, you may need to download a program that can download it for you. Pasting that link directly into your browser may not work (as it does not for me).
*Edit* Tried using a different net browser, got that direct link. Here it is;
[LINK] I would still recommend subscribing to the podcast as it is very informative. It deals with other stuff, such as what causes and the misconceptions people have about "the cold",vitamin C etc.
Could you tell us more about it here for the purposes of discussion?
Re: More near-death nonsense
Re: More near-death nonsense
Some great questions here. There seems to be very little regarding what congentially blind people 'see' if anything. The best answer that I found was that CB individuals do not see while dreaming but instead they have auditory dreams. I wonder if the NDE study was being less than honest with their interpretation as not visual but auditory in nature then 'coloured' by a little creativity on the experimenters part.
Re: More near-death nonsense
If you're interested in NDEs there's an SF novel you might enjoy: Passage by Connie Willis.
Re: More near-death nonsense
CB individuals do have imagery as they still experience a 3-dimensional world via their movement through it. They have a form of representing themselves, their bodies, and space and so all of these processes can still go wrong and lead to distortions, delusion and hallucination of the 'self'.
The true nature of these may differ from sighted people - but their existence is not only known by science, but actually predicted by most contemporary models in the area. O0
Re: More near-death nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dr B
The survivalists assume that if you can show congentially blind people can have NDEs then this means it cannot be hallucination or psychological - as they have no visual knowledge of the world built up through their visual sense. Therefore, it must be a paranormal perception working via 'mind' and not brain.
It's the leap to conclude "it must be paranormal" that seems to me to be an extrapolation a little too far.
Re: More near-death nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nudles
I listened to a podcast recently on the subject of NDE. It was very informative and opened my thinking to things I had not considered before.
I tried to find you a direct link to the episode, but there seems to be a problem with the site.
Here is the feed to start subscribing to the podcast, I think you'll find it interesting, and it might bring new depth to your paper.
http://rss.mac.com/mcrislip/iWeb/Qua...dcasts/rss.xml
The episode is "QuackCast 23. NDE’s. They all had change in their pockets."
If you are not familiar with podcasts, you may need to download a program that can download it for you. Pasting that link directly into your browser may not work (as it does not for me).
*Edit* Tried using a different net browser, got that direct link. Here it is;
[LINK] I would still recommend subscribing to the podcast as it is very informative. It deals with other stuff, such as what causes and the misconceptions people have about "the cold",vitamin C etc.
Quackcast is great. I listen to it often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
It's the leap to conclude "it must be paranormal" that seems to me to be an extrapolation a little too far.
Well paranormal is defined as experiences that lack an obvious scientific explanation. This somewhat qualifies I guess. At least currently it cannot be explained. I don't like the word 'paranormal' being thrown around all willy-nilly. Matter of fact I hate the term and all it stands for. This may be a rare accuracy.
Re: More near-death nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StoneQuarry
Well paranormal is defined as experiences that lack an obvious scientific explanation. This somewhat qualifies I guess. At least currently it cannot be explained. I don't like the word 'paranormal' being thrown around all willy-nilly. Matter of fact I hate the term and all it stands for. This may be a rare accuracy.
Lacks an explanation???? What does and in what way?
Re: More near-death nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dr B
Lacks an explanation???? What does and in what way?
No - lacks an OBVIOUS SCIENTIFIC explanation. ;)
Re: More near-death nonsense
I am still confused, i can think of a host of explanations, all scientific - but you would be correct in saying these are not obvious to the general public - however, they are not hard to find in the modern age.
Years ago when i was a young teenager interested in science, it was all books. No Interweb....yet i still found the relevant material after some effort. These days less effort is needed to find the most useful material but some still dont want to find it or ignore it when they do :undecided: O0
