Re: Data Does Not Lie

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:08:50 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Max
<maxdwolf@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Dec 5, 10:01 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:21:24 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx>:



Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:22:48 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx>:

The scientists call their findings survival of consciousness --
meaning our physical bodies die, but we continue on.

The research continues with studies that include near-death
survivors.

Schwartz says near-death experience research completely dovetails
and supports what's coming from the mediums.

He says he will continue his research, and that the data doesn't
lie.

"When you look at the totality of the data from our laboratory, the
simplest explanation is actually that survival of consciousness is
real," said Schwartz.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2893543/detail.html

We'll eventually see whether anyone is able to duplicate the
results; until then this is simply an ongoing study.
(Remember cold fusion? Ever hear of N-Rays?)

Meanwhile, what's your point?

Your soul does not evolve.

You have yet to demonstrate that such a thing as a "soul"
exists, or that it corresponds to living consciousness. So
I'd have to agree with you; since the "soul" is merely a
conjecture it's obvious it doesn't evolve.
--

On the contrary, an imaginary construct may evolve more quickly and
freely than any bacteria or virus. It is constrained only by our
imagination.

Point, although that stretches the meaning of "evolve" well
beyond the bounds used by biology. It reminds me of an SF
story which used a similar dodge to justify a particular FTL
process: "Look at that star, then look at the one over
there. They're hundreds of lightyears apart, and yet your
attention made the trip in less than a second. And you can't
really claim that *nothing* moved from one to the other."

I will have to admit though, that from my readings of the
matter in sci-fi and fantasy that our imaginations (or the market) may
be more limited than I would like to admit.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin and God: can they co-exist?
    ... *consistent* with the universe supporting life is not to show that is ... Meaning is what we make of it. ... ethereal beings *will* evolve. ... the material world, fine, but it is nothing to do with evolution either ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Young minded experimentalists
    ... crowding of the field-lines in the considered area and its vicinity. ... of flux are a figment of the imagination, in spite of the lines we ... Depends on the meaning you attribute to to them! ... what we call vacuum is something showing quite a bit ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: nonlinearities in QFT
    ... I don't know about hypothetical theories like LQG. ... meaning by means of the renormalization procedure. ... > Psi over the initial configurations we will be able to evolve it in ... People don't even know what an initial configuration Psi should be ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Kal-El versus Dark Phoenix?
    ... that evolve are the decendants of the survivors. ... "Evolve" does have another meaning actually. ... of explaining how Doomsday's "evolution" works. ... Doomsday's atomic structure to turn him into something that no longer ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
  • Re: Data Does Not Lie
    ... survivors. ... or that it corresponds to living consciousness. ... imagination. ... "Evidence confirming an observation is ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading