|
|
Post by turoldus on Dec 30, 2008 12:15:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Dec 30, 2008 12:24:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 30, 2008 15:43:51 GMT
It seems we still have all the same problems. Firstly the 'binding problem' or the 'humpty dumpty' enigma. We can break up the brain into its consituent companants and theorise about modular theories of mind, and on how natural selection can thereby act on these individual componants; but there is still no coherant theory of how these can work to together to produce a unified experience. There doesnt appear to be a 'control centre' Secondly the hard problem of conciousness, we can explain an emotion in terms of the activities of neurons but we can't then explain why this should result in a concious experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Dec 30, 2008 17:20:08 GMT
I just love how the author of this article immediately considers OBEs to be hallucinations when there is a considerable amount of studies, ranging almost 30 years that suggest they are not.
For example Michael Sabom in 1982 surveyed two groups of surgery patients ( both groups were unconscious during their operations) . One group reported having a NDE and claimed they could see their medical operations. He interviewed this group and they were completely accurate in their description. He interviewed another group of patients who did not have an NDE during their surgery. He asked them to describe their operation and they made numerous errors.
Clearly NDEs are a hallucination is the best conclusion from the data ;D
|
|
