romansh

there is a comment right at the end of the diatribe against the supernatural aspects of NDEs.
Absolutely none regarding an explanation ... There is evidence of people who are effectively blind, they cannot see a thing, but what it is, there is a disconnect between the optic nerve and brain. Under certain circumstances they see stuff but are not aware that they see it. Blind people are (I suspect) very good at determining what their surrounding might look like from sounds. People can be aware while under anaesthetic.
I believe that NDEs are real .... my problem lies with the interpretations without evidence.

Thank you ... I hope my frustration does not show through too much .. .. I'm not good at dealing with arguments that, to me, seem illogical. I apologize in advance... but I promise to 'try' to be on my best behaviour.

Regarding ... desire for belief ... not quite what I meant .... I was hoping for a more introspective answer. If nothing is apparent don't force it.
all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

AB517

Yeah, Rom, I understand what your are saying now. I was strictly speaking about controlling some thoughts or thought patters in our Brains, nothing more.

I totally agree with the feed back system and can see an argument for a net zero change. A Law of conservation of “free choices” mite just be valid.

I am not a head of you at all. Define the ego in a way that makes sense to you. I use the word “ego” like I use the word “God”, they are just words. I call that part of me that wants to serve only me the “ego” that is all.

Don’t even scare me with something bigger than my ego … that be that there boogie man my mum spoke of, well, when she wasn’t talking about my dad that is.

romansh

I'm not quite sure what you mean here?
Taking my understanding at face value.... dangerous.
I would argue we don't even control the thoughts or thought patterns ... using the same logic that got us to the point of the agreement we have now, extend it any semblence of the concept of control we may think we have?

I suspect it is a path to letting go of one's ego.

I have to admit I'm not there yet. I'm hanging on to control for dear life. I can let go of it logically, but emotionally I'm not ready.

The beer is talking ...

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

AB517

I never much though about conserving “choice” before but I will say it I like it.
Conservation laws seem to extend from subatomic particles to possible connections between universes. Awareness, what ever that is to you, is part of this universe and subject to its laws also.

I think of the universe of a set of initial conditions and final conditions. One theory is that all possible outcomes to an event take place. If we apply this logic to choice we would say that all possible choices take place. A logical statement that can follow this is that no choice has been made. I understand this. They talk about us experiences what we do because of a collapsing wave function. Wave functions confuse the poop out of me but I kind of see what they mean.

The universe in some way must conserve choices. Choices are neither created nor destroyed they are only changed. This fits nicely into your statement about acting as if it were real. It would not be acting. It would be treating choices as they need to be treated in the form that that choice is in. This would be like treating electric potential energy electrically even though the energy came from gravity.

I like it Rom … good show.

romansh

Thanks AB
Not exactly sure how I helped ... oh well

I have to admit never been a fan of the multiverse.
It falls out of a possible solution to some equations.
I don't see how it is testable and what evidence there is for it.

A nice explanation of it I read in the science of Discworld III (I know I should improve the quality of my text books)
The multiverse is like a note played on a clarinet .. it has all sorts of frequencies and amplitudes embedded in it but we only experience the total. Similarly in the multiverse we pass through all the possibilities but only experience the whole thing. In a different universe it would have a note on a bassoon?

I read something to the effect, if a multiverse exists of all the possibilities, then in one them there would be universe where the multiverse does not exist?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

AB517

The universe that contains all the universes is not multi …err … uhmmm … sure … that’s it.


sometimes I just have to laugh at the depth of my own Bullshlt.