At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?

Right. I say we look for a non-materialistic explanation when current theory is violated.Sorry for just bringing an anecdote, but I saw a TV show on out of body experiences where a guy had a surgery that he flat-lined during but was brought back. Afterwords, he asked the surgeon why he was doing the chicken dance during the surgery. The surgeon explained that sometime during surgery, when his hands are tied up, he'll point to things with his elbows and that he could see how it might look like the chicken dance. But the guy was not conscious during the surgery which is besides the fact that his head was covered during the whole thing. There was no way the guy could have actually seen the surgeon and it convinced the surgeon that the guy might have had an out of body experience. I think that was a legitimate place for the surgeon to look for a non-materialistic explanation.

Bullshit.Look at the pyramids that the ancient Egyptians built in the face of their abundant supernatural beliefs. There was a little more to it than that and all I said was that it was a legitimate place for the surgeon to look for a non-materialistic explanation, not that it was evidence of the supernatural.Quit being a dick.

How you define the word "evidence". As "a reason to believe something" there's no difference, but me knowing that you prefer the constraints of "objective empirical evidence" it should be obvious that I wan't saying that it was that.Hence you being a dick. From my end, it seems like you do put some effort into it

When you think: "I am going to move my arm", the brain outputs an electrical signal to move your arm. That signal can be received and translated to an actuator in a robotic arm.Are you amazed at the point from where the thought of moving your arm becomes an output of an electrical signal? Or that that signal can be translated to an actuator?If thoughts are simply a series of neurons firing, where are they non-material?

Hey Dave, how's it goin'? Likely? What are you basing this likelihood on?The anesthesiologist didn't mention anything like that. And you can't even breathe on your own when under general anesthesia, let alone hear stuff. The only thing I found after searching was people claiming some hearing loss after general anesthesia. I don't find your scenario very likely, nor reasonable, at all.But we know, a priori, that it couldn't have been an out of body experience, right? Your scenario is just a post hoc rationalization for materialism, isn't it?In all honesty, we just don't know how it/what happened. Insufficient data. But it must have been something that could be explained materialistically, right? Shouldn't that count as pseudo-skepticism?People say things like 'the model works' or 'the coin always comes up heads', but in this case we don't know what side the coin has landed on (its still in the air). Still though, you've offered a post hoc material rationalization and given it a positive likelihood. But by the nature of this case, we cannot perform a scientific investigation (what are we gonna do? flat-line people on purpose and control the variables ) so we just don't know. But people still come up with these off the cuff 'explanations' and maintain that there's no reason to look for a non-materialistic one. Seems dubious to me. But he is unable to investigate all possible explanations. This (specific) case can't really mature any more. The general case of out of body experiences is still in the air. But the surgeon is commenting on this specific case. What I said was:

quote:

---

I think that was a legitimate place for the surgeon to look for a non-materialistic explanation.

---

And I still think it is. The phenomenon seemed to defy materialistic explanation and my criteria for looking to the non-materialistic was this:

quote:

---

I say we look for a non-materialistic explanation when current theory is violated.

---

I think I've maintained my position. I think you're close here... The non-materialistic explanation is left as just a possibility, but it doesn't mean that we have to completely give up on learning the truth. The surgeon could meet with other ones who have had patients claim out of body experiences and they could look for correlations or commonalities, etc. I'm ignoring all the ID stuff we agree on and applying this line (admittedly out of context) to the case I've brought forward. I think further investigation does not have to be halted just because a non-materialistic explanation has been presented.There's even a research foundation for the phenomenon: OBERF - Out of Body Experience Research FoundationAren't they performing "further investigation"? (I haven't really looked into that website much)

From previous nuerons firing, which come from previous nuerons firing, which goes all the way back to the first firing in utero when the brain develops. And that first firing, I suppose, comes from the mother's nuerons firing. That's all fine and dandy.Now, back to this robot arm. Can you see now that in this specific case it is all material?