Philo
Sophos
·com

philosophy is for everyone
and not just philosophers

philosophers should know lots
of things besides philosophy


PhiloSophos knowledge base

Pathways to Philosophy programs

Pathways web sites

Philosophy lovers gallery

Science, arts and humanities

PhiloSophos home

home first back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 forward

Johannes asked:

I read an answer to a question (at this place) about blind people, especially all-life-blind ones, and
their ability to dream in shapes and colours, hinting at a priori evidence and even spirits. It said that
no such things exist.

I then found a site referring to a book (Mindsight) that had discovered that all-life-blind folk or the
congenitally blind in near-death-experiences (NDE) — however you might think of them as mind tricks
of some sort — suddenly have an all visual experience (like the normal NDE).

Now what does that tell you (anyone)? If there is no 'a priori' (and maybe anyway) does that not mean
that all those NDEs must be real?

If all this is very well known to you, then do you know if the blind NDEs start REM-sleep? as they
should, right?

The question is from here:
http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_11/philosophy_questions_1111.html

NDE site link: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html

============

It tells me or anyone absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is one book, citing a few studies of
dying people. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is to get reliable data from livingpeople? Getting
reliable data from dying people makes that look like a kindergarten exercise. So, first, I don't believe
it.

Second, think about it. What isblindness? Why, it's a simple thing; you don't see things, right?
Wrong. There are manytypes and causes of blindness. Total complete cortical blindness is very rare.
Someone with complete damage to their visual areas is most likely severely retarded and
handicapped in many other ways. If you don'thave such damage, you canhave visual sensations
from stimulation of intact visual cortical areas, even if you have total blindness from othercauses, for
example, no functioning eyes. So the NDE thing is unreliable as anyindication of the "reality",
whatever that means, of NDEs. Actually I think that NDEs arereal experiences. Why not? The
question is, what do they mean? You see a light... ok, fine. You feelreligious... ok, fine. And? Those
are feelingsyou have, and surely you recognize that we all have feelings that are and are not reliable,
etc. What about people who wake up in the middle of the night with free-floating anxiety, for no
discernible reason? Shouldthey feel anxious? Well, to determine that you have to go to manyother
sources than just that feeling. Same with NDEs... which so far have proven to be about as
"free-floating".

Take a look at these for a dash of cold water on the NDE hype:

Alper, M. The "God" Part of The Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God
Brooklyn, NY: Rogue Press, 2001.

Azari, N.P., J. Nickel, G. Wunderlich, M. Niedeggen, H. Hefter, L. Tellmann, H. Herzog, P. Stoerig, D.
Birnbacher, and R.J. Seitz. "Neural Correlates of Religious Experience." European Journal of
Neuroscience
13 (2001): 1649-52.

Hines, T. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence.Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books, 1988.

Shermer, M. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions
of Our Time.
New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1997.

Young, A.W. "Wondrous Strange: The Neuropsychology of Abnormal Beliefs." Mind & Language15,
no. 1 (2000): 47-73.

Steven Ravett Brown