Quote:
|
Just because you can recreate them it doesn't mean it's not psychic or it must be a hallucination.
|
Quote:
|
Perhaps, but even if you can reproduce the effects of a given experience, that doesn't necessarily disprove the possibility of any potential causes for such an experience.
|
That's like walking into the doctor's office, worried that you have a bad case of the flu. You tell him what you're feeling, and you match up 99% flu-like symptoms.The doctor then says "Well, you know, it might not be the flu!" And he's right - it may not be! There's that... you know, little, small, 1% chance! But chances are,
it is the flu. And with like NDEs, it follows the same logic. If I can recreate very, very similiar experiences in normal, unbiased people, it's likely the two events are one and the same.
People often hallucinate and dream up similiar scenarios when they have NDEs, similiar to "alien abductees" telling the same similiar stories about what happened when they were taken on the space ship. "I saw a glistening white light!" from the NDE experiencer becomes "I was probed!" by the person taken aboard, and vice versa. You're told "how" NDEs feel by your peers and culture, and that's reinforced when your brain hallucinates. Another similiar example is dream content. People often dream about what's on their mind and what they went through the day before based on the input they received from their sensory systems - noises, sights, sounds, etc..
Single hit and misses, and even strings of "hits" from psychics or from normal people doing readings
does not prove psychic ability no more than science can disprove psychic ability by a few tidbits of research here and there. But when science says "This is most likely what happens
based on the evidence we have now," than there's a good chance that science is right due to the vast amount of research out there. The little science research that seems to point towards psychic ability often is
almost always flawed - the research itself isn't peer reviewed, the research methods themselves are seriously flawed, the subjects are biased, the testing isn't done accurately and so the results are skewed, and so on. If you look, there is probably a research paper here or there that demonstrates a finding of psychic ability... but it'd be one in a sea of millions that say the opposite, and there are probably flaws with the paper and research itself.
EDIT - since I'm getting close to going off on a tangent and derailing the thread, I made a
new post here about what I was talking about, to start a discussion on it. Sorry!
