Passion for Fairness

One of the most trying things about growing up during the Cold War was the sense that we had to live and act by different standards to our enemies. Totalitarian regimes could beat up their critics, or let them rot in jail after putting them through a mockery of legal justice. But democrats were bound to be true to their principles. Free speech required that they give a platform for communists to preach their overthrow, just as today Islamic terror supporters get to live on benefits given them by the British state while shouting against everything Britain stands for.

This problem crops up sometimes in our dealings with skeptics. I remember when Nicholas Humphrey's Soul Searching came out, being shocked that something so vacuous and mindlessly disparaging could even get into print - surely a low point in the sceptical canon. I was even more dismayed to read a review in the SPR Journal by John Beloff, who thought we might be a bit miffed that the Perror-Warrick award, which is supposed to go to fund genuine parapsychological research, instead went to finance a book designed, as he says, 'to ridicule the field', but nevertheless advised us to 'swallow our resentment'.

Our Society has always prided itself on being open to every shade of opinion and Nicholas Humphrey knows how to write. He is erudite without being ponderous and witty without being frivolous. A belief that dare not expose itself to such urbane scepticism must be frail indeed.

Beloff had been making sterling attempts to reach out to skeptics, for instance trying to draw their attention to the Feilding report on Eusapia Palladino. 'What is your explanation,' he kept asking them.  I remember admiring him for it, while at the same time recognising the futility. They just seemed a bit embarrassed, and didn't really want to reciprocate. But with this review I thought he'd gone way too far. 

Today the SPR's Paranormal Review arrived, and it includes quite a long review by Matt Colborn on the SPR study day last October, when I joined Guy Playfair and Rupert Sheldrake in a discussion of skepticism. Guy gave a run down on the history, focusing in particular on CSICOP. Rupert talked about his own experience of getting stuffed by skeptics, and I talked about skeptic psychology. That seemed to me a reasonable topic: believers are routinely criticised for the way they think, but skeptics betray biases of their own.

Matt gave a detailed and pretty fair description of the talks, but he seemed to be bothered about the lack of balance. He was 'perturbed' to see that there would be three talks by anti-skeptics, and a single skeptic, Professor Chris French, would merely be invited to comment. He had 'feelings of unease', he wasn't sure it was 'constructive', he thought it was important to have a 'level playing field'.  He accepted that skeptics shout down the opposition, but 'two wrongs don't make a right'. He was puzzled that someone should have complained about French being given the last word.

I remain troubled by any tendency to want to silence the opposition, simply because this is undemocratic. And if parapsychologists demand a level playing field, then they should do everything they can to maintain it.

Well, up to a point, Matt. I agree completely that we should engage with skeptics where we can, as I've tried to do here, occasionally with some success. We even had that James Randi drop by a while ago. But each side has its own forums, where likeminded individuals meet and discuss. There's no rule that says they have to invite people who think their ideas stink. Since it was an SPR event, the bulk of the audience was always going to be SPR members, and they wouldn't necessarily have paid to hear people trashing their beliefs. 

As I recall, there was some discussion about whether or not to invite Chris French - it wasn't automatic. If he hadn't come there'd have been no balance at all. As it happens, I was very much in favour, for precisely that reason. But it never occurred to me that we should have gone the whole way, inviting an equal number of skeptics, and giving them equal time to make their own presentations. If we had done, none of us would have been able to give the kind of detailed, thoughtful presentations we did. It would not have been about information and insights from people who know their subject. Not at all, it would have been an intellectual fist fight. We would have been up there about defending our positions against critical attack, which is what we have to do all the time.

By all means let's run that event that sometime. It would be interesting, and we might establish some common ground. But there's a time and place for it. We don't owe our critics anything, and we don't have to go out of our way to let them join our discussions. 

Comments

[Paul Welsh]

I read the SPR stuff too. I agree its important to determine what the objective of a forum is. I listened to Rupert Sheldrake's presentation on Sceptics from earlier this year and found it very interesting. I have a lot of time for him he seems rational and patient to me

I am dubious of the value of a fist fight. On the other hand although I can understand it being stressful, the responses of Wiseman (I think) and Randi (Have you seen the research? No?) most illuminating. It either says they are lazy and can't be bothered explaining their objections or that their objections don't stand up.

It put me in mind of Keith Augustine and his contributions on here at the end of last year. Plenty of theorising and debating but when asked what he has actually read - we got an answer that didn't address the simple questions asked "What have you read? What did you object to and why?". I was astonished.

[Greg Taylor]

Hi Robert,

It's a tricky one - I think it's always a good idea to go for some balance. But then, as you said, it was an SPR event. I've seen the line-up for 'The Amazing Meeting', and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of 'balance' there either...but it doesn't bother me in the slightest, that's their little gathering and they are welcome to do the 'big tent' thing as they please.

[Kris]

oh come on Paul

Keith gave us a long list of books he plans to read in the future...

[The Major]

Ah but Kris, imagine this exchange:

"I'm well travelled"

"Where have you been?"

"Well no where but I plan on going to France, Italy, Japan..."

[Guy Lyon Playfair]

Matt Colborn seems to have a bee in his bonnet about level playing fields. How often do the sceptics invite non-sceptics to provide some balance to their events? Very occasionally, yes , but not often. The purpose of the SPR study day was to provide our right to reply to all the lies, abuse, distortions, defamations, disinformation and general slagging-off we have had to put up with in the past. What would have been the point of having them all say it again?

We invited Chris French to join in because (a) he is an SPR member of long standing actively engaged in research and education and (b) he is an excellent speaker who, unlike some pop media sceptics, does know what he is talking about, and talks about it very clearly and rationally.

To misquote what Voltaire never said in the first place, I disagree with some of what Chris says, but by no means all of it, I defend his right to say it, and I enjoy hearing him saying it, as he had plenty of time to do at this event. So what is Matt whingeing about?

Guy Lyon Playfair

[Keith Augustine]

I've been silent for awhile given how unproductive my last experience here was, but comments about me directly in an entry about being respectful (or not) of other points of view is just too ironic to ignore.

I'm disappointed, but in retrospect not surprised, that your readers found nothing constructive in what I had originally posted in the NDEs in the Press thread.

My first comment was entirely on topic, relevant, and fair. From the safety of anonymity "Kris" is the one who decided to make it personal, making unnecessarily hostile comments about what I said elsewhere about the sacred cow of NDE research, the Pam Reynolds case. (That case truly is, as I have come to call it, their Roswell: too many people have invested in that case as "one of the best" suggesting consciousness in the absence of brain activity to jettison it now, whatever the facts.)

Since I had the gall to post here with my real name, the poster known only as "Kris" could not resist suggesting that I would never change my mind no matter what the evidence, as if he knew anything about me at all. Had I not identified myself in my first comment, I seriously doubt "Kris" would have found anything to complain about. His problem was with me posting here at all, or more broadly with me as skeptic having written anything at all about NDEs instead of keeping my mouth shut. Skeptics are constantly berated for not having an explanation for case X, and then berated when they produce one. Damned if you do, damned if you don't--and you wonder why most scientists decide it's more productive to focus their efforts elsewhere.

No matter how innocuous the comment made, a known skeptic posting here--how could that go unchallenged?

Undoubtedly "Kris" (whoever he really is) will uncharitably describe me as "whining" for pointing out his character flaws. So be it; there's no reason to think that psi-believers are any more civil than the general population, and over the years I have found that many such believers (mercifully, not all) are hostile simply because you don't convert to their point of view--as if every person has an obligation to believe exactly as you do. When was openness to a diversity of viewpoints ever bad for getting at the truth? And yet anything that fails to toe the party line gets stamped "scientism" or "pseudoskepticism," as if tribal warfare in which only one kind of viewpoint is permissible has ever advanced our understanding of the way the world works.

To get to the point, though: I had the mistaken impression that this blog would be a civil environment for multiple points of view, in which constructive dialogue between skeptics and believers might be possible, given the "About Paranormalia" statement acknowledging that "the issues are hard to penetrate." Actions speak louder than words, however.

FWIW, if skeptics are not welcome here--hinted at in Robert McLuhan's comment that "each side has its own forums, where likeminded individuals meet and discuss"--then the About Paranormalia statement should be changed to reflect that. That's all.

Finally, I want to say one final thing about the fact that that I did not differentiate what I had read from what I intend to read. That was intentional, as I have no obligation to play your little games.

Did you seriously expect me to invest thousands of hours in order to give you a chapter-by-chapter overview of "what I objected to" in dozens of books? Especially when in my previous comments, every thoughtful response to your questions was ignored and replaced with a dozen more questions for me to respond to--as if you could "win" simply by a war of attrition?

Would any of you had listed the skeptical books that you've read (I wonder how many) and what you, specifically, found deficient in them? How many thousands of hours would you have invested answering destructive critics with no interest in what you actually have to say?

And FWIW, for much of this material the issue isn't so much "What did you object to and why?" as it is with whether you buy everything that you read or not. I know it's a shocking thing to say, but much of this material needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Paul Welsh]

Thanks Guys - made me smile.

[Kris]

Keith

First off you are a bit whinny in my book. You cried persecution in the last blog. You accused people in Prescott's blog of being dogmatic cause they didn't agree with you.

Buddy, you can believe me or not but I spent two years in Iraq running combat missions. In my time I saw the mass graves of Shittes murdered by Saddam Hussein. I saw insurgents blow up an orphanage. And a heck load more. That is persecution.

First off Keith you are by no means a skeptic. A skeptic doubts. You have rather firmly decided that the dying braining causes NDEs and you will whip, torture, and brutalize the evidence to fit your view. Of course you have admitted you simply ignore what NDErs say about their experience and that seems hardly a productive means of research to me. If it isn't, why isn't it.

What Keith calls unnecessarily hostile is showing him to be full of nonsense. I also consider him to be a bit dishonest as I showed how he thoroughly misrepresented NDE Prophecy in the Dec Blog. As for the anonymity charge I would happily tell you to your face how full of nonsense you are if for some odd reason we ever bumped into each other.

Keith people berate "skeptics" ( in all honestly I do not consider you to be a skeptic at all) cause the explanations they propose for events such as Pam Reynolds are abject nonsense. And they continue in using worn out how it could have been scenarios even when they are exposed as garbage again and again. And then they pass them off as decided facts. It is just as annoying as dealing with creationist. I would be a lot more more impressed if your side would just be honest and say you don't have a clue, but maybe this is a possible explanation, not we know exactly what is and how it happens and you are silly and deluded for trying to use any dualism hypothesis

Also can you save me sometime. I want the how it could have been scenario for the Al Sullivan Case for future reference- http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=95&pgtype=1

and for the recent case by Penny Sartori- A Prospectively Studied Near Death Experience with Corroborated Out of Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing ( sorry you just have to find the article yourself)

I am going to repeat the challenge I made in the last blog. I do have the cash to pay off too. If you are so confident in your explanation you should be willing to take my challenge, especially in this rough economy.

Keith we can settle this question quite simply. We can blindfold you and plug your ears. ( I will make sure the ear plugs completely block sound, no partial getting through, just like the ones with doctors used with Pam Reynolds. I will be nice though and not have them actually beeping loud noises every second). You will still get to be conscious though. I will now do various things in the room, and I will require you to tell me what happened, exactly! If you do this I will give you five hundred dollars. If you fail to do this, you have to give me fifty dollars, sound fair?

I am willing to double the offer. Here is now a change for you to make a cool grand. We do all the above to you, and you have to describe what is going on around you like earlier. But seeing it is extra money, I get to find the biggest whiskey bottle and hit you upside the head and knock you out. Come on Keith, according to skeptics NDErs do something similar, here is a clear chance to make 1,500 dollars if you pass both test. Are you interested in truly testing your worldview and making some cash. If you don’t want the money I can always donate it to whatever charity you see fit. See I think my money is safe for the simple reason unconscious people cannot do what NDErs do! That is why it is a remarkable thing and so far explanations of a dying/stressed brain will not work!

[Kris]

I just had an amusing thought.

What if one of these people had a NDE?

http://www.mindreality.net/is-your-brain-really-necessary

How would materialist create a dying brain explanation for these people who are literally, brain less? ( and if they don't have a brain how are they conscious in the first place. This is not user for friendly for the position that the brain creates consciousness)

[Keith Augustine]

Kris: You're obviously hostile. It has nothing to do with any "persecution complex." I'll repeat my evidence for this:

"My first comment was entirely on topic, relevant, and fair.... Had I not identified myself in my first comment, I seriously doubt 'Kris' would have found anything to complain about."

You never cited anything objectionable in my first comment there then, nor since, yet impugned my motivations. If my initial comment was somehow objectionable, feel free to quote the objectionable part here.

Yes/no? Could you show it to me? I'd like to know what CONTENT of what I said was objectionable. Was it perhaps the idea that experimental evidence should be collected under properly controlled conditions? It is REALLY objectionable to suggest that it would be better for such an experiment to ensure ahead of time that no normal explanation is possible--or do you think it is better to design experiments so that they only produce inconclusive results?

Since there's nothing to quote, what other explanation is there? It is evidently not WHAT I said that was objectionable, but who left the comment--that "irascible pseudoskeptic" whose arguments you've said elsewhere border on the criminal. (I'd like to know what crime I committed, or almost committed.) You've obviously got a problem with me that is entirely irrelevant to determining truth. Someone interested in the truth will focus on the issues. Who is the one talking about them doesn't matter.

I'm not a skeptic because I never received certification from you accrediting me with skepticism? Wow, that's some pretty compelling stuff there...

As for the fact that most NDErs interpret their experiences as visions of an afterlife--is that any more compelling (as I answered this charge last time) than the fact that most alien abuctees interpret their experiences as visions of the inside of an extraterrestrial spacecraft? Is their interpretation evidential?

If I produced some quotes from near-death researchers themselves conceding that NDErs' interpretations of NDEs are not evidential, would those researchers also be ignoring "what NDErs say about their experience," or would they be making responsibly cautious valid points? Does the validity of the point depend on the point itself, or who makes it?

If you have shown that I'm full of nonsense, please quote (1) my nonsensical claim/s and (2) your demonstration (not just opinion) that my claim/s are nonsensical. That's a really easy thing to do--if your hostility is fueled by something other than some irrational hatred of skeptics.

Incidentally, you're incorrect that I have some undying faith (no pun intended!) in the dying brain hypothesis. Rather, experiences during altered states of conscious are, as far as we know, always generated by some pattern of brain activity (e.g., dreams are generated by the brainwaves associated with various stages of REM sleep). It is not controversial to say that brain states produce dreams, or LSD trips, or what have you. So it would not be surprising if they caused NDEs, too. You've simply given us no good reason to think that NDEs are any different than any other altered state of consciousness.

I'm aware that you believe that there are flat EEG NDE cases out there, but FYI I was CC'd on a message to an NDE researcher about exactly where these cases are since Gary Habermas refers to them, and that researcher pointed out that since it takes 30 minutes to place EEG leads, no one would do that for a patient in a spontaneous near-death crisis and thus in severe danger of dying. Consequently, according to this near-death researcher, not me, the only NDEs associated with an actual flat EEG tracing are among those in long comas (where correlating the timing of the flat EEG with the NDE is virtually impossible) and with that *one case* of hypothermic cardiac arrest where we know Pam Reynolds' NDE began *hours* before she was even in any danger of dying (no wonder, then, that you have so much riding on that case!) If you think I'm lying (my typing allegedly borders on the criminal, after all) I can ask for permission to quote that researcher directly instead of very closely paraphrasing the actual words.

You are also incorrect that I "misrepresented NDE Prophecy." Not so. I've always acknowledged that there are cop-out explanations available for true believers as to why the prophecies don't come true (they're usually "conditional prophecies" so as to conveniently leave an out when they don't come to pass). My point is that the explanations for these failures are trite and ad hoc. Here you have an opportunity for verification, and when the verification doesn't come through, you chalk it up to "the disasterous future didn't happen as predicted because the world must have changed its ways in the nick of time" or some other cop-out. And you think I'm the one contorting evidence to fit my POV? Wow!

One last comment about your ridiculous little challenge before a general comment about the value of honest dialogue.

First of all, your challenge is misguided. Sabom is the one who claimed that Pam Reynolds could not hear by normal means. The burden of proof is on him, then, to support that proposition. As another poster pointed out, Sabom could have--and still could--set up an experiment testing subjects' hearing with the same equipment used on Reynolds, matching the conditions of the equipment, the room, and the conversation as closely as possible to the conditions Reynolds experienced. It could be done by ANYONE who has access to that equipment at any time.

Second, we already have the head surgeon's report allowing us to timestamp when the conversation Reynolds heard took place. Were there no timestamped auditory evoked potential EEG tracings printing out when measuring Reynolds brainstem activity? Could that not be compared to the head surgeon's report to determine if the earplugs were actually operational at the time of the conversation? Is it really so much to ask to include such documentation in an appendix, or at least publish it in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, or the Internet, or *somewhere*?

Feel free to lobby near-death researchers for an answer to either of those questions. I would frankly like to know the answers myself. Sabom's Light and Death was published in 1998. In that decade, am I really the first person to think that knowing the answers to those sorts of questions was important? Did no one else really think it important enough to answer those questions before I raised them? Since they have not yet been answered, I guess not.

Of course, those would be perfectly valid questions to ask--if only they were coming from someone other than me, right?

BTW, I've found that Internet forums tend to thrive when *differently* minded individuals meet and discuss. What are likeminded individuals going to discuss? One person makes a point followed by a dozen "ditto" responses. Dialogue between skeptics and believers is actually quite constructive, if moderated to proceed civilly by removing flame posts. Then the really core issues of disagreement can be revealed, and the pros and cons of them on both sides can be laid out for everyone to see. Having to engage someone who disagrees with you makes you think about issues that otherwise wouldn't occur to you, and you and your opponent are wiser in the end for having looked in a different direction.

But in order for that to happen, you'd have to concede that the other side does occasionally have fair points to make. That's not asking a lot, really, but some people are simply unwilling to make that concession. I actually thought that my dialogue with Paul and Robert in the NDEs in the Press thread was actually rather productive as to what our different concerns about evidence were.

I walked away from my discussion with Kris toward the end of the NDEs in the Press thread because he had no interest in any of that, but contrary to what Kris wants to believe, I do in fact have a keen interest in evidential standards, how knowledge differs from mere belief, and how we distinguish reality from mere appearances. That's why I pursued a graduate education in philosophy, self-learned a great deal about fundamental philosophical questions, and wrote about philosophical issues.

That said, Kris can believe whatever he wants. I really have no need for him to either like or believe me, or think that I have something worthwhile to contribute. And he can accuse me of whatever his heart desires, since the mere act of making an accusation doesn't make the content of that accusation true. Since you're going to do whatever you want anyway, I say: Have at it! Do your worst...

[Paul Welsh]

Your comments would hold more value Keith if you actually answered questions asked and not just the one's you fancy.

[Paul Welsh]

apology for the stray apostrophe.

[Robbie]

Hi Keith
Its good to have you on Robert's blog by the way, even if we do see things differently.
Would just like to respond to some of the points you have made.
Even though that I agree that the pro parapyscologists are by no means perfect, and that sometimes we could repond in a nicer manner. I have seen many examples of 'skeptics' (Not labelling there just distinguishing) behaving in a much worse manner. For example on PZ Myers blog, Greg Taylor of the Daily Grail recieved a few personal insults such as "You can't deny the fact you're a stupid asshole (not to mention insane"), and "You smug assuming dick...".
Just something to think about, before you complain about the lack of civility in this or Michael prescott's blog.
I also agree that the Pam Renolds case is far from perfect, but she seemed to have described the details far too accurately without it being aquired, as far as I know, through ordinary means.
I do concede that you have good points to make, for example pointing out the weaknesses in the Pam Reynolds case, but sometimes I feel you take up intellectual bullying. Which is counterproductive and If you engaged in it less Im sure I, and others, would take your points in much more then they do now.
Hope to read your reply soon :).

[Tony M]

There are a million reasons why committed skeptics and committed believers have so much difficulty with each other. As much as we like to think it's all about intellectual argument and persuasion, it is really about emotion, and "facts cited are really about "Excuses" and "Permission".

The Pam Reynolds case is a great example. A skeptic like Mr. Augustine will attach great importance to the timeline so he can argue that the events Reynolds perceived did not occur when she was “dead” because it gives him an Excuse not to accept anything about the case. (Even though it does not explain away the many verifiable perceptions she had at a time when a brain-limited consciousness should not have had any perceptions at all.) Meanwhile a believer will focus on those perceptions because they give him Permission to accept the thesis.

The set of facts are the same. What’s difference is the predisposition of the perceiver. We are not ultimately intellectually persuaded. Either an event changes our perceptions, we give in to what we fear (what I call the Blackmore Phenomena), or we are simply gradually worn down and accept that the world looks different than we thought it was.

[Kris]

Keith

I am hostile to abject nonsense and misrepresentation of research but I am not hostile to you. I also find it odd that you consider yourself a skeptic on NDEs when you are pretty much sold on the theory they are a product of the dying brain. What exactly are you in doubt of?

In the last blog I explained why one should question your objectivity, but I do not question your motives at all. You are an Atheist apologist, and that is your motive plain and simple.

I obviously have no problem with getting information under controlled circumstances, though I suspect we would disagree with what should be proper controls.

You could produce quotes from those NDE researchers but I would observe they would tend to come from older works on NDE research. I call aspects of your research nonsense cause you recycle long dead explanations for NDEs such as lack of oxygen etc. I have read your writings on NDEs and noticed you "forgot" to mention a lot of details such as NDErs again and again do not consider prophecies to be absolute things.

I nearly spewed my drink when I saw you recommend someone try to replicate the Pam Reynolds case to see if they could or couldn't hear what is going on. Are you aware her body temperature was dropped to about 70 degrees? How to do you propose replicating this without greatly endangering your test subjects? Also do you have an iota of evidence that Pam Reynolds ear plugs were not functional? This is exactly what I am talking about with Keith, he has a mentality similar to a hardened creationist. He will always find a loophole and dodge. Of course this is very convenient for Keith cause almost certainly those ear plugs found a new home in the trash after the surgery, cause I doubt many people have a use for custom fit beeping earplugs. So we can't find them to test them and even if we somehow found them in the landfill after all this time they might not work now. However, lets just use a little common sense with this though . It would be very easy before her surgery to verify if her ear plugs worked. All they would have to do was turn them on and see if they made a lot of noise. If that wouldn't have been an easy test to perform beforehand, why wouldn't that be an easy test to perform beforehand? Now are you seriously suggesting medical personal would be too stupid to do something like this? I will point out you couldn't have performed this surgery properly if the earplugs didn't work and the fact Pam Reynolds had a successful surgery ought to be proof enough the earplugs worked. If not, why not?

However I do think there is something to be said for such a test. I have recommend it again and again. I recommend we get a group of volunteers, blindfold and plug their ears, then we could give them some sort of drug to instantly knock them unconscious. Then we would carry on conversations around them, flap our arms etc and then when they come to we could try to get them to tell us what happened. Would this be reasonable? I think this is one thing Keith stubbornly refuses to get is that NDErs do things that people in good health couldn't do and debates over flat EEGs are red hearings.

I do think it is important for people who disagree on subjects to carry on discussions. But how far does this go. Do you believe we should teach creationism in biology classes now? Holocaust denial in history classes? I could go on and on. There is a difference between reasonable debate on a subject and abject nonsense and you crossed the line into nonsense a long time ago with me.

My last comment will be on your Alien Abductions analogy. If you cannot see why this is a false analogy I cannot really help you. However let me list a few reasons why.

a.) millions of people have had NDEs. Very, very few people have been probed by aliens

b.) NDErs can describe with remarkable accuracy events that happened why they are unconscious. So far to the best of my knowledge AAs have not been able to locate new discoveries in space.

c.) NDEs have been around for a very long time. AAs are a recent thing.

Lets end this post with some humor though. Maybe, just maybe something in the future like this might occur and wouldn't we all feel silly. See my link below :)

[Kris]

didn't publish my link- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzO3GBicyHQ

[Paul]

I agree with your comment Kris. I have one question: did you breathe while you were writing it? :)

[Kris]

I suspect we would have to verify that one Paul. However verification is impossible as time travel is as of now impossible so there is some room for doubt. However I think I can create some highly suggestive arguments in favor of the breathing hypothesis.

a.) I have been observed breathing every five seconds, however you will have to take my word on that one and we know from Keith testimonial evidence is worthless.

b.) Other people tend to fall unconscious or even die when they stop breathing for a few minutes.

So in conclusion I think it is reasonable to conclude that I did in fact breath while I wrote my comments if you are kind enough to accept my testimony.

I would say it is impossible to do much of anything while unconscious but in special recognition of Keith's views on that subject that we gain extraordinary powers while unconscious I will restrain myself... However in light of Keith's view on gaining powers during an unconscious state I could have written this while unconscious....

[Kris]

this basically out to be the introduction to a materialist take on NDEs.

We believe in afterlife interpretation of NDEs is absurd because the evidence clearly points to be people who have this experience just gain magical powers of observation during their experience and nothing more. Of course seeing these people did not realize they had magical powers while unconscious they mistake it for the afterlife. Any questions? If you do have any questions on this you are clearly irrational!

[Paul]

There's no answer to that :)

[Kris]

I have got to say that ear plug quibble has got to be among the silliest things I have read in awhile.

The earplugs worked. They used them to monitor brain wave activity during the surgery. How else could they have monitored Pam Reynolds brain waves? Did the machine do it through telepathy?

In previous writings Keith has claimed the anesthesiologist messed up ( again without an iota of evidence) and now he is claiming the earplugs screwed up, not only without evidence but in spite of the evidence. Is that the actions of a truly honest objective researcher I have to ask?

[Paul Welsh]

Well you can't rely too much on such complex technology :)

[Keith Augustine]

General comment: Again, my first NDEs in the Press comment was meant to be a quick comment about the topic at hand that everyone could agree on. I did not come here for a fight, but to add something of value to the discussion. Evidently, though, no psi-skeptic can ever make a legitimate point in a psi-believers' treehouse unless he is prepared to be mercilessly interrogated for commenting here--because club rules dictate "No Skeptics Allowed!" even when the "About Paranormalia" sign on the treehouse says otherwise. It's rather sad, IMO, that something as trivial as maintaining cliques of like-minded individuals seems to be more important to most of the posters here than talking about the issues and how we determine the truth about them.

To Paul: selective responding to questions is appropriate and typical for an informal blog or forum, rather than a more formal venue like a journal.

To Robbie: Are you suggesting guilt by association? I am no more responsible for what PZ Myers or Greg Taylor might say than you are responsible for what Victor Zammit or PMH Atwater might say.

As for alleged "intellectual bullying," I don't even know what that means. Do I expect too much when I expect people to back up their beliefs with good arguments and evidence, instead of ad hominem attacks, or believing whatever it would be really neat to think were true? That's not bullying, that's critical thinking, and I don't think it's too much to ask. If you're going to accuse me of making some obviously fallacious argument (as Kris did in that earlier thread), for example, back up your accusation by quoting me making that kind of argument. If you can't do that, it's probably because I never made the argument you attribute to me. It's quite easy to attack straw man arguments. Just because it takes real work to produce arguments with substance doesn't mean that it is some kind of bullying to expect people to do that. Just because the most vocal people tend to be those who know the least about what they are talking about doesn't mean we should lower the bar.

To TonyM: It would be nice for your point if the only problem with the Pam Reynolds case was the timeline, but there were independent problems with the "many verifiable perceptions she had," and that she had them "at a time when a brain-limited consciousness should not have had any perceptions at all" is arguable at best. Michael Sabom himself asked, after looking at what the actual bone saw looked like: "Why had this apparent discrepancy arisen in Pam's description?"

To Kris: I repeat--had I not identified myself, there would have been nothing for you to complain about. And your anonymity is important only because it shields you from the sorts of potshots you take at others. Like cutting off someone while driving down the road, you can be as inconsiderate as you wish since no one can identify you personally as the person acting like that. In addition, there's no track record of your past work to criticize everytime you make a post somewhere (not that someone posting a comment on a blog has any obligation to defend what he wrote elsewhere to every yahoo who has a personal issue with his point of view).

Some quick responses to some of the things "Kris" has said:

* "I am hostile to abject nonsense and misrepresentation of research." Where did I do that? Don't just pull that out of your arse, back it up with a quote of something I said and then the actual research so we can see if there are real discrepancies, or just your imagined ones.

* "What exactly are you in doubt of?" That NDEs are glimpses of an afterlife, or represent the separation of the soul from the body.

* "You are an Atheist apologist, and that is your motive plain and simple." Does that mean you are a Paranormal apologist, plain and simple? Since when is subscribing to a working hypothesis an act of faith? Hypotheses are usually motivated by data, and there's plenty of data suggesting that there are no gods of any kind. There's no clear revelation from any god, just clearly man-made ones. There's plenty of unnecessary suffering that's very unlikely if there are any caring higher beings overseeing our lives. And so on.

* Do you really think that the fact that NDErs' predictions don't come true shouldn't count against the idea that NDEs are visions of an afterlife? Do you believe in reality-testing only when it could possibly confirm what you already believe? Accurate OBE perceptions = soul travel, false prophecies = "yeah but there might be some reason, we know not what, why it didn't happen as predicted." You can't have it both ways.

* "Are you aware her body temperature was dropped to about 70 degrees? How to do you propose replicating this without greatly endangering your test subjects?" There you go again, not bothering to get the facts right. Pam Reynolds had normal body temperature at the time of her auditory perceptions. See the left side of the graphical timeline accompanying my online paper, where the temperatures are marked, and see endnote 19, where the page numbers in Sabom reveal the data backing up that timeline--as if you have any intention of verifying the facts of the case in the first place. Sorry to ruin your Roswell, but all of that green in that timeline is normal body temperature, and the beginning of her NDE falls right in the middle of it.

* "Also do you have an iota of evidence that Pam Reynolds ear plugs were not functional?" Again, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that normal hearing was impossible. Why are you so defensive about the idea of performing an experiment, or checking records, which would corroborate your viewpoint in the first place? You seem hell-bent that everyone should believe as you do--and here I am suggesting ways in which you could demonstrate that you're right! (If you're right...) Of course, performing an experiment or looking at the operating room records could go the other way, too, and show that those earplugs were not operational at the crucial time--and so in that sense I suppose could be threatening to you. But how could suggesting that it is important to know the answer to that question be objectionable in ANY way to any impartial person? It's only a threat if you're scared that the dice won't land where you want them to when you roll them. How could merely wanting the facts released be in any way offensive, unless you don't want to be bothered by the facts?

* I never claimed that human error had anything to do with Pam Reynolds' possible anesthesia awareness, nor with why we would need verification that the clicking ear plugs were on at the time of her veridical auditory perceptions.

* The purpose of the earplugs was to make it possible to measure brainstem activity, activity that would not falter until hours after her veridical perceptions. The only rationale for using them before inducing hypothermia would be calibration, or establishing a baseline, or something like that--something that could be done immediately prior to the induction of hypothermia, and thus would not be needed a full two hours beforehand. So the question of whether they were operational so early on is a legitimate one to ask--except, of course, for the fact that that "irascible pseudoskeptic" is the one asking the question

Of course, I've already explained this clearly in my actual writings, but Kris has no interest in what I actually think. So be it. But if you're not even going to try to get what I actually argued right, don't expect me to take you seriously. Time and time again, Kris has demonstrably mischaracterized my views, and when I correct him, he simply ignores what I have to say and throws out new mischaracterizations. (Hence why he STILL has not pointed out what was objectionable in my first NDEs in the Press comment, except for the fact that I was the one leaving the comment. That says enough, really.)

A case in point is his comment: "It would be very easy before her surgery to verify if her ear plugs worked." The question is whether they were operational at the time of the overheard conversation, as they were NOT operational the entire time she was anesthetized (hence why she heard Hotel California as anesthetics wore off without hearing any beeping!) There would be no need for them to be on during normal body temperature, and all parties agree that that's WHEN her NDE began. Of course, if Kris actually paid attention to my argument, he'd know this already.

Maybe someday, when Kris has moved on to some other blog, I could actually get a productive dialogue going here. But between now and then, with no moderation here, it is clear that any productive discussion that might get going would be constantly interrupted so that Kris does not get bored. I understand that confrontational pot shots are much more interesting to most people than learning something, but learning something has its place too, and this is supposed to be a learning environment, even if de facto it is not.

[The Major]

"Evidently, though, no psi-skeptic can ever make a legitimate point in a psi-believers' treehouse unless he is prepared to be mercilessly interrogated for commenting here--because club rules dictate "No Skeptics Allowed!" even when the "About Paranormalia" sign on the treehouse says otherwise."

Is that guilt by association as well? Kris, who I think makes some interesting points, isn't myself, or Robert, or Guy. He is only Kris. If someone isn't allowed to use Myers as an example of a 'skeptic' mistreating those who disagree with him representing a larger problem with that community, then please don't use the example of one commenter you disagree with to discredit this blog as well.

[Paul Welsh]

To Keith - not when you make statements of fact and dont respond with apropriate answers when questioned.

[Paul Welsh]

To Keith - in fact you did respond. The problem was that your response indicated how disingenuous your original statements were.

[Paul Welsh]

To Keith - in fact you did respond. I stand corrected. The problem was your response showed the disingenuous nature of the original statements you made. For the last time: I asked what you had read, what you disagreed with an why. For a long time you didn't respond at all. When you did you gave us a list of books and said you hadn't read all of them, you didn't say which you hadn't read or why you disagreed with what you had read. If you can't see that is at best an inappropriate response and looks dishonest given the confidence with which you asserted your points then there is no point in discussing the matter further.

[Kris]

Well I am about to make things a bit easier for Keith. I am done with him, last post on anything he says. If anybody takes him serious after this they have my pity. This earplug nonsense is enough to demonstrate to me he is a complete sophist with little integrity. I will note that the irony that he claims others suppress his views but then he wants to do that to me. This is also abject whining of the first order ( hence the reason I have called Keith whinny before). If he wanted to continue posting in here all he has to do is type away and ignore me.

Let me list again reasons to think the earplugs worked.

a.) there is no iota of evidence they didn't

b.) they are not exactly super advanced technology

c.) they were necessary for the surgery. Surely the hospital would have checked to make sure they work.

d.) If they hadn't worked the surgery would not have been possible.

Of course this will be evidence enough for any remotely reasonable person but Keith .

The sad thing is even if I could find 100 books on the subject that all stated they tested the earplugs he would do the following:

a.) insist they might have been broken during the surgery, then repaired

b.) the testers all got it wrong

c.) maybe they tested the wrong ear plugs

d.) It is an elaborate NDE conspiracy to deceive skeptics.....

It should be obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that this is a Keith problem and nothing else. Of course if they found the earplugs in the landfill they currently occupy, dug them up and they didn't work Keith would triumphantly proclaim this debunks Pam Reynolds claims to supernatural hearing.

Actually I am not a paranormalist though I lean toward the afterlife hypothesis being the best explanation for NDEs I am willing to concede a dying brain argument might be created that actually fits all the evidence, even if none of them do as of now.

Lastly on the prophecy issue he simply refuses to concede NDErs use a different definition of prophecy then the he uses. They do not consider prophecy to be absolute,but warnings. And they state this view again and again. Imagine if someone told you something MIGHT happen but then it didn't. Would you truly be upset if it didn't happen now. I suppose Keith would but the rest of us wouldn't.

I went through and checked what you said about anesthesia awareness and I will give you this one. You are not arguing that it was cause by human error, just by the nature of how anesthesia reacts with people at times. Still you are arguing a very unlikely course

a.) anesthesia awareness
b.) earplugs didn't work ( truth be told this is an odd one. Even if they didn't beep they still stuffed her ears and they were custom fitted for her ears..... That alone should make hearing problematic)

I will note you have no real desire to test your skepticism. Lets knock some people cold, blindfold them and put earplugs in their ears and see what they can do. I think we should put some cash on the line though, just to make it interesting.

Lastly what is the big deal that by the fact of my anonymity? That tends to be how things are done on the web. As for my harshness if you consider me harsh I hope for your sake something tragic never happens to you, like a cat getting stuck in a tree or getting mud on your shoes. However I am sick of hearing this argument so I am going to put the ball in your court. My email address is krkey2009atgmail.com. Email me and I will you send you my phone number. Geez. Do you live in Colorado or Maryland? I like to visit both. Maybe we can have a beer sometime.

In conclusion, as I said earlier. Just remember we gain magical powers of observation while unconscious if have an NDE and nothing more.

[Kris]

I do not understand why materialist are so adamant on their views.

Here is what I remind myself of. As of now we do not know the following

a.) how consciousness arose
b.) how consciousness to the complexity of human intelligence arose
c.) we do not know completely how consciousness functions.

To say consciousness must be one way in light of those HUGE glaring deficiencies in Human Knowledge is dogmatic at best, arrogance at worst.

I think answering those questions will be the greatest things science will have ever done.

We have such a huge gap in our knowledge when it come to understand consciousness yet materialist insist it must be a product of the brain. They insist that the same universe that made Earth and all the life that now exist must have done something in a certain way. If the universe can make something with human level of consciousness why is it impossible for it to make it in a dualistic way?

Imagine if we could teleport in time to 1400 and the assorted experts of that era defended claims that there was no land in the West between Europe and China and that the sun rotated around the Earth. Would materialist then scream scientific consensus? Of course they wouldn't, they would realize there is huge gaps in the knowledge held by our ancestors. Why can't they see we have just as huge gaps in our knowledge of consciousness and that it is very, very foolish to try the force the evidence to fit a materialist model instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. Same with the rare cases of people having normal IQs who literally do not have a brain.

[Keith Augustine]

The Major: That's a legitimate question to ask. I only invoked Robert's name in the context of his comment in the blog entry itself about forums being a place for like-minded individuals, not a place for open discussion between believers and skeptics. That comment seemed a little at odds with the About Paranormalia purpose statement. As for Guy, I never invoked his name at all. Indeed, I'm rather interested in his occasional comments here considering that, if I'm remembering correctly, he is responsible at least in part for developing one of the cipher tests of mediumship. (There is a encrypted cipher named after him, if I recall correctly.)

As for the rest of the commenters, I am the only person here who has called Kris to task for his poor behavior. Everyone else here has either turned a blind eye to it, or worse, actually encouraged him. I have no problem with Kris making *legitimate* points in a matter of fact way, but that is consistently not his modus operandi. Instead, he condescends, falsely accuses, and caricatures my actual positions. And it is disturbing to me that no one here seems to have a problem with that except for me. Were a skeptic to do that here he would, with good reason, not last two seconds. It just seems a little hypocritical to me that no one here seems to have a problem with bad behavior when "one of your own" is the one doing it. The difference between Kris and PZ Meyers is that PZ is not posting here and so cannot be addressed directly here, whereas Kris can be--and yet no one has any interest in even pointing out his poor behavior. It is the lack of moderation of "flaming" here that reflects poorly on this blog (on other blogs, comments are approved before they are posted so as to remove inflammatory posts), not any attribution by me. That said, I must give credit to Robert himself for being quite rational and even-handed in his blog entries, unlike a polemical blog like Subversive Thinking.

Paul wrote: "I asked what you had read, what you disagreed with an why. For a long time you didn't respond at all. When you did you gave us a list of books and said you hadn't read all of them, you didn't say which you hadn't read or why you disagreed with what you had read. If you can't see that is at best an inappropriate response and looks dishonest given the confidence with which you asserted your points then there is no point in discussing the matter further."

I already answered this in the last three paragraphs of the comment by me timestamped as March 19, 2009 at 11:42 PM. I did not answer initially, as you note, because I did not want to get bogged down in a totally different discussion. Indeed, my original comment, again, was not meant to provoke anything, just to make a legitimate point that both skeptics and believers could agree on--something that I thought would be uncontroversial here given the About Paranormalia statement. In the NDEs in the Press comments, too, I noted that you were free to state what evidence YOU thought was compelling, since that would not nearly take as much time as me explaining every case I've run across and what I thought was wrong with it. I was certainly not going to write a book review of everything I've read, as you seemed to be asking for. Judging by the size of the comments here now and then, I'm already putting in much more time in my comments than anyone else, and if I don't want to devote ten times as much time or more to my comments here, that ought to be understandable to commenters who aren't even devoting the amount of time I'm current devoting (or was then).

On Kris' bad behavior, this most recent comment by him is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about: "This earplug nonsense is enough to demonstrate to me [that Keith] is a complete sophist with little integrity." This is the sort of rant I expect in hate mail from a bible thumper writing in all caps, but not from a venue whose purpose is ostensibly to encourage discussion of issues that are hard to penetrate. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated--it should be either moderated, or responded to by someone other than me. Instead, it goes unchallenged--which is the only reason I started posting in this particular entry at all.

There is a difference, Kris, between suppressing ideas and taking action to prevent further bad behavior. (You might not see the difference, Kris, but I'm sure others here can.) If Kris called Robert McLuhan a child molester and Robert deleted that comment, or did not publish it, or at least called him to task for making it, I don't think that would be suppression of free speech. And yet Kris finds it acceptable to call me a "complete sophist with little integrity" and so on (that's one of his milder comments, actually). Despite my repeated requests for Kris to talk about *the issues* he continues to churn out that sort of garbage--and sadly, no one here seems to have a problem with that other than me. And he did it even after I stopped posting here, so as not to give him an excuse to do it again, but again, no one here seems to have a problem with that, some even encouraging this behavior.

If Kris doesn't like my "whining" I suggest he quit bringing up my name here. When you slander someone, you should not be surprised if they respond to your smears to set the record straight.

If Kris would behave himself or others here would discipline him, some much text would not need to be wasted talking about civility in the first place. It could be devoted to comments with substance.

Kris wrote: "Let me list again reasons to think the earplugs worked." Of course, as I already explained in the second to last paragraph of my March 22, 2009 at 07:07 AM comments, I never argued that the earplugs were faulty. Instead, I asked if they were turned on at the time of the overheard interoperative conversation. Considering that Pam Reynolds was anesthetized for some 7 hours, during which time the earplugs were not always generating clicks, it's a legitimate question to ask (at least so long as a believer, not a skeptic, asks the question).

Of course, Kris does not even flinch at the real reasons for my questions. Instead, he morphs them into some other, implausible questions, and then notes how ridiculous his modified questions are. Straw man arguments: How compelling! And everyone else just plays along and says nothing.

Kris wrote: "I went through and checked what you said about anesthesia awareness and I will give you this one." Well thank you very much for getting my position right AFTER criticizing it, instead of beforehand! This is what I mean about the most vocal people tending to be those who know the least about what they're talking about. Do your homework if your going to criticize. Sheesh!

Kris added: "I will note you have no real desire to test your skepticism."

Not true. Why else would I suggest ways to test it, like performing a hearing test with molded speakers, or checking Pam Reynolds medical records to see if AEPs were being generated at the time of her auditory perceptions? The fact of the matter is that I don't have direct access to any pool of experimental subjects, the relevant equipment, or Pam Reynolds' medical records in order to do this myself. But there are people who do have such access, and the have not answered these sorts of questions. Since they are the ones in a position to do so, they should have done so already, or should at least do so in the future--if they are interested in determining the truth of the matter.

Kris, the issue of your harshness has absolutely nothing to do with "having my feelings hurt," or being offended, or something like that. I don't cry when people act like pricks; I just lament the fact that some people act like pricks. Your harshness reflects your lack of desire to listen to anyone else. It's like an Obama supporter trying to have a rational dialogue with Rush Limbaugh. Rush won't let it happen, just like you won't.

Kris wrote: "Just remember we gain magical powers of observation while unconscious if have an NDE and nothing more." Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black! You're the one who believes we can see without eyes and hear without ears--and you think I'm the one positing magical powers?

As for the comment about the things we don't know about consciousness, I don't disagree. The problem is that ignorance of the answers is not an argument for dualism. You're essentially proposing a God of the gaps explanation--if there's no current scientific explanation of consciousness, it must be supernatural. The issue isn't whether dualism *could be* true, but whether there is good reason to think it *actually is* true. The issue is what is, not what could be. And the most direct evidence about mind-brain correlations strongly suggests that dualism is false. But that's a whole other argument for a different day.

Gaps in our knowledge don't imply that no scientific explanation is ever possible, which is what you seem to be arguing. Dualism does not win by default because materialism lacks some explanation for fact X, anymore than creationism wins by default because evolutionary theory lacks an explanation for, say, altruistic behavior toward non-kin.

[The Major]

Fair points, Keith.

I would say however that we do occassionally take people to task for the way they talk on these boards. There was a commenter named Mark who was very pro-paranormal, but who was vicious and rude in the way he spoke. After we tried to set him right on how to conduct himself in such debates, he left.

People can get very over sensitive in these debates.

"This earplug nonsense is enough to demonstrate to me [that Keith] is a complete sophist with little integrity." This is the sort of rant I expect in hate mail from a bible thumper writing in all caps.

I just think that if the worse you get called is a 'sophist with little integrity' then the problem may not be quite what it seems. If bad language and vulgar insults became part of the debate, I'd be one of the first in to tell them to sort it out. (I'm a bit bossy like that!)

I agree that you can't have a God of the Gaps argument. However, similarly, you can't propose that the things we don't understand will be explained by science. It again becomes a double standard.

Science how we understand it today may be different from how we understand it in a hundred years. It is a bit of a cliche to say it in these debates but how often have scientific discoveries shattered the existing paradigm? Every time, the mainstream believe themselves to be aware of how everything works but they have to readjust to fit new phenomena.

Maybe NDEs aren't glimpses into the afterlife. Maybe they are. We're at the fore front of something very interesting, and I don't think we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The fact is as well that NDEs aren't the only evidence for scientific ideas we cannot yet understand.

Look, as a little aside, my girlfriend went to a medium yesterday. Now, I don't know what you think about mediums. However, she was so specific in how she described me and my grandparents that recently passes that there are three options:

a) there's hot reading - impossible because she was unaware of my girlfriend's identity let alone mine

b) cold reading - too specific. I can't see how you can be that specific just by reading off someone's looks. In fact, there were things said about my grandparents that my girlfriend wasn't aware of

c) lucky guesses. However, surely Occam's Razor would have to come into play here as the idea of someone being so specifically correct would have to be such an outside chance compared to the possibility that there may be more to existence then we can understand.

I'm sorry to sidetrack from what you're talking about. I just thought I'd mention it. Also, you can't exactly adopt my opinion on the subject as I'm not really providing you with the evidence. I guess I'm not trying to change your mind on this, I'm just trying to say that people look at the subject differently and that's why.

We're not weak, intellectually challenged individuals clutching on to these ideas for comfort. It's not neccessarily a God of the Gap arguments. All I'm saying is that something significant appeared to have happened at that reading, and we just need time to allow the research to breathe.

There are a great number of atheists who want to see this research crushed. But here is the crux of my argument. If one cannot accept dualism through a God of the Gaps argument, one cannot embrace atheism through a Science of the Gaps argument. Surely the only appropriate position is agnosticism.

Sorry to have rambled. And Kris, if someone is taking exception to the way you are debating, then let's just calm it down a little.

[Paul Welsh]

Interesting you quote yourself partially. You gave a list of books in answer to my question about what you read and then suffixed it with the remark (I haven't read all of these). This gave me the impression you were not qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject in hand although you seemed to gave the impression you were - hence the suggestion that you are disingenuous in this respect. It was not a very helpful response from you and I think you responded that way because the truth is that you haven't done much research at all on the subject under discussion at the time but lack the integrity to admit it. If you can't or won't see why the way you responded is inappropriate then I think it's a waste of time pursuing this with you. If you aren't going to answer questions properly that's fine but I have to tell you it undermines your credibility not to mention bringing into question whether you are genuinely interested or not.

[Kris]

Oh good Lord!

Has it ever occurred to you that the other posters in here might not have a problem with my method of addressing you and that is why they haven't said anything about it. Your ability to say I am rude etc does not make it so. I highly suspect more then a few posters in here probably feel the exact same way I feel about you, that you are a first rate sophist and nothing more. I would further venture that the owner of this blog probably feels that way about you too.

Keith I call a spade a spade, a fowl a fowl etc. Your earplug stuff is abject nonsense and others feel the same way about it in here. Next I want everyone to notice his reaction to my mistake on his views about anesthesia awareness. I made a very mild mistake at most and he is practically having a heart attack ( I will note that the outcome of anesthesia awareness and the anesthesiologist messing up would be about identical) over it.

I think Keith did not understand my last point. When you have a HUGE gap in your knowledge you should not dogmatically assume one model over another. Keith claims the evidence points toward mind and the brain being the same thing but surely he realizes that dualism can explain those observations too. So far we just have a tie. However things such as NDEs, cases of people with normal IQs who have no brains, cases where people who have Alzheimer's have there memory come back to them( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580392,00.html ) etc would strongly suggest that consciousness is not completely linked to the brain. Quite literally in several of these cases consciousness could not be in the brain as there was no brain.

The difference between myself and Keith when it comes to NDEs is this. I sat down and I listened to the people who had the experience ( by his own admission he didn't). I was skeptical at first and I looked at some of the materialistic explanations and found they could not explain all the of the details of the case ( such as blind people having visual based NDEs, accurate recall of their operations, religious incoherence etc) and accepted that the evidence points to the NDErs being correct about their experience and not hallucinating. I then concluded that the brain/mind model commonly used could not explain these observations. In doing this I have been no different then many, many other NDE researchers. If you read these researchers you will note they started off as skeptics too. Certainly many of the posters at this blog, Prescott's and others have similar stories.

Unconscious states are pretty well understood. You cannot interact with your environment. You might be able to hear some what is around you, but that is a maybe. Memory recall is almost absolutely absent right before unconsciousness, during and for a short while after. You are pretty much helpless. That is why NDEs are so fascinating because they are doing things people cannot do while unconsciousness. That is why I pretty much said Keith believes magic occurs while you are unconscious because what he proposes completely violates science.

I would have a lot more sympathy to Keith's retort to me on this position but the difference is I am listening and once the people reasonable demonstrated that somehow they heard saw etc in a discriminate state I accept this and moved on. I didn't refuse to listen to the testimony of the people who had the very experience we are trying to investigate, I didn't whip and torture the evidence to fit any preconceived philosophical ideas. I tried to make a model that fit the evidence, and that model happened to be weak dualism. This is how new discoveries are made in science in any field I will observe.

Keith is absolutely convinced of the notion the brain is the mind and he will try to force the evidence to fit that. Truth be told he has an obvious vested interest in this position. He is the Executive Director of Internet Infidels. If I do recall he and Dr. Michael Martin plan on publishing a book together defending the brain is the mind view. So if NDEs are correct Keith is in danger of losing his position, some money and whole lot of pride. If Keith is right oh well for me, I am not in danger of losing my position or losing money etc. Maybe a little pride but not too much.

The sad thing is Keith cannot realize that materialism and dualism might be compatible. For example consciousness could be a kind of material,this has been suggest before. It is also possible that dualistic consciousness might have come about through natural methods we simply do not know of at present. Surely the same universe that made life through natural means, consciousness through natural means, human level consciousness through natural means might be able to pull of dualism too. If not, why not?

Major,

No, I am not going to change my behavior toward Keith. No one else has found it objectionable. It has been my observation on this guy that he is extremely controlling. He wants to tell millions of people what really happened to them. He makes demands of NDE researchers and chides them as sloppy researchers. He demanded Prescott make changes of his blog. He demanded the owner of this blog to make changes in his approach. He wanted me removed from this blog. He is one of those people who it is their way or the highway and I simply do not give into that kind of mentality.

[Paul Welsh]

Kris. for the record, for what it is worth I do not find your responses rude or inappropriate. I do think that Keith is trying to provoke you and it is interesting that again, assuming you are correct, he asserts his position without referring to his personal research. I do think you are wasting your time debating with the guy though you didn't ask for my opinion.

Having said that I have to say the difference between someone who has done their research and someone who appears to be getting off on being contentious but not prepared to actually look at the evidence is interesting.

[Kris]

I will note that I really didn't cause this dust up. Keith for whatever reason got mightily offended when I noted a bit sarcastically that he has a long list of books he plans to read in the future.... ( evidently not commenting on a subject, or at least commenting on a subject in humility that by his own admission he has a lot to read about never occurred to him) All he had to do was say he plans on reading the books and walk away, but he then figured it would be a good time to launch a tantrum about how this website is being run.

However he now feels I have slandered him by calling him a sophist( which others have called him that too and he feels that is at least as bad as calling someone a child molester), and am trying to suppress his views but he wants me removed from here.... Oh the irony!

[Robbie]

Before I make any points Keith I want you to be aware that even though I, and probably several other commentors here disagree with you. I admire the time you are taking to respond to points being made on this blog.
First of all, yes it is fair to say that I was using guilt through association, but I only used it as you had already done so, in using Kris as an example to critize Robert's blog. I was also highlighting that Yes we 'believers' don't always talk in a perfectly reasoned manner but I feel the skeptics behave much more indecently. Although I agree Kris could speak in a more reasoned way,I feel you could too Keith.
In terms of intellecutal bullying, I mean implying weaknesses in a person's critical thinking, that they are getting emotionally involved, that sort of thing.
Two examples of this from Michael Prescott's blog below.
'In short, are you a genuine seeker of truth, or just another pundit with his own ideology to push?'
'Honestly ask yourself if you would endorse the same sorts of arguments given in favor of survivalist interpretations of NDEs, if they were instead presented in favor of the existence of something that you don't care about, like the existence of Yeti. Do they still look convincing to you? Do they really?'
I don't think I have anything else decent to add, although I think Major has made some good points!

[Keith Augustine]

The Major: "However, similarly, you can't propose that the things we don't understand will be explained by science." Fair enough, though I don't think I ever said otherwise. I don't see it as an issue of demonstrating that science will explain X. Rather, I see it as an issue of not giving us enough reason to think that science in principle cannot ever explain X.

There is a lot of talk about promissory materialism, for instance, when the real issue should be positive reasons to believe dualism. In an oversimplified way of putting things, and using a very colloquial sense of the word, materialism posits the world we see around us and nothing more. Survivalists, by contrast, posit that world PLUS another one. Since we both agree that THIS LIFE is real, the issue of contention is whether there is good enough reason to believe in the next one. (And then, of course, arises the issue of why we should believe that any given conception of the next world is any more accurate than any other conception.) Thus, by the nature of the issues, the debate is going to put the burden of proof on those proposing more than just this world. We all agree that we exist here and now. That there is any next world is controversial. I'm just being metaphysically conservative in positing only what we need to posit, and you're being metaphysically liberal in positing more than that. At least, that's how I see it. It has nothing to do with paradigms and scientism and so on. It has to do with the fact that we have better evidence for the existence of atoms than we have for the existence of spirits, pure and simple.

Surely you would agree that the person offering a paranormal or supernatural explanation of phenomena X has the burden to rule out normal or natural causes? After all, the very meaning of the term "paranormal" is something like "beyond the normal." Wouldn't you *have to* rule out normal causes in order to establish paranormal ones, since by definition "paranormal" is a negative characterization of a term, i.e., "not normal"?

Remember, you guys are the ones adding something else on top of the core beliefs we both agree on. I'm just sticking with the core belief and asking why you think we need more. Scientists and historians agree on certain scientific and historical facts, and you say that in addition to those, we should also believe in ideas X, Y, Z.

All I ask for is justification as to why you think I should believe in those additional propositions, and why that particular set of additional propositions instead of some other set (like theosophy or Sufism or whatever). Since the "more than the core" that you believe in is less than straightforward fact, it is not unreasonable to ask why I should assent to those beliefs (if you're going to berate me for not believing as you do, anyway).

You also wrote: "It is a bit of a cliche to say it in these debates but how often have scientific discoveries shattered the existing paradigm?" Just a point to ponder, but: How often have phenomena-driven anomalies that shatter paradigms been widely anticipated in popular opinion, rather than something no one, or almost no one, thought of before? In other words, if you want to use the history of science as an analogy, it should be noted that something disanalogous in parapsychology is that large numbers of people believe in paranormal phenomena. Large numbers of people did not believe in a sun-centered solar system, or that space-time is curved, or that when you look at the really small, events can occur spontaneously without prior causes. All I'm saying is that rarely, if ever, has popular opinion anticipated any scientific revolution (that I'm aware of). So there's something about parapsychological phenomena that makes them different from those other examples. (In other words, I don't doubt that paradigms will be overturned in the future; I just doubt that anyone now has any inkling of what will overturn them.)

Paul: Since you're sympathetic to Kris' modus operandi, I'm not sure whether I should let you know exactly what I have and have not read. (Do you REALLY think that I'm trying to provoke Kris? I'm not the one saying that Kris is propagating abject nonsense, has little integrity, borders on the criminal, and so on. He's the one saying that about me. Did I wake up in a world where everything's the opposite this morning?)

I seriously thought about clarifying what I've read since you won't be satisfied until I do--but then I wondered if even that would satisfy you, given your advocacy of Kris' modus operandi. If it's not going to satisfy you anyway, why bother? I mean, seriously: I doubt that it would be very fruitful to comply with someone who thinks that mischaracterizing my views is OK, or that it is a sufficient refutation of my writings to simply label me a sophist with no integrity.

It is also rather remarkable to me that, when this sort of behavior is pointed out, much of the response here is that is perfectly OK to blithely dismiss those you disagree with. Why not just come out and say: "Kris has every right to avoid engaging the actual issues." If the issues are hard to penetrate, why isn't the focus on the issues? When Kris says that I'm no better than a creationist, he's rejecting the idea that the issues are hard to penetrate. In his mind, there's nothing to talk about; evidently, the issues are settled. He has every right to take that position, I suppose, but I would assume that a blog which maintains that the issues are hard to penetrate would be more amenable to actually taling about the issues. Why are we still talking about THIS instead of the actual issues? Instead of Kris conceding that the issues should be the focus, and then focusing on the issues (say, the Pam Reynolds case), he instead focuses on his right to caricature people and misrepresent their positions.

Again, perhaps the real purpose of this blog is just to assemble like-minded individuals to share recipes or something (which is somewhat hinted at in what Robert says about the purpose of forums in his blog entry), and not worry about issues where arguments and evidence are paramount. That's fine, as I said before--only the About Paranormalia statement should then be changed to reflect that. What is the purpose of this blog? Decide that, and then change the About Paranormalia purpose to reflect it, so that people like me don't think it is about "the issues" and mistakenly talk about them here, as I did when I commented in the NDEs in the Press entry.

Incidentally, Paul, if you have any doubt that I've done my homework, just look at the number of references I consulted, quoted, and paraphrased to write "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" (online: Google it). Just look at the breadth of the issues covered. If you're still doubtful, I don't how much more I would need to read to convince you that I know what I'm talking about (and I'm not sure whether I should care what you believe about that). And don't forget: What you initially asked for was a play-by-play analysis of what's wrong with various survivalist books, not a list of what books I've read. Giving you the latter was a concession to part of what you asked for, but I'm definitely not going to give you a play-by-play of any of those books here.

Kris: "Your ability to say I am rude etc does not make it so." No, your own words demonstrate your hostility. If what you are interested in here is learning, think of the teacher-student relationship. No teacher should try to humiliate one of his students by saying that his student's view is "abject nonsense" or that he has "low integrity" simply for having a different point of view. Nor should any student say that of his teacher for mere disagreement. Do you think a teacher should get away with publicly impugning the integrity of a student simply for disagreement, or that a student should for doing the same to his teacher? Should there be no disciplinary action for that sort of behavior?

Kris wrote: "...you are a first rate sophist and nothing more." Again, what is it with not talking about issues? If I made some argument, and my argument is in error, go ahead and quote the argument, and note the error. But this sort of inflammatory stuff is not productive. In all this time and text the both of us and others could have said much of value about weaknesses in the evidence and how they could be rectified in future studies if only you would concede that the issues are important and the character assassination is not. Why must you engage in both? You have made passing references to the issues, but always in the context of the character assassination. Why do you need the latter at all?

Kris wrote: "I made a very mild mistake at most and he is practically having a heart attack ( I will note that the outcome of anesthesia awareness and the anesthesiologist messing up would be about identical) over it."

Kris, you've made a number of errors, and that was just one of them. Prior to that one in this thread, you claimed that Pam Reynolds' condition was one of hypothermia when she overheard an interoperative conversation, and that's a substantial error, since it would be very unlikely for Pam to even be able to be semiconscious in such a state (whereas she very well could have had some anesthesia awareness at the normal body temperature when she did overhear). It is also nearly certain that her auditory evoked potentials would be measured with the assistance of the 100 dB beeps during that time, and much less likely that they would be measured during the normal body temperature when she actually overheard the OR conversation. So your error was a substantial one; if you had gotten my argument right, and presented it accurately, it would have looked a whole lot less ridiculous than you made it out to be here. My point, again, is that my actual position is a whole lot more plausible than Kris gives me credit for, and that's largely because Kris doesn't get the facts right about what my position is.

Kris wrote: "Keith claims the evidence points toward mind and the brain being the same thing but surely he realizes that dualism can explain those observations too." Well this is certainly a double standard. I have no desire to get into this right now--as this is a much bigger issue that I plan on dealing with comprehensively in a formal essay in the future--but think about this. Yes, dualists can explain why "facts that appear to confirm materialism" are consistent with dualism and can be explained by dualism. But those explanations are ad hoc in a way that Kris would not accept if they were offered to explain NDEs, for example if I said that the AWARE study got positive results because someone just got lucky and guessed what the correct target picture was. That would be an explanation consistent with the facts, but it would be very implausible and thus reason to favor dualism over materialism. Similarly, the fact that a lobotomy can result in the equivalent of mental retardation is a reason to favor materialism over dualism: on the face of it, the independent soul should not be at the mercy of brute matter in this way, even if ad hoc explanations are possible. So Kris characterizing the mind-brain correlations as producing a "tie" re: materialism vs. dualism would be like me characterizing replicable positive results in the AWARE study as being equally likely on the hypothesis of lucky guesses as the hypothesis of something leaving the body. Obviously, the latter would be much more plausible than the former. So too, the effects of lobotomy are much more plausible if mental states are generated by the brain rather than merely transmitted by it--whatever transmission is supposed to be.

* Kris wrote: "The difference between myself and Keith when it comes to NDEs is this. I sat down and I listened to the people who had the experience ( by his own admission he didn't)."

That's false. I simply don't accept most NDErs' interpretation of NDEs at face value, just as you don't accept most alien abductees' interpretation of their experiences at face value. Any good parapsychologist would concede that the mere conviction of most NDErs is no evidence for anything. Just as, for example, John Beloff conceded. Indeed, that's why near-death researchers look elsewhere for evidence: they recognize that conviction is not enough to show anything. If it were enough, then we would know simply on the strength of mystics' conviction that every mutually exclusive mystical religion must be true (and that's obviously not possible since they entail contrary conclusions).

Kris wrote: "Unconscious states are pretty well understood. You cannot interact with your environment. You might be able to hear some what is around you, but that is a maybe. Memory recall is almost absolutely absent right before unconsciousness, during and for a short while after."

Actually, this is false. I don't have a citation for this offhand (I'd love a news item or book reference citing it if anyone has one), but in one case a woman was extremely anxious to the point of seeking therapy for it, for reasons unknown to her, ever since undergoing a routine operation. In order to uncover the source of the anxiety, her therapist put her under hypnosis and asked her about what happened to her during the operation. It was then revealed that her doctor had made a comment about something "looking like cancer" while she was anesthetized. She did not consciously remember this overheard conversation, but nevertheless it obviously affected her mind. It was later confirmed that the doctor had erroneously said that something had looked like cancer that had turned out not to be cancerous. Although I can't corroborate this particular case, I can corroborate that it happens often enough that doctors are routinely cautioned to watch what they say in front of anesthetized patients--see p. 138 of _Mind-body Therapy_ by Ernest L. Rossi and David B. Cheek, available at Google Books, searching for the term "overheard" for the standard recommendations, and p. 182 of the same for a similar possible case of such anesthesia awareness. There's nothing "magical" about this at all.

Kris wrote: "the difference is I am listening [to NDErs] and once the people reasonabl[y] demonstrated that somehow they heard saw etc in a discriminate state I accept this and moved on." Are you aware of the Betty Hill "star map"? (Google it.) Here Betty Hill produced much better (potential) corroboration for her alien abduction experience than any NDErs produce for the nonconventional veridicality of their experiences, and yet somehow I doubt you'll come back from Googling with the conclusion that (at least some) alien abduction experiences involve visions of the inside of extraterrestrial spacecraft. If you don't come back a convert, is that because you had to "whip and torture" this alien abduction evidence? (Similar things could be said about so-called "alien implants.")

Kris wrote: "Keith is absolutely convinced of the notion the brain is the mind and he will try to force the evidence to fit that. Truth be told he has an obvious vested interest in this position. He is the Executive Director of Internet Infidels. If I do recall he and Dr. Michael Martin plan on publishing a book together defending the brain is the mind view. So if NDEs are correct Keith is in danger of losing his position, some money and whole lot of pride. If Keith is right oh well for me, I am not in danger of losing my position or losing money etc"

Wow, this is wrong on so many levels. Where to start? Sentence by sentence, I suppose. First, "So if NDEs are correct Keith is in danger of losing his position..." That's false, actually. If some fact clearly falsified naturalism, there would still be a place for the Secular Web. Our mission statement would simply be changed to acknowledge that the supernatural is real, but nevertheless that all religions are clearly man-made inventions, not revelations from any spiritual beings, and there would still be a place for resisting prevalent bad reasoning about "spiritual" matters. Indeed, my masters thesis contains a defense of naturalism, but that defense is contingent on the de facto absence of any unambiguous falsifications of naturalism. Where any to be discovered, they would be undeniable, and I would concede them as readily as someone looking at the Earth from orbit would concede that the Earth is round (an oblate spheroid, technically). Naturalism would simply be false. I can imagine evidence that would falsify it (I give an example in my thesis), but in matter of fact that evidence doesn't exist now, and in addition there is plenty of independent evidence that our origins are entirely the result of an impersonal natural cycle of speciation and extinction, with no hint of supernatural causation anywhere in the scientific account of the history of the universe. That evidence could have been otherwise--but it was not.

Second, would I lose some money? I doubt it. You don't make money telling people that what they want to believe is false. Deepak Chopra affirming life after death is much more likely to make quite a bit of money. I, on the other hand, stand to lose money, because my out-of-pocket costs in paying contributors and reprinting are likely going to exceed whatever profit I might get in sales, such that I don't even break even.

Would I lose some pride? Sure, but who hasn't? Nobody wants to be wrong. That doesn't mean that I'm incapable of recognizing when I'm mistaken. In fact, I would think it would make much more sense in such a situation to cut one's losses. There's no point in *continuing* to put effort presenting the case for a position that you know to be false. Better to use what you know and apply it somewhere else, wouldn't you say?

I accept naturalism and mortalism because they make the best sense of the evidence we have. The evidence we have, of course, can change, and if significantly shifted to the other side, so much the worse for naturalism and mortalism. Truth matters far more than the positions themselves; it's just that, unlike you, I happen to think that the actual evidence we have now makes it most probable that naturalism and mortalism are true. I'd like to think that we live forever, of course, because if I cease to exist in the end, my beliefs, whatever they are, will die with me, and so won't matter much at that point. I'd much rather continue to be able to think and have beliefs forever more than be right about death being the end; but what I want is irrelevant, of course, to what's most likely to be true.

Incidentally, I have no in principle problem with the notion that there might be some physical thing that harbors consciousness and leaves the body, like an etheric body. My problem is with the lack of evidence of any such thing. Since such a thing would have to interact with the brain in order to control the body, there should be detectable energy coming from somewhere other than the nervous system, and yet no extra energy is detected in PET scans and so on. Your current neural firings are the result of the neural firings that came before it. No new energy is introduced. Real things have influences, so I ask you: Where is the influence of a disembodied mind, or ethereal body? Why can't we detect it? It is this problem of being unable to distinguish what we dream up from what really exists that bothers me about dualism--there's never any means of verifying, or of probing the properties of this hypothetical soul. It's as if it doesn't exist at all.

Another incidental point: One main reason that substance dualism isn't very popular among philosophers is that it doesn't really solve the mind-body problem: saying that consciousness inheres in a nonphysical substance is no less problematic than saying that consciousness inheres in a physical one. The problem of how a substance can produce consciousness is no better answered if you posit an unknown hypothetical substance like a soul, than if you posit a known existing substance like a physical body and brain. The main difference is that the brain is known to be real, whereas the soul is merely a hypothesis--so there's no need to invoke the middleman of a soul that produces consciousness, when the brain can be said to produce it.

By the way, Chris, I didn't demand that Robert change this blog's focus--it's focus is entirely up to him. I only said that his About Paranormalia mission statement ought to line up with the actual purpose of this blog, so as to avoid confusion about what is appropriate here. I don't see that as an unreasonable thing to say. And I never said that you should be removed--just moderated, or that I would take a stab at a productive discussion once you decided to remove yourself of your own accord. It's sort of like saying "I'll move in here when the sex offender next door moves out." No one would be forced out under those circumstances. And I don't think I ever told Michael Prescott that he should change his blog--only that if he really seeks the truth, he should act like it instead of acting like a pundit.

PS--being incorrect does not necessarily entail being "sloppy." There you go again, portraying my actual position in the worst possible way, ignoring the impartial-observer-recommended principle of charitible interpretation.

PSS--no, calling someone a sophist who spouts abject nonsense because of his low integrity is not AS BAD as calling someone a child molester. The point is that it nevertheless is bad. The fact that perjury isn't as bad as genocide doesn't excuse it.

Robbie: As far as "weaknesses in a person's critical thinking" go, I am not making those up out of thin air. If you say X, and X happens to be an instance of an informal fallacy, then you are reasoning poorly. A number of them are likely to be found here, if you look for them: poisoning the well (a kind of ad hominem), straw man, red herring, ad populum, argument from ignorance, missing the point, and so on. The first two of those, at least, are demonstrably committed by Kris. Google them for examples, if you'd like, and scan his posts in this thread to see if you can find where he uses them. A good place to look for examples is fallacyfiles.org. What that site calls "the fallacy fallacy," for instance, was committed in the NDEs in the Press comment by Kris that I "make grievous leaps of logic"--where Kris created a fallacious straw man, falsely attributed it to me, and correctly pointed out that that argument was a fallacy. To his credit, when I responded to that Kris conceded that I didn't make the argument attributed to me--but it is frustrating beyond belief to have spend inordinate amounts of time continually defendomg myself against arguments I never made, time that could be spent talking about actual issues--actual issues like my first post in NDEs in the Press about whether the AWARE study is properly designed or not (which, incidentally, I hope is the case--as I want the results to be conclusive, whichever way they go).

[Paul Welsh]

Keith - I think the moment has passed. I did specifically mention that my comments related to the matter under the discussion at the time when you were commenting on evidence for survival and not NDE's. I am sure you will cite plenty of references now having been caught out previously. Frankly I no longer care whether you cite them or not. Your response was sufficient at the time. I mentioned then that your response indicated that you were prepared to criticise research without having examined it in that instance and I have seen nothing since then that would change my mind. I have already made my mind up about your contributions and I agree it would now be a waste of your time to respond fully to my points. The fact is that you didn't and still won't I will draw my own inferences from that, as will other readers, which I suspect you wont be bothered about.

It would have been easy for you to answer my original questions, however briefly, if in fact you had read much on the subject. You didn't and I am therefore entitled to draw my own conclusion.

As far as Kris is concerned I am sympathetic to his frustration. However if he wants to continue to waste his time debating with you that's his choice. The same applies to you.

[Keith Augustine]

Paul: Conclude what you will; you're right, I don't really care what you think. But note well: The next time you ask someone what they've read, I recommend that you don't tag some generic question about what was wrong with all of the books a person had read. Instead, ask for a list first, and then say something like: "I've read X too. I was particularly compelled with case #1 in X. What about that don't you buy?" FWIW, that's a more reasonable question to ask. I think it was quite unreasonable for you to ask for a play-by-play of everything I've ever read relevant to the issues--as if you would ever do so. (And I notice you did not list yourself, say, 6 survivalist books that you've read, and 6 skeptical books that you've read, either then or now. Does that mean I can justly conclude that you don't know what you're talking about? Or does that rule apply to others only, and not yourself?)

Frankly, I would much prefer to turn to issues of substance instead of wasting even more time defending the evidently controversial notion that those posters here should not appeal to ad hominem arguments and other widely recognized instances of fallacious reasoning. It's a free country, and if you're OK with reasoning fallaciously, there's nothing I can do to stop that. I do find it rather disturbing, though, that others would actually defend the right to make poor arguments. I can't imagine any impartial person defending that idea.

I'll give an example that will allow me to transition nicely into an actual point of substance. Kris accused me of dishonestly misrepresenting NDE prophecies because I did not note the weak counterexplanation that "NDErs again and again do not consider prophecies to be absolute." They're more like warnings about what might happen, he tells us. I did not note that response not because it destroys my case, but because it's so weak that I didn't think it worth talking about, and I'll explain why right now.

Set aside how ad hoc that response is, and how it makes it impossible to ever objectively evaluate whether any particular NDEr has prophetic abilities or not (or better such abilities than other NDErs).

First of all, whether NDErs characterize their prophecies as mere "warnings" of what MIGHT happen would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If any do not say that explicitly, are we allowed to assume that that is what they meant when they listed a series of future events that they saw in their visions? (Incidentally, it is notable that prophetic NDEs sound a lot like what some alien abductees claim aliens told them about the future. If we are justified in doubting the abductees, I would think we'd be justified in doubting the NDErs, too.)

Second, what I actually said in my article was that NDE prophecies which don't come to pass are "no different than those of any other run-of-the-mill prophet." That's true, so I don't see how that's even potentially dishonest. And it's a significant point for the following reason.

If one is allowed to make predictions that don't have to be successful at all, don't call them predictions, call them something like "suggestions." Anyone can evidently "predict" future events with the same accuracy rate as prophetic NDErs. NDErs should at least be able to do better than anyone else if they've had accurate visions of the future or gained special powers. Otherwise there is no reason other than their say-so to attribute them with abilities in the first place. And their inability to do better than the average person is, IMO, a positive reason to think that they lack such powers regardless of what excuse they might give for why they can't predict better than you or I.

Moreover, in the particular celebrated NDE predictions I quoted directly, I note that before the publication of Dannion Brinkley's book, Brinkley claimed making very specific predictions which came to pass, but those predictions about events occurring after the book was already published had a 0% success rate. It is a little odd, to say the least, that his prophetic abilities would be "limited" in such a suspicious way--that none of the ones that can't be amended after being printed came to pass. Even Peter Fenwick made a point like this, which I quoted. Does that mean Peter Fenwick, too, misrepresented NDE prophecy?

This is why I think that de facto some of you believe my points are unsound simply because I'm the one making them. If you actually read my paper, though, you'll see that throughout I quoted a number of NDE researchers who make points similar to my own. Allan Kellehear largely agrees with me about cultural influences on NDEs. Harvey Irwin, the President of a parapsychological society and author of many books on OBEs, largely agrees with me about OBE discrepancies, even noting, for instance, that it is a discrepancy with reality when OBErs see their living rooms as if under the ceiling from a distance of thirty feet above when the rooves of their houses are nowhere near thirty feet off the ground.

(Incidentally, I've been chastized for quoting NDE researchers before--as if quoting those most familiar with the evidence would ever be questionable. Imagine what would have been said if, say, I only quoted skeptics. I think the implication was that I quoted researchers out of context, but that's demonstrably not true. Many people like to imagine bad reasoning in their opponents by attributing it instead of demonstrating it by quoting where their opponents committed it. It's easier to accuse than show.)

As to how all of this relates to questions of civility, just note that I can make the main points about NDE prophecy above without accusing Kris of distorting the evidence simply because Kris himself did not makes those points. I don't say that Kris "forgot" (wink, wink) to mention them because he is a disingenuous sophist, as he said of me. I don't think it is too much to ask the same of him, or of others here.

Finally, I'd like to make a point about materialism. I said I was speaking of materialism colloquially earlier because I don't want to propagate a common misunderstanding. In the colloquial sense, I simply meant "anything theory of mind other than substance dualism." That is the sense in which, for instance, Chris Carter talks about materialism vs. dualism. (And so when I addressed him, I was using his terminology for simplicity.)

I think that what most psi-believers mean by materialism is something like "the position that spiritual realities probably do not exist." In fact, as philosophers understand the term, that's only an implication of materialism. One can believe that there are no spiritual realities without believing in materialism; my own position is, technically speaking, naturalism. I'm agnostic as to whether materialism is true in the sense explained below.

It is more accurate to call belief in spiritual realities supernaturalism, and disbelief in them naturalism, as disembodied spirits would be quintessential examples of something supernatural.

As philosophers use the term, materialism can mean one of two things. First, as a general metaphysical view: that everything is physical. But, again, it might well be that there are some nonphysical things even if there are no spiritual/supernatural realities at all. When philosophers talk about objections to materialism, for instance, they are almost always talking about why materialism cannot account for qualia, or abstract objects. They are NOT saying that the deficiencies of materialism suggest, in any way at all, that there are spiritual realities. Just to give an example, David Chalmers rejects materialism because qualia seem to be nonphysical--but qualia are not spirits, and his position is entirely compatible with the idea that the mind dies with the brain. (In fact, his position--property dualism--actually entails that.) Similarly, Michael Martin believes in substantial Platonic abstract objects, but not in spiritual/supernatural realities. (See my Secular Web explanation of pluralistic naturalism if you are interested in what these issues are.) So when you see a list of philosophical objections to materialism, they are almost always entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not spiritual realities exist. This is why I prefer to talk about naturalism versus supernaturalism. There are hardly any philosophers who will defend supernaturalism except for those who are defending a particular religious tradition, usually Christianity. (Which is simply to say, very few if any philosophers are spiritualists, or theosophists, or what have you. And very few secular philosophers believe in survival after death.)

Second, there is a sense in which materialism only denotes a kind of theory of mind. Thus, for instance, theologian Nancey Murphy accepts a kind of materialist theory of mind (nonreductive physicalism) even while believing in spiritual realities. Her view is that human beings are entirely physical, but that there are still some spiritual things out there (like God and probably angels and so on). Her materialism, then, is just a theory about human nature, not about everything that exists.

[Keith Augustine]

Paul: Conclude what you will; you're right, I don't really care what you think. But note well: The next time you ask someone what they've read, I recommend that you don't tag some generic question about what was wrong with all of the books a person had read. Instead, ask for a list first, and then say something like: "I've read X too. I was particularly compelled with case #1 in X. What about that don't you buy?" FWIW, that's a more reasonable question to ask. I think it was quite unreasonable for you to ask for a play-by-play of everything I've ever read relevant to the issues--as if you would ever do so. (And I notice you did not list yourself, say, 6 survivalist books that you've read, and 6 skeptical books that you've read, either then or now. Does that mean I can justly conclude that you don't know what you're talking about? Or does that rule apply to others only, and not yourself?)

Frankly, I would much prefer to turn to issues of substance instead of wasting even more time defending the evidently controversial notion that those posters here should not appeal to ad hominem arguments and other widely recognized instances of fallacious reasoning. It's a free country, and if you're OK with reasoning fallaciously, there's nothing I can do to stop that. I do find it rather disturbing, though, that others would actually defend the right to make poor arguments. I can't imagine any impartial person defending that idea.

I'll give an example that will allow me to transition nicely into an actual point of substance. Kris accused me of dishonestly misrepresenting NDE prophecies because I did not note the weak counterexplanation that "NDErs again and again do not consider prophecies to be absolute." They're more like warnings about what might happen, he tells us. I did not note that response not because it destroys my case, but because it's so weak that I didn't think it worth talking about, and I'll explain why right now.

Set aside how ad hoc that response is, and how it makes it impossible to ever objectively evaluate whether any particular NDEr has prophetic abilities or not (or better such abilities than other NDErs).

First of all, whether NDErs characterize their prophecies as mere "warnings" of what MIGHT happen would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If any do not say that explicitly, are we allowed to assume that that is what they meant when they listed a series of future events that they saw in their visions? (Incidentally, it is notable that prophetic NDEs sound a lot like what some alien abductees claim aliens told them about the future. If we are justified in doubting the abductees, I would think we'd be justified in doubting the NDErs, too.)

Second, what I actually said in my article was that NDE prophecies which don't come to pass are "no different than those of any other run-of-the-mill prophet." That's true, so I don't see how that's even potentially dishonest. And it's a significant point for the following reason.

If one is allowed to make predictions that don't have to be successful at all, don't call them predictions, call them something like "suggestions." Anyone can evidently "predict" future events with the same accuracy rate as prophetic NDErs. NDErs should at least be able to do better than anyone else if they've had accurate visions of the future or gained special powers. Otherwise there is no reason other than their say-so to attribute them with abilities in the first place. And their inability to do better than the average person is, IMO, a positive reason to think that they lack such powers regardless of what excuse they might give for why they can't predict better than you or I.

Moreover, in the particular celebrated NDE predictions I quoted directly, I note that before the publication of Dannion Brinkley's book, Brinkley claimed making very specific predictions which came to pass, but those predictions about events occurring after the book was already published had a 0% success rate. It is a little odd, to say the least, that his prophetic abilities would be "limited" in such a suspicious way--that none of the ones that can't be amended after being printed came to pass. Even Peter Fenwick made a point like this, which I quoted. Does that mean Peter Fenwick, too, misrepresented NDE prophecy?

This is why I think that de facto some of you believe my points are unsound simply because I'm the one making them. If you actually read my paper, though, you'll see that throughout I quoted a number of NDE researchers who make points similar to my own. Allan Kellehear largely agrees with me about cultural influences on NDEs. Harvey Irwin, the President of a parapsychological society and author of many books on OBEs, largely agrees with me about OBE discrepancies, even noting, for instance, that it is a discrepancy with reality when OBErs see their living rooms as if under the ceiling from a distance of thirty feet above when the rooves of their houses are nowhere near thirty feet off the ground.

(Incidentally, I've been chastized for quoting NDE researchers before--as if quoting those most familiar with the evidence would ever be questionable. Imagine what would have been said if, say, I only quoted skeptics. I think the implication was that I quoted researchers out of context, but that's demonstrably not true. Many people like to imagine bad reasoning in their opponents by attributing it instead of demonstrating it by quoting where their opponents committed it. It's easier to accuse than show.)

As to how all of this relates to questions of civility, just note that I can make the main points about NDE prophecy above without accusing Kris of distorting the evidence simply because Kris himself did not makes those points. I don't say that Kris "forgot" (wink, wink) to mention them because he is a disingenuous sophist, as he said of me. I don't think it is too much to ask the same of him, or of others here.

Finally, I'd like to make a point about materialism. I said I was speaking of materialism colloquially earlier because I don't want to propagate a common misunderstanding. In the colloquial sense, I simply meant "anything theory of mind other than substance dualism." That is the sense in which, for instance, Chris Carter talks about materialism vs. dualism. (And so when I addressed him, I was using his terminology for simplicity.)

I think that what most psi-believers mean by materialism is something like "the position that spiritual realities probably do not exist." In fact, as philosophers understand the term, that's only an implication of materialism. One can believe that there are no spiritual realities without believing in materialism; my own position is, technically speaking, naturalism. I'm agnostic as to whether materialism is true in the sense explained below.

It is more accurate to call belief in spiritual realities supernaturalism, and disbelief in them naturalism, as disembodied spirits would be quintessential examples of something supernatural.

As philosophers use the term, materialism can mean one of two things. First, as a general metaphysical view: that everything is physical. But, again, it might well be that there are some nonphysical things even if there are no spiritual/supernatural realities at all. When philosophers talk about objections to materialism, for instance, they are almost always talking about why materialism cannot account for qualia, or abstract objects. They are NOT saying that the deficiencies of materialism suggest, in any way at all, that there are spiritual realities. Just to give an example, David Chalmers rejects materialism because qualia seem to be nonphysical--but qualia are not spirits, and his position is entirely compatible with the idea that the mind dies with the brain. (In fact, his position--property dualism--actually entails that.) Similarly, Michael Martin believes in substantial Platonic abstract objects, but not in spiritual/supernatural realities. (See my Secular Web explanation of pluralistic naturalism if you are interested in what these issues are.) So when you see a list of philosophical objections to materialism, they are almost always entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not spiritual realities exist. This is why I prefer to talk about naturalism versus supernaturalism. There are hardly any philosophers who will defend supernaturalism except for those who are defending a particular religious tradition, usually Christianity. (Which is simply to say, very few if any philosophers are spiritualists, or theosophists, or what have you. And very few secular philosophers believe in survival after death.)

Second, there is a sense in which materialism only denotes a kind of theory of mind. Thus, for instance, theologian Nancey Murphy accepts a kind of materialist theory of mind (nonreductive physicalism) even while believing in spiritual realities. Her view is that human beings are entirely physical, but that there are still some spiritual things out there (like God and probably angels and so on). Her materialism, then, is just a theory about human nature, not about everything that exists.

[Keith Augustine]

Incidentally, Paul, I just remembered that, in addition to my earlier list in the NDEs in the Press thread, I added an off-the-top of my head list of books I'd read on the subject but so long ago that I had forgotten about them. Since the second list of long-forgotten books I'd read dealt with the issues I was talking about at the time all by itself, the issue of what I read vs. what I am going to read in the first list is immaterial.

[Kris]

I have the distinct feeling this conversation has grown way out of control. It has evolved into something else.

A lot of this has become red hearings, stuff such as would you act this way as a teacher, is this rude, materialist philosophers accept materialism, religious philosophers don't ( truly this a shocker in both cases!) alien abductions ( did anyone like the VID I posted on this, in a humorous way it does answer Keith's point) and etc

Truthfully even the NDE discussion is not what this specific blog was about. It was about how much do we have to allow skeptics to have an input on paranormal discussions. My basic stance is their house, their rules, if you don't agree don't go to their party. I of course think we should try to sit down and communicate with those who disagree with us, but sometimes we gotta close the door and get some work done. I mean does anyone think evolutionist should spend all their time talking with creationist, etc. Nothing would get done if we always had to respond to those who disagree with us!

You can pretty much do whatever you want with Materialism. You can have a Material God. You can have a Material soul. Truth be told if these things exist they have to be some sort of material. Even light after all is a material. As long as it is material it is okay.

You can pretty much do whatever you want with Naturalism. Natural forces made the universe. Natural forces made life. Natural forces made consciousness. Natural forces made human level consciousness. If natural forces can do all that why is it impossible for them to make something like a soul? It is very hard to say natural forces cannot do something if you accept they made the universe after all!

I accept that if there is a soul it is some sort of substance and it came about through natural means. Therefore I am every bit the naturalist and materialist that Keith is. As for the issue of God, I consider it to be a futile effort. One can neither prove or disprove it. Also the existence of God has no direct bearing on the issue of either Dualism or the existence of life after death. Therefore I am just agnostic on the subject.

Lets do look at the NDEs a bit more. The prophecy issue first. My objection to Keith's argument is that NDErs do not claim that prophecies will happen, but that they are an warning of possible events. That is what NDEr's say and that has got to be noted in the end. I know Keith doesn't consider this to be a big deal but imagine if we went to a court of a law and someone guaranteed in writing they would do something, but then they didn't. Almost certainly the judge would rule against them. However, lets imagine someone said he might do something, but then he didn't, and he was taken to court over this. Certainly the judge would rule in this persons favor. The problem is Keith has a false expectation with NDE prophecy which comes from not reading them closely.

I do feel Keith is a master of minutia, but not in a good way. My absolute favorite subject is the American Civil War. There is a book called The South Was Right. I will let you guess what it defends. Basically it states that the war was caused by Northern Aggression, slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War and that succession was an unquestioned right in Federal Law. This book drowns you in minutia but it doesn't deal with obvious problems to it's ideas such as Fort Sumter, The Confederate Constitution and the Nullification Crises.

Keith does similar with the Pam Reynolds case. Let's get back to the facts on this:

a.) she was unconscious
b.) her eyes we taped shut
c.) her ears were plugged and the ears plugs were beeping ( according to Irreducible Mind it beeped 95ds at 11.3 per second. Basically continuously)
d.) she was under anesthesia

none of the above is very conducive to being aware of your environment. Under these circumstances Pam Reynolds managed to recall the details of her surgery correctly. It would be extraordinary enough to do this conscious,much less unconscious.

For Keith's case to work you have to accept the following

a.) she was somewhat aware while unconscious- This does happen but it is a rare occurrence and it is not a full awareness. Even if she was even somewhat aware her vision and hearing would be blocked by the earplugs and taped closed eyes. Again odds are much more likely she wasn't aware then aware and even if so we still have the problem of her earplugs and her closed eyes.

b.) she was aware under anesthesia- This does happen but again it is pretty rare. Also again even if awareness does occur it does not create a full awareness, just a partial awareness. I will note you again have the problem of the taped eyes and the earplugs. Even Keith noted in The Summer 2007 Edition of the Journal of Near Death Studies notes the occurrence of this is .1 percent ( 1/1000)

c.) The earplugs messed up. First off there is no real evidence for this, and it is highly unlikely, read my earlier posts about this. Even allowing for them to have messed up you still have the earplugs firmly in her ears, still blocking sound. Obviously if the earplugs were working, Keith's entire case is destroyed

d.) She then had a NDE. I note this cause most people do not have NDEs. Only about 20% of people do.

I am not a statistician but I am going to try to assign some numbers for points A and C. A Lets be charitable and say 1 out of 10. I suspect that is high but lets be kind. With the earplugs either they worked or they didn't, lets say 50/50 odds. Being very charitable to Keith the odds of explanations without figuring in blockage of sound from the earplugs and the taped eyes is 1/100,000. And remember these are kind odds, in reality the odds are probably rougher.

Every evidence Keith gave for his mental model of Consciousness could be equally well explained by a Prism Model of Consciousness ( basically weak dualism)

However his model is very problematic in explaining things such as NDEs. They shouldn't happen under his model for the simple reason the brain is either shutdown or highly impaired and consciousness should reflect that, not be super aware as it is under NDEs.

Again these are not the only problems with his model. There are rare cases where people have a functional normal conscious without having a brain. Obviously in this case consciousness could not have been produced by a non existent brain. Here are the links again for those cases.

Is your brain really necessary- http://www.mindreality.net/is-your-brain-really-necessary

The Power of Hope- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580392,00.html

I am willing to bet good money Keith will continue to insist that Dualism is unscientific, but it seems it better explains ALL the facts then his mental model. In the cases I linked to it is impossible for the brain to have generated consciousness in the first place cause it wasn't there. Obviously, at least for these people consciousness was separate from the brain.

However the Pam Reynolds case is not an isolated cases. We have similar cases such as the more recent Art Sullivan Case and the Case discussed by Penny Sartori in her article- A Prospectively Studied Near Death Experience with Corroborated Out of Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing.

I think I have said just about enough. Keith can consider me to be rude but as others have pointed out Keith is a bit of a mudslinger himself. I consider him to be a sophist and he considers Michael Prescott to be a pundit and nothing more. Oh well, it happens. I am also willing to bet we will get more lectures from Keith on Promissory Materialism, but I have effectively dealt with that argument above

[Kris]

I want to remind everyone of some of my points

a.) materialism and dualism need not conflict

b.) naturalism and dualism need not conflict

c.) Augustine's explanation for the Pam Reynold cases is very improbable at best

d.) there are some cases where consciousness must have been somewhere else besides the brain.

e.) Dualism can explain all the facts that a brain is the mind model can explain and it explains things such as NDEs, and the other cases I mentioned in a far superior manner.

Here is what I said earlier

Here is what I remind myself of. As of now we do not know the following

a.) how consciousness arose
b.) how consciousness to the complexity of human intelligence arose
c.) we do not know completely how consciousness functions.

To say consciousness must be one way in light of those HUGE glaring deficiencies in Human Knowledge is dogmatic at best, arrogance at worst.

I think answering those questions will be the greatest things science will have ever done.

We have such a huge gap in our knowledge when it come to understand consciousness yet materialist insist it must be a product of the brain.

I think the best thing we could do is try to assemble as many facts as possible then look at which model explains ALL the facts adequately. I think in the end considering cases of people having consciousness when they had no brains, NDEs etc would seem to point to the fact that consciousness is not completely part of the brain.

I think all mental models should be required to justify themselves and I do not think brain is the mind model should get a special exemption and I certainly do not think evidence should be forced to fit this model when it clearly doesn't.

[Keith Augustine]

"The earplugs messed up." I didn't say that, as I repeatedly corrected you about in this thread. And getting this 'minute detail' wrong makes my argument look absurd--again mischaracterizing my actual argument in order to bolster your own view.

The issue is not, nor ever was, the likelihood of an electrical failure effecting only the earplugs, or the earplugs being defective, or anything like that. The issue was, as a matter of standard procedure, whether doctors would unnecessarily blast a deafening full-symphony orchestra volume of sound into someone's ears when there was no need to do so. Pam's brainstem activity would not be expected to falter before entering deep hypothermia. Hypothermia would not even begin until over two hours after she overheard a conversation. It is unlikely, then, that there would be a need for the earplugs to be generating clicks when her brainstem would be known ahead of time to be functioning normally, and it would risk damaging her ear drum to blast that level of sound into her ears continuously at a time when doing so is unnecessary. So there is good reason to think that the doctors would not be measuring her AEPs at that time, not that anything was wrong with the equipment. Again, do your homework instead of responding to a straw man.

"the brain is either shutdown or highly impaired" during NDEs. Where's your evidence for that? In the Pam Reynolds case, it is neither. At the time of her overheard conversation, she was under normal body temperature and quite possibly anesthetically aware. Only your ideal, hypothetical NDEs are problematic for my interpretation. The NDEs that actually occur are not.

"Keith can consider me to be rude but as others have pointed out Keith is a bit of a mudslinger himself. I consider him to be a sophist and he considers Michael Prescott to be a pundit and nothing more. Oh well, it happens."

It's not about rudeness, it's about making bad arguments. It's a bad argument to mischaracterize someone's view and then attack that caricature. It implies that you can't deal with the actual argument that person made. That's why it's bad reasoning and best to be avoided.

Calling someone a pundit who demonstrably engages in punditry is simply making an observation. It's an observation that, I admit, I hoped would make Michael Prescott less partial. That didn't happen, but that doesn't change the validity of what I said. And in any case, what I said in Prescott's blog has no relevance here. I wasn't asking you to refrain from engaging in ad hominem attacks all the time, just here and just for long enough that maybe a constructive dialogue could ensue in order to "penetrate the issues." I stopped commenting at Prescott's blog because it was clear then that his blog was not a place for constructive dialogue between skeptics and believers. The About Paranormalia mission statement implies that Paranormalia is such a place. That's why I object when people like you refuse to allow constructive dialogue to take place here.

At least now we are talking more about the issues, even if I can't get you to focus on them exclusively.

"I think answering those questions will be the greatest things science will have ever done."

Between now and then, though, why does it anger you when people don't concede your point of view? If it remains to be established by science, that means it's an open question, and rational people can fall on either side of open questions. You seem to have a problem with anyone not falling on your side for reasons I don't know.

Personally, I could care less about the believer-skeptic divide. I am more interested in taking sides in the the good argument-bad argument divide. I prefer good arguments, not fallacious ones. I'll take good arguments from an opponent over bad arguments from someone who agrees with me any day.

[Keith Augustine]

Incidentally, in regards to whether we need a brain at all, I don't see any of those in neuroscience, those most qualified to answer that question, claiming that the brain is unnecessary for consciousness. If you asked them about these sorts of cases, they would point out the plasticity of the brain.

[Kris]

Enough Keith

You got the last word ( and the first) . I will let people read what both of us said and decide between it and of course they will get to decide if I misrepresented you are not.

[Kris]

Of course Keith didn't bother reading what I posted, which was in some cases people who literally didn't have brains. Of course those cases cannot have a plasticity of the brain but ignore that obvious fact.

I am done, we will let the readers decide.

[Keith Augustine]

Pretend that I'm a believer posting this piece of evidence, then. Here's some food for thought on the issue at hand:

http://www.ts-si.org/surgery/2427-anesthesia-honey-have-you-been-dreaming.html

"The study ... documented that not only do many patients have dreams [while anesthetized], but most of their dreams are pleasant or even prompted by an overheard conversation while under anesthesia."

"The investigation of dreaming during anesthesia is important because it is one of the most common side effects of anesthesia, which patients can sometimes confuse with having been aware during surgery."

"The findings showed that most dreams were pleasant and meaningful to the patient, because they incorporated family, friends, work or recreation. Others were inspired by overheard conversations among the surgical team members."

If dreams incorporating overheard conversations during anesthesia are not uncommon, surely it not so implausible that hallucinatory NDEs could be woven from the same cloth?

[Ben]

Keith: "...rational people can fall on either side of open questions. You seem to have a problem with anyone not falling on your side for reasons I don't know."

I'm not sure that the term "rational" is appropriate to the debate at all, Keith. Have you read the story?

http://sites.google.com/site/iscatus/short-story

[Paul]

Keith - I didn't ask for ALL the books I asked you what you had read in the subject area. I even asked politely. Again your response above is disingenuous. I expected a sample perhaps, not a list from your extensive library and a blow-by-blow dissection of the content that would be preposterous. Just one small eample? Anything? No? I definitely didn't expect a vague reference to a list of books some of which you haven't even read with no way of knowing which you have and haven't read.

It would have been useful to know because then I might have been able to make reference to the books directly based on my own reading and some of the contents by way of discussion, or even learned from your research. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question as I did. Kindly let me ask questions in my own way and I will do you the same courtesy.

You could have picked just one book - you didn't. In fact at first you didn't respond at all then responded with a list but no indication of what you didn't agree with at all. You never asked me what I had read and why I had formed the view, I would have been pleased to tell you but I think we are beyond that now.

The debate was about survival originally and the evidence, which you were dismissive of. Not about scepticism. You employ an interesting device - misdirection; you don't answer the question, then when pressed protest that you're are too busy; then indicate that I had no right to ask it, or have asked it the wrong way (and still don't answer it); and finally tell me you don't care what I think. Nice approach you look so reasonable and rational don't you think?