Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ixhp0y2 wrote

Reply to comment by red75prime in Lex Fridman's father is pro-immortality by SpiritedSort672

[deleted]

−1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixi1qdm wrote

> folks with NDEs

Oh lord.

1

[deleted] t1_ixi5j0c wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixi9nkm wrote

Subjective hallucinations in people teetering on the edge of brain damage from oxygen starvation and other chemical imbalances is not meaningful evidence of anything. File it along with drugs and sensory deprivation nonsense.

6

[deleted] t1_ixiaokq wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixicop4 wrote

It’s the null hypothesis. It is a thing we absolutely know is happening in a dying brain regardless of whether there is ALSO something spiritual going on.

1

[deleted] t1_ixid2mg wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixigccr wrote

No, you're wrong, we really do know how the brain reacts to resource starvation. If you want to establish that there is something metaphysical in NDEs you have to eliminate the null hypothesis first, and nobody has done anything vaguely close to that.

1

[deleted] t1_ixihy0d wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixingxi wrote

That's not how science works. That's not how anything works.

0

[deleted] t1_ixinrdw wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixinz8u wrote

Science says you can’t prove anything without evidence. You don’t have any evidence. You just have wishful thinking. That doesn’t mean it’s a fallacy it means it’s not even a testable theory.

1

[deleted] t1_ixiofbz wrote

[deleted]

1

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixj3rmp wrote

I'm not claiming to know what happens after death. By "pro-death fallacies" I meant the statements that Lex makes about death being necessary for life to have meaning.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixipnk4 wrote

I'm just objecting to you using NDEs as evidence.

You prefer "fantasies" then? Unless you're one of Heinlein's "true witnesses" you have to demand some level of support for anything you're going to stand for. Complaining that the word "fallacy" implies there's active proof against something that is basically 100% made up without any basis for considering it any more seriously than the Great Green Akleseizure or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just churlish. You know it's nonsense.

0

[deleted] t1_ixiq6x3 wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixiqkc5 wrote

No straw man. You brought up NDEs as support for your argument. I'm objecting to using NDEs as support for your argument. If you agree that they're not support for your argument after all, we're done.

Then you brought up "we can't argue about it because we don't REALLY know anything". We actually do know quite a lot, so THAT's a total straw man, but whatever. It's still not evidence that NDEs are evidence for anything.

1

[deleted] t1_ixiu2kf wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixiulku wrote

They're not data.

1

[deleted] t1_ixiym6d wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixiyvcy wrote

Completely unrelated. Even if there is some continuity of memory Beyond Death there is no reason to assume that it is anything but a dead record and has nothing to do with consciousness.

1

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixik6c6 wrote

The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim though, I’m willing to let science study NDEs or drug trips, but let’s not jump the gun like some people and say they got reality all figured out. Tool has a song about Psychonauts like that, it’s called Rosetta Stoned.

1