More sound and fury after my last post titled Passion for Fairness - ironic, as it turns out, as it reignited a previous tetchy exchange between regular visitors and skeptic Keith Augustine on the topic of near-death experiences, which he critiqued a few years back (NDEs in the Press, December 15, 2008). Keith complained about bad behaviour, while his critics said he wasn't answering their points and that his arguments were generally preposterous.
I noted Michael Prescott saying on a previous thread here that he had given up arguing with skeptics, because it was pointless, and didn't change anything, or words to that effect. As someone whose been at this game quite a bit longer than me, I respect his viewpoint. I may feel the same way in time. But right now I have a different idea. I don't expect to change skeptics' minds any more than a Labour politician mouthing off in parliament seriously expects to change the minds of opposition MPs - it's voters he wants to influence. Likewise, I think that listening to an informed debate by people at polar opposites helps other people make up their own minds.
For that reason, I'm really comfortable with skeptics showing up and exchanging views. I mention that, because Keith said at one point he had
To clarify - that statement I made in the previous post about forums existing for likeminded individuals is factually accurate - that is what associations, societies and blogs mostly are for - but isn't meant to imply that Paranormalia is hostile to other points of view or to people who make those statements. The fact that we can have these discussions at all - and at considerable length - is surely testament to that. My point was that these forums aren't obliged to go to the other extreme and give equal time and status to their critics in the interest of balance.
Keith also complained about flaming, and wondered why I didn't moderate the comments. I'd only do that if the blog got a lot of junk messages, which mercifully hasn't been the case so far. I've only had to stop one comment - the guy has since moved on - which is pretty good. I'm not keen on the idea of chairing discussions, even if I had the time for it (other regulars have stepped in with calming comments from time to time - for which, many thanks).
It's in the nature of things that these arguments get seriously heated. I take the view that if you have the guts to take the argument to the opposition, then you deserve credit for that, but by the same token, you shouldn't be surprised or upset if your opponents get frustrated, or the comments you get are hard to take.
Michael Prescott gave an admirably succinct appraisal of Keith's views on NDEs some years ago, and it pretty much expresses what I'd say, so I won't go into that here. I don't agree with most of what Keith thinks, and I'd suggest he greatly exaggerates the reliability of sources like Susan Blackmore on the topic of paranormal perception during NDEs, for instance. But the point is, there are many, many people who are disposed to believe his arguments and will take them seriously, if they think they're the ones that are most convincing. It's up to us, if we can, to change that perception. If we can't do this to the satisfaction of an uncommitted bystander, so much the worse for us.
The fact that Keith Augustine shows up to debate at least gives us an opportunity (and the serious stretches involved in his arguments - such as NDErs getting their OBE perceptions by normal means, inadequate anaesthetics, etc - should make it all the easier). We complain about the angry snarky types who think people like us don't deserve to live, so it's good to find a skeptic who is prepared to discuss his ideas with us. We're not going to agree with him, but does it really matter if we can't get him to agree with us? What matters is that we have clarified the points of disagreement, and in such a way that it's us, not him, that other readers agree with.
Good post. I don't agree with Keith and do not find him persuasive. Nonetheless, I reading his posts here.
Posted by: Tony M. | March 24, 2009 at 09:06 PM
Left out the word "enjoy"
Posted by: Tony M | March 24, 2009 at 09:07 PM
I find Keith's rebuttal of significant portions of the evidence base for NDE research to be quite robust. I am by inclination, a dualist, so this is not an example of confirmation bias!
Also, would like to point out what an excellent blog and resource you have here Robert. Well Done! .....and hope the work situation improves soon.
Posted by: michael duggan | March 24, 2009 at 10:38 PM
ok, lets see what happens
Posted by: Kris | March 24, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I concur with Robert that the point of engaging people you disagree with is not to change your opponents' minds, but to persuade others--if not that you're correct, then at least that your own point of view is one that it is rational to hold. And when you listen to what another rational person has to say, you can better understand that person's perspective--why that person thinks what he does--even if in the end you still disagree with him. ("I can see why he thinks that.") And doing so is productive for your own interests, since it helps you better understand the issues yourself, and better defend your own view--and airing multiple points of view helps bystanders better understand the issues, too.
Hence my desire to let bystanders make up their own mind as well. I don't really care very much whether others come to my particular conclusion--the point is to inform them about what the issues are. If people are well-informed, they can believe whatever they like, as far as I am concerned. It is educating people that interests me. My own conclusion simply reflects the end result of educating myself, and my presentation of arguments that support that conclusion is simply sharing my own internal dialogue with others.
If others take the same data and have a different internal dialogue with themselves, or external discussion with others, and conclude differently, so be it. What motivates me to share my own internal dialogue, really, is simply the fact that in the marketplace of ideas, no one else is really articulating my own thoughts. That's what motivates all of my work; I'm interested in discussing the neglected issues and perspectives, not the well-traveled ones that others have already articulated well enough. That's why you don't see me writing papers about the problem of evil, or objections to utilitarianism, or what have you. That ground is already covered spectacularly well by others, and I see no real need to add to their huge stack of contributions.
Obviously I don't agree with Robert that my own arguments are reaching, or clearly preposterous, or what have you. I will only note that, since Michael Duggan reminds me of it, I have seen online murmings among different enclaves of believers that my arguments are strong, or requests for responses to them because they seem strong and a person doesn't know how to respond to them, or that someone got interested in this stuff because of NDEs but now thinks the NDE evidence is overblown after having read my critique of it, but still thinks there's something to, say, mediumship.
I don't say this to stroke my own ego, but to make a point. And my point is this, one that bears repeating because so few people acknowledge it. The reason that some people on the other side of the aisle are persuaded by my arguments is because, contrary to popular opinion, my arguments don't depend upon the reader holding my supposed "materialist presuppositions" or anything like that. My arguments are based directly on the evidence itself, particularly anomalies in the evidence were a survivalist interpretation of that evidence true. (If I thought rhetoric was useful, I might even call them anomalies in the survivalist "paradigm"!) Really, I am just applying the same standard to dispute psi that you use to support it: asking wither these inconvenient facts if the other view is correct.
Let me give an example that readers here might find interesting for further discussion, or not, as they desire:
If something leaves the body during NDEs, why do approximately 75% of NDEs lack an out-of-body experience component? (That figure comes from the van Lommel et al. prospective study's statistics on the frequency of NDE elements.)
Those sorts of questions don't depend on any "materialist paradigm" of any sort. They are questions about survivalist interpretations of the data, and why, if those interpretations are correct, there is this other rarely discussed but nevertheless real data. Data that is anomalous, of course, on a survivalist view.
Really, all I am asking for is balance in the presentation of ALL of the data. There are plenty of books that present the data supporting a survivalist view. I've taken on the burden of presenting data that questions that view only because hardly anyone else has taken up that task. Since we are not talking about certainties here, I don't think that a little balance is objectionable at all, and thus don't understand why people get upset when I try to provide a little. Really, all that I'm doing is trying to ensure that people are fully informed when they make up their own minds.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | March 25, 2009 at 01:32 AM
I suspect someone would find Keith's arguments against Dualistic interpretations of NDEs to be compelling if they were more then a bit, how do I say this nicely, uninformed. Some of his explanations are more then a bit, far fetched. Basically he reminds of a defense attorney who always has some counter explanation, no matter what the evidence is.
to continue from the last post:
Here is why I think this ( anesthesia dreams) is a highly unlikely cause of NDEs
a.) you have NDEs without people dreaming during anesthesia, which obviously proves it doesn't explain some NDEs.
b.) The dreams involved mundane things, such as work, visiting LIVING family members etc. They didn't involve a tunnel, overwhelming light, going to a different realm of existence etc, encountering DEAD friends and family ( also when they encounter these people they are in the prime of their lives without physical handicap) . This is a huge difference
It should also be noted their is no note of them having a profound reorientation of their lives, such as typically happens with NDEs.
Also there is no note of the patients accurately describing their surgery, which does occur in NDEs.
c.) These are dreams. When in other studies researchers asked NDErs if they had dreams they swore what they had wasn't a dream. I will note the article said sometimes patients confuse the dream with being aware during their surgery but obviously this implies the majority were not, and also it was easy to convince them they did in fact dream, they concede the experience, unlike people who have had NDEs. People tend to have the ability to tell the difference between dreams and other mental states. An interesting survey would be to find people who had both an anesthesia dream and a NDE and get their opinions
It does note that sometimes patients incorporate what is going on around them into their dream. That is interesting but it should be noted we do this at times during dreams it isn't an exact incorporation . For example someone might have a dream of swimming or waterfalls when they have to use the bathroom. Just because they incorporated some of what was going on around them doesn't mean they incorporated it in an exact fashion.
This just doesn't seem to strike me as a likely explanations for NDEs. In the end these are just dreams, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Kris | March 25, 2009 at 01:56 AM
I take very much a bundle view when it comes to parapsychology. I will say Keith has developed some how it could have been scenarios that while possible are HIGHLY unlikely.
However we don't just have NDEs. We also have Ian Stevenson's research on NDEs, which if anything is stronger then NDE Research. If you haven't read both volumes on this I encourage you too.
Then we have EVP, Poltergeist etc. Every one of these would require Keith to cook up another unlikely scenario to explain them. It really is no different then the way the Ptolemaic Model of Astronomy used to be defended.
Accepting Dualism can easily explain this. Brain as the Mind cannot without taking extraordinary leaps. I mentioned earlier cases of people with normal intelligence who do not have brains. Keith said according to Neuroexperts this is impossible but the data does show these cases while rare do exist. Evidence always trumps belief. How impressed would someone be if we traveled two hundred years ago and heard someone say animals cannot over time change ( IE evolution)?
Posted by: Kris | March 25, 2009 at 02:19 AM
I take very much a bundle view when it comes to parapsychology. I will say Keith has developed some how it could have been scenarios that while possible are HIGHLY unlikely.
However we don't just have NDEs. We also have Ian Stevenson's research on NDEs, which if anything is stronger then NDE Research. If you haven't read both volumes on this I encourage you too.
Then we have EVP, Poltergeist etc. Every one of these would require Keith to cook up another unlikely scenario to explain them. It really is no different then the way the Ptolemaic Model of Astronomy used to be defended.
Accepting Dualism can easily explain this. Brain as the Mind cannot without taking extraordinary leaps. I mentioned earlier cases of people with normal intelligence who do not have brains. Keith said according to Neuroexperts this is impossible but the data does show these cases while rare do exist. Evidence always trumps belief. How impressed would someone be if we traveled two hundred years ago and heard someone say animals cannot over time change ( IE evolution)?
Posted by: Kris | March 25, 2009 at 02:21 AM
sorry double posted :(
Posted by: Kris | March 25, 2009 at 02:21 AM
hey everyone sorry about the double post
Posted by: Kris | March 25, 2009 at 02:31 AM
Maybe it goes without saying, but undoubtedly any given individual point one could make about any particular phenomenon is going to have a different level of strength or plausibility than some other point about the same. My complaint in the other thread ultimately boiled down to noting that the only way to find out is to actually (civilly) discuss those points.
Re: your most recent comment, Kris, I don't doubt that NDEs are a distinct "syndrome" from dreams (and preemptively, I mean syndrome in a clinical sense, like a pattern or cluster of features, not in any derogatory sense--as NDE researchers themselves have used the term "syndrome" to characterize NDEs). I've said as much in my published work, and I said that I didn't deny this point the last time you posted it. (Indeed, you'll see no references to NDEs and REM intrusion because at best those findings are interesting correlations that warrant further study. They are interesting findings to dissect, of course, and I think--though I might be thinking of something else--that the IANDs website has such a dissection, and that the authors of the study either responded or plan to respond to that dissection.)
My earlier point in posting the anesthesia news item was simply that overheard conversations can be incorporated into internally generated experiences--whether they be dreams or NDEs or drug trips or something else. Indeed, the "Mayo" example in my essay, in which "Mayo" appeared to be confused with "mail," as an NDEr saw a letter that did not exist in the operating room, is a likely example of such an overheard conversation affecting the content of an NDE--and according to the NDE researchers who reported the case way back in 1981, when NDEs were only relatively recently on anyone's radar, not according to me.
Much of what I do in my hallucinatory NDEs essay is just report such cases and what other NDE researchers themselves have said about them--like Peter Fenwick's comments about a woman seeing her heart removed from her body during an NDE, when during the procedure in question the heart is never removed. All I add to what Fenwick said is questions as to how such observations are compatible, or at least likely, with the idea that something left the body during such an NDE.
This is why I find objections to much of my material rather amusing sometimes: my critics are often objecting to what the researchers themselves say, and only to me by proxy for quoting them! So their beef is really more with those researchers than it is with me--it's just that as the skeptic, I make a better target than one of their own.
Of course, issues are issues regardless of who brings them up, but I went out of my way to quote rather than paraphrase because otherwise I'd almost certainly be accused of distorting what the original researchers said. Since putting words into other people's mouths was out of the question, instead I got hit with online accusations of "quoting out of context"--accusations, mind you, not demonstrations. None of the in print responses to my work make such accusations because of the integrity of the commentators and the fact that such accusations would have be backed up with actual evidence of misrepresentation. And it would be pretty stupid to quote someone out of context since anyone could check the sources directly to show that. In the online paper I link to the original essays in question, whenever they are online, in the bibliography largely as a preemptive move--so that anyone can check the context for himself. If people are going to criticize my work, I want them to do so on legitimate grounds and not made-up ones. I don't mind legitimate criticism, incidentally, because an argument that fails is just an argument one should jettison ASAP. *Constructive* criticism is doing you a favor: giving you pointers on how to tighten up your own case.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | March 25, 2009 at 03:44 AM
Do kris and Kieth get paid by the word?
Posted by: Tony M | March 25, 2009 at 03:46 AM
lol :)
but there are good points being made here - makes me think I need to brush up on my NDEs, and Keiths arguments in particular, and come back to the subject later.
Michael D, thanks
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | March 25, 2009 at 09:28 AM
The research into NDEs is still inconclusive with regards to a dualist explanation. On one side we got a number of sensational accounts you can be more or less inclined to believe and on the other side there are numerous facts that doesn't fit with the dualist interpretation. I'm here thinking on NDEs meeting living relatives opposed to dead relatives during the NDE and reports from veridical perception like seeing blood(and Keith's example with the heart) that just doesn't fit with what actually happended.
Posted by: sbu | March 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Yes Tony, Keith and I do get paid by the word. Why do you think we fight so much after all?
I have been thinking about this for awhile and I think more and more we need to confront Keith Augustine's arguments head on . A lot of us posting in here are survivalist and we tend to be very well read in Near Death Studies. We know Keith is making fringe arguments when it come to this area, but still they need to be confronted. My biggest concern is that Keith's arguments can cause a lot of damage to people who are uninformed. Someone who has never studied NDEs before and they read his arguments first is in no better a position then a person who wants to learn evolution and is handed a book by Henry Morris. Not only is it wrong, it is a tremendous setback for them. They still have to learn about Evolution and now they have to learn why Morris' arguments are wrong. Basically double the effort for the same knowledge. Of course a worse outcome is they are convinced Morris is correct and they now put out misinformation. Such a thing is now happening with Keith's arguments.
In general I have noticed five areas of weakness we should be able to exploit in refuting Keith:
a.) He ignores NDE testimony
b.) He is some areas misrepresents data
c.) He is some areas extrapolates beyond what his data would suggest
d.) His arguments against evidence that would suggest survival are highly improbable
e.) As has been observed before Keith does has difficulties with the concept of logically possible verses logically likely. I think this is an area to be highly exploited.
I highly recommend some of us exchange emails, and find other people who would be interested and well read enough to help us. I would recommend Michael Prescott and I am sure we can think of others. Chris Carter might be another possibility. I would suggest we keep this a private affair as it would really slow down if every second we had to answer skeptics. Let's just wait for the finished project.
If anyone is interested email me at krkey2009ATgmail.com ( of couse AT=@
Posted by: Kris | March 25, 2009 at 09:21 PM
Yes, Kris. But let's just keep this between us!
Posted by: The Major | March 25, 2009 at 10:14 PM
until it is finished!
Posted by: Kris | March 25, 2009 at 10:50 PM
So does anyone in here think I have a good idea or do you all think I am barking mad for recommending a colab project to thoroughly rebut Keith's arguments once and for all?
Posted by: Kris | March 26, 2009 at 12:37 AM
I love it when you guys compare me to a creationist. What fun!
After all, only a virtual creationist could reject a hypothesis as well established as survival of bodily death, right? The consensus of psychologists is that it's a virtual scientific fact that the mind survives death, just as the consensus of biologists is that species change over time, right? No? I didn't think so... (But wait: I already pointed this out before, and it already went in one ear and out the other.)
Oh, wait, I also forgot: There's a far-reaching conspiracy of scientistic pseudoskepticism infecting every corner of science. This fully explains psychologists' failure to concede the, for all practical purposes, proof that survival occurs. And explains why biologists fail to concede the cryptozoological fact of a plesiosaur inhabiting Loch Ness. And why astronomers fail to concede the ufological fact that the greys live in the Zeti Reticuli star system and come here for tourism. Every crank that isn't taken seriously is "suppressed" for purely "political" reasons, and not because their evidence is less than conclusive.
What you fail to realize is that even among the experts in a given scientific field, one guy has to appeal to something decisive, external to himself, to show all the others that his theory of black holes is correct and the other guy's theory is wrong. That external decider is conclusive evidence, something that has to be discovered, not invented. If you want to do more than preach to the converted, you're going to actually have to do some work to prove your case.
So we can play this game if you really want to take it there, but you can't win, because the character of the available evidence doesn't change one iota just because you put a spin on it. The evidence for survival after death available to us today is ambiguous at best, pure and simple.
If you really had such conclusive evidence, you could simply point to it and let it speak for itself, and wouldn't need to invoke all of this BS about being kept down by the "pseudoskeptics."
If you really had such conclusive evidence, there'd be no need for the AWARE study, or for Ian Stevenson's unsuccessful combination lock tests of mediumship, and so on and so forth. The fact that such attempts are still made is testament enough that the issue has not been settled, that survival has not been all-but-proven, regardless of what you happen to believe.
Take that as a challenge, if you would: Go ahead and try to just present the facts without putting any spin on them at all, and see how convincing those facts are all by themselves. Can you do it? I doubt it. Others far more capable than you or I, and far more knowledgable than either of us, have not been able to convince the scientific world that your cherished beliefs are more than mere beliefs.
If you think you can rebut me so easily, have at it. Just keep in mind: I didn't make up the data. The data comes from the near-death researchers. I've largely just reported their data, and their conclusions about the data. It is the data that is damaging to your cherished survivalist beliefs, not the messenger merely delivering the news.
Might I also suggest that you get my actual arguments right this time? A case could be made that you think that I misrepresent data, for instance, because you don't know what the data are and/or what I say about them. This has been demonstrated amply enough in the "Passion for Fairness" entry comments that I'm not going to bother to repeat myself. All I will say is that, for the record, Kris has not demonstrated a single misrepresentation that I committed, whereas I have demonstrated numerous ones that he has committed, and Kris' response has not been concession or rebuttal, but silence.
One other suggestion: Don't let the NDE researchers I quote off the hook simply because I'm the one who quoted them. For example, if you're going to criticize Religious Experience Research Centre director Mark Fox's conclusions about blind NDErs, or Parapsychology Association President Harvey Irwin's conclusions about blind NDE reports, make sure you give Fox and Irwin what they have coming to them for daring to question such "unimpeachable" sources of evidence. I have little doubt that one reason I've been able to persuade people who disagree with me is because the arguments I've reported have come directly from the researchers themselves. I've only supplemented my own arguments when the researchers have not addressed a given issue. So if you don't take them down with me, people will still be aware that THEY are the one's who said it, even if I quoted it.
Give those NDE researchers what THEY have coming to them for daring to suggest that there might be weaknesses in the survivalist case! Just like any "impartial" observer would do...
In short, if you want to neutralize my effectiveness in getting people away from towing your party line, make sure that you are an equal-opportunity character assassin. Don't smear too narrowly now! People WILL remember that the example I included came from Fenwick, or the argument from Irwin, etc, even if they never heard the example or argument before. (Indeed, the fact that survivalists have conveniently ignored this sort of stuff from their own might be one reason people find me persuasive. If you don't tell them about living persons being seen in NDEs, for instance, how trustworthy will they judge you when they have to come to a skeptic to get the WHOLE story?)
So when you talk about the alleged "fringe arguments" I report, don't forget to mount your assault on the--by implication--"fringe researchers" who made them. Take the researchers down with me, since I'm largely just the messenger boy. If you don't, I'll will make it clear to readers that you are criticizing THEIR views, if they can't see that already. I am quoting THEM, after all!
One final comment: I think it's a rather sad testament to just how partial you are that you conclude that I'm able to persuade believers to spread my "misinformation." You are in essence saying that anyone persuaded by me, even if they have dualist inclinations, is obviously not bright enough to see the light, or don't know what they are talking about, SIMPLY BECAUSE they don't agree with your assessment. Now we're not even talking about a believer-skeptic divide. We're talking about Kris' opinion vs. any opinion that dares to differ from Kris'.
So go ahead and do your worst. If I can hold my own against multiple scholarly researchers who've studied the subject for decades, I have nothing to fear from you. And if you continue your pattern of misrepresenting what I actually argue, I WILL call you out on your misrepresentations, quoting you, and then quoting the argument I actually presented, and highlighting every distortion you've made. I'll even publish them in different fonts to make them immediately identifiable at a glance. I might even create a table with one column for your straw man arguments, one column for my actual arguments, and one column for how the distortion dishonestly bolsters the plausibility of your position.
Then I'll let readers ponder for themselves whether the reason you continue to attack straw men is because you can't answer the actual arguments I present, many of which aren't even my arguments, but researchers' arguments that I merely REPORTED so that readers would be aware of ALL of the facts and not just the ones that survivalists fancy.
As for your a) through e) "weaknesses" in my case, you better damn well demonstrate them and not merely attribute them--because I WILL call you out on every last distortion if you go that route.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | March 26, 2009 at 06:08 AM
He will you know, he WILL call you out. Be warned. LMAO
Posted by: Paul Welsh | March 26, 2009 at 07:28 AM
That's a fair point, Keith. Your arguments should not be misrepresented. I support you in that.
Similarly, could you please identify where people on this blog argue that "astronomers fail to concede the ufological fact that the greys live in the Zeti Reticuli star system and come here for tourism" or are you simply labelling our arguments with clearly comic ones to muddy the point unfairly?
Another thing. You say that we should just let the experiments speak for themselves. "Just the facts, Jack" as they say in L.A. Confidential. Again fair point. However, do you think then that experimenters such as Sheldrake, Radin and so on should be given access to funding and not have their work ripped apart unfairly by the likes of Randi and Shermer. These guys are trying to prove their theories with very little funding.
I imagine that as a key member of 'Internet Infidels' you have some influence with certain 'skeptic' individuals. Could you please try and persuade them that the experiments should go ahead and that the results should be considered objectively and not immediately dismissed due to prior prejudice?
You clearly have a great love for science so I would imagine you would want this to go ahead. What can you do to help out?
Posted by: The Major | March 26, 2009 at 08:41 AM
Paul: I imagine that you would find that rather amusing considering that you don't see anything wrong at all with using fallacious arguments. I'm sure that you would regard pointing them out as "whining"--unless, of course, they were used by one of your opponents. THEN playing dirty is out of bounds.
I notice that you tend to be silent when it suits you, Paul. Let me ask a third time: Do you deny that my second list of long-forgotten books I'd read, posted immediately after the first list in the NDEs in the Press thread, referred to books directly relevant to the issues I was talking about at the time?
The Major: If you are going to be colloborating with Kris, please do double check his arguments against mine. He has either not bothered to do his homework or intentionally mischaracterized what I've written, even after I've called him out on that, enough times that I have no confidence that he won't do it again. That's why I find it disturbing that he wants to lead the charge. I have no problem at all with impartial writers contributing a point of substance to the debate that counts against something I've said, which is why I allowed Michael Sabom to have the last word in his matter-of-fact letter to the editor preceding Neal Grossman's polemical one concerning the JNDS exchange I participated in. When someone is fair in their critique, that's one less thing I have to set the record straight about. People should be able to air multiple viewpoints in a free marketplace of ideas--that's the only way issues are going to be settled over time.
It would also not only save me, but your readers, from investing a lot of wasted time reading about something other than the issues. In this low attention span world, you might want to think about that considering that the Internet offers virtually unlimited possibilities to engage people's interests, and stuff that doesn't cut to the heart of the matter can easily be passed over when people decide to read something else.
The Major asks: "could you please identify where people on this blog argue that 'astronomers fail to concede the ufological fact that the greys live in the Zeti Reticuli star system and come here for tourism' or are you simply labelling our arguments with clearly comic ones to muddy the point unfairly?"
To my knowledge no one here has argued that. Indeed, from the limited evidence I've seen from bringing it up, it doesn't even look like anyone here is even familiar with the cryptozoological or ufological arguments.
Don't miss the forest for the trees: My point is that, if you appeal to ridiculous assertions that you're being kept down by the man for political reasons, instead of dealing with the actual evidential issues, those who have no dog in this fight will perceive you in the the same way that you likely perceive cryptozoologists and ufologists who make similar assertions--namely, as cranks. So, if you don't want to be perceived as cranks by others, stick to the issues about the soundness of arguments and the reliability of the evidence, and avoid the rhetoric--for your own sake.
Contrary to your perception, I have no influence at all with James Randi or Michael Shermer. The only major skeptics I occasionally correspond with about the issues are Chris French and Gerald Woerlee, and only because of similar interests. I have no "political" networking influence at all on either side of the aisle, among skeptics or believers, and don't want it. My interest is in the issues, and I have no more responsibility for what other people do than you do. Organizationally, Internet Infidels' collaboration with other freethought or skeptical organizations is about as robust as "Can you update your link to our website?"
What Sheldrake and Radin study, and what their critics say about their work, is at best of secondary interest to me--which is probably the way you feel about crytozoology and ufology. My real interest is in the survival question, because unlike other issues in these unconventional areas of research, I have a personal stake in the answer to that question--and despite what you might think, I would prefer that reality be the opposite of what I think the evidence shows it to be. As I said before, I'd rather be wrong now and have eternity to sort out what's true than be correct now and have my beliefs die with the rest of me. What I want, though, is irrelevant to what's likely in light of the evidence, and if this life is the only one I'll likely have, I want to know as much about it as I can while I still have to chance to know at all, and not get sidetracked by false beliefs--life is too short for them.
As for the funding question--I'm not sure parapsychologists have it any worse than anyone else, really. The private sector wants profitable results for its large investments, and it seems doubtful that parapsychology will produce them. And public funding recipients have to justify their expenditures to the governments that fund them. Welcome to the grim reality: He who has money gets to decide what to do with it, and the rest of us can only hope to get scraps from begging or by assisting the wealthy as another cog in the wheel that assists them in fulfilling their interests.
Incidentally, I'm not sold that what Randi and Shermer do has anything to do with what peer reviewed journals like Nature publish. And insofar as parapsychologists have gone off and created their own journals, there's very little room to argue that ideas are being suppressed by academia. Ignored, maybe, but I doubt suppressed--just like cryptozoological and ufological ideas. (You ought to be grateful, in a way, that skeptics like Chris French and I take you seriously enough to respond to what you say, instead of just ignoring you altogether and working on some other issue. The latter would be a lot less work for us.)
At the end of the day, no one on either side of the aisle should "have their work ripped apart unfairly." I've been arguing this all along. Let the chips fall where they may; mischaracterization and so on isn't going to change the way reality is, or even what the evidence that we have suggests about reality.
"What can you do to help out?" That is an interesting question. Since I lack vast expanses of wealth (lamentably!), I consider what I am doing right now to be about as helpful as I can practically be--engaging the issues on their own terms, and not on some trivial us-them mentality. And letting others know what I've found out about the issues, instead of keeping it to myself or only engaging like-minded people, even when doing the latter would save me the grief of painting a big target on my back for partisan people like Kris.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | March 26, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Ehh,I am not quite as sure if I see this major victory by Keith.
People can reread what we said but I think I scored a few " minor" points. Among them would be:
a.) Naturalism and NDEs need not be considered incompatible
b.) Materialism need not be considered incompatible with NDEs
c.) There is tremendous gaps in our knowledge regarding the origins of consciousness, the origins of human level consciousness and how consciousness functions therefore no one explanation should be given the benefit of the doubt.
d.) Weak Dualism can equally explain the observations supporting the brain is the mind model.
e.) Certain rare cases pretty much demand that consciousness be outside of the brain. Keith objected to his by saying neuroscientist would not agree with this but I pointed out the cases mentioned would disprove that belief. Would Keith be impressed if we traveled in time to say 1800 and was told a consensus of biologist believed animals changing form is impossible. Evidence always trumps beliefs.
f.) Keith misunderstood NDE prophecy in a way that would invalidate his argument against it. He can argue till he is blue in the face but the fact of the matter remains NDErs claimed their prophecies were warnings and they did this from day one ( Look at the Howard Storm case). See my court case analogy about this.
g.) Keith by his own admission ignores NDErs testimony, great way to investigate it. Of course he has no problem using NDErs testimony which would favor his side
h.) I showed why is claim if anesthesia dreams is a weak explanation of NDEs.
i.) I showed why his alien abduction analogy is a false analogy.
Keith has called my challenge ( admittedly a bit tongue in cheek) to be nonsense but in principle what is wrong with it?
Next Keith made a huge dust up about the earplugs of being in operational ( his exact words were "actually operational" ) (comment posted 3-20-09 7:05 AM) And I showed why that was a flawed argument.
Then Keith demanded I prove the earplugs worked,( 3-22-09 7:07 AM). Read my posts I did this with no problems
Next Keith says this about the earplugs! I never argued that the earplugs were faulty. Instead, I asked if they were turned on at the time of the overheard interoperative conversation.(3-22-09 7:55 AM)
Keith has now changed his argument. The ear plugs were not in use now. Let’s check the dictionary for some definitions now.
Operational -able to function or be used; functional- Webster Dictionary
Actually-as an actual or existing fact; really.- Webster
Function-to perform a specified action or activity; work; operate- Webster
So we could substitute the phrase " actually operational " with " does it in fact function".
So if someone is asking if something is " actually operational" a rational meaning of that question is does it work? If not, why not. So as we can see Keith changed his arguments mid stride.
I suspect Keith will quibble that because they were turned off or possibly removed they were not " actually operational" but let me go ahead and destroy that quibble before he makes it. If your car is turned off would you question if " actually operational" ? If you weren't in your car would you say it is questionable if it is " actually operational"?
You get compared to a creationist because they flip a commonsense interpretation of the data on its head, and it is obvious they are driven by a deep ideological belief. Of course we could compare you with say a modern Neo Confederate who denies the role of slavery in the American Civil War, but a lot more people have heard of creationist. You deny a commonsense interpretation of NDEs, a position taken by a majority of NDE Researchers, and as for ideological belief, well I will let people decide if they think a person who got a Masters in Philosophy, Is the Vice President of Internet Infidels, sees the need rebut Survivalist Research might not just be a wee bit ideological.
As for Ian Stevenson I was talking about his two volumes on Reincarnation studies.
Keith will claim till he is blue in the face that we didn't get his arguments correct but I will let independent readers decide that one. I may be wrong but I highly suspect Keith isn't the type to admit to mistakes and is a triumphalist to boot. Of course Duane Gish used to brag he withstood the best attack of evolutionist and Keith's bragging is similar to Robert Turkle of www.tektonics.org. Again I let the reader decide.
Let’s look at the two mistakes Keith pegged me for:
I confused anesthesia awareness with the anesthesiologist messed up. Strictly speaking if you did have anesthesia awareness the anesthesiologist did messed up, but in all fairness to Keith he takes the position you can have anesthesia awareness without an error by the anesthesiologist. Ok minor mistake on my part however let’s see something below:
anesthesiologist messed up- person is still somewhat conscious
anesthesia awareness- person is still somewhat conscious
The huge difference between these two in the end is? My confusion on this drastically altered Keith’s position how?
Next, I said to replicate the results of the Pam Reynolds case you would have to chill someone to 70 degrees and this would be dangerous. In fairness to Keith though he just wanted to replicate aspects of the case when she had her NDE, which happened before she was chilled.
There we go, those are my areas of weakness, now what about the areas I mentioned above. Again I will let the reader decide.
Do we have to comment on Keith’s monolithic views of science. The reason more scientist are probably not convinced of survival is cause they have never researched it ( they are after all busy people), assumed as a priori it is impossible, others accept survival but do so for religious reasons ( again no research), some wouldn't be qualified to critique it anyways ( what would say a Geologist really be able to contribute on this) and some unfortunately take the word of "skeptics" like Keith Augustine at face value. Again of course if traveled in time I would suspect Keith would be less than impressed with scientific consensus arguments of the past.
Posted by: Kris | March 26, 2009 at 04:00 PM
OK Keith for the record: I am silent because I have finished trying to get you to explain what you have researched relating to survival. I do not see the point in wasting any more of my time time on it whilst you bodyswerve around easily answered questions (if you have really researched the topic that was under discussion). I view you as disingenuous and argumentative. I believe you are prepared to offer comment (sometimes) on matters that you have not researched and then avoid explaining yourself by misdirection. You are also rude. I see no point in further debate with you. That's why I haven't posted any more. I have no doubt you will post a smart (in your view reply) as you love the last word and I am happy to let you have it.
Posted by: Paul Welsh | March 26, 2009 at 08:01 PM
As an addendum: of course the list was relevant. The problem was it was just that a list of books some of which you admitted you hadn't got round to reading and no indication of what you had got got round to. My originally enquiry was genuine.I was disappointed by your pointless unhelpful response. I will not be responding to your comments further as explained above. Good luck.
Posted by: Paul Welsh | March 26, 2009 at 08:04 PM
Correction: the second list was a list of books you subsequently remembered reading. My apologies in that respect. I didn't find your response helpful and as you mentioned you don't care what I think I see no point in discussing it further hence my silence.
Posted by: Paul Welsh | March 26, 2009 at 08:16 PM
Keith,
I am sure you have heard of the cross correspondences?, the newspaper tests?. These are among the best evidences for survival. Of course you have an personal stake in the survival question, but how you present both sides especially the survival evidence, which is only a tiny piece that you do present of it.
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | March 26, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Kris: I did not change my argument mid-stream. That was my argument all along, and you would have known that if you had read either a) my online essay (endnote 20), b) my 2007 response to the Part 1 commentaries in the print journal, or c) what I said in the previous thread.
If you want to nitpick about the definition of a single term:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/operational
4. being in effect or operation; "de facto apartheid is still operational even in the 'new' African nations"- Leslie Marmon Silko; "bus service is in operation during the emergency"; "the company had several operating divisions"
Of course context is important too, and as I explained in sources a)-c) noted above, it is plausible that AEPs would not be measured more than two hours before the anticipation of brain stem flatline. But then Kris did not even realize that Pam was not even close to hypothermia when she had her auditory observations until I corrected him on that--he thought she heard what she did at 70-degree body temperature, when in fact she was at normal body temperature that would stay normal for the next two hours after those auditory observations--just another indicator that he criticizes without knowing what he's talking about.
But as I said before, being unwilling to apply the principle of charity to your opponents is an indicator of partiality. Not that you haven't produced ample other evidence that you're no impartial observer, Kris. You don't even have the facts of the case you're arguing about right.
I already answered Kris' claim that I ignore NDErs' testimony. I no more ignore it than he ignores alien abductees' testimony. Not accepting abductees' interpretations of their experiences is not equivalent to not listening to them. That's why Susan A. Clancy wrote a book about the subject by listening to abductees' testimony and yet concluding that their experiences were not "veridical." The same point would apply to NDErs' testimony, pure and simple.
I also already answered your points about whether an afterlife is compatible with naturalism or materialism. Any substantial sense of the term "naturalism" entails that spiritual realities do not exist, since that's what is affirmed by naturalism's antithesis, supernaturalism. And a materialist theory of mind (not of all of reality) is only compatible with something leaving the body in a very nonstandard sense of the term: if whatever leaves the body is a physical thing that goes to a physical place then yes, a physical astral body would be compatible with that kind of materialism. The point, though, is that, as explained last time, the best explanation of mind-brain correlations and the lack of any positive evidence for anything in addition to the brain is that the brain generates mental states (positive evidence in the form, say, of soul or astral influences on the brain, instead of every current brain state appearing to be the result of the brain state before it and nothing else) . The issue here is not what is conceptually possible, but what is empircally likely.
My response to your "gaps in our knowledge" point was that a "God of the gaps" argument is no positive evidence for your position. No current scientific explanation for X is not equivalent to whatever "spiritual" explanation you might favor, because you don't win by default like that. Only positive evidence for a spiritual explanation counts as positive evidence for a spiritual explanation. That's not a rule of thumb that I made up; Google "God of the gaps."
I already answered your d) and briefly said something about e). My point is not that you should take my word for it--you ought to ask neuroscientists how they account for such cases before concluding that they cannot account for them. Maybe you should Google "encelphic" or "encelphaly" (I hope I'm spelling them correctly) and "plasticity" and see what you find. It's not my job to make sure Kris has actual checked to see what neuroscientists say about this beyond a single news article essentially presenting the point of view of a single person without asking those neuroscientists their take. I think you ought to do your homework on this as well, see what neuroscientists say, and then say why they are wrong. You haven't done this, hence why I'm not going to say anymore about it until you do. If you're not going to bother to educate yourself I'm not going to do it for you--you don't really listen to what I have to say anyway.
I also responded to your f) prophecy, g) testimony, and h) anesthesia dreams points. On point h), you simply reposted what you said earlier after my response, and I just responded to The Major about that, too.
You said that alien abduction experiences weren't analogous, for one, because very few people report AAEs, but many people report NDEs. I checked it out only as an afterthought since it didn't matter even if it was true, and it turned out that more than double the number of Americans report AAEs than NDEs. I didn't make a big deal about that, unlike you, because I don't see how the frequency of either experience is relevant to the analogy I gave. That people sometimes interpret their odd experiences as veridical is no evidence that their experiences were veridical--pure and simple--whether the issues is NDEs or alien abduction experiences.
Kris wrote: "You get compared to a creationist because they flip a commonsense interpretation of the data on its head, and it is obvious they are driven by a deep ideological belief."
By this standard, the "commonsense interpretation" of alien abduction experiences is that extraterrestrials kidnap humans. The "commonsense interpretation" of Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot sightings is that there's a plesiosaur in Loch Ness or unknown species of primate in the Pacific Northwest. One needn't be ideological to deny these things.
If anyone is likely to be ideological here, Kris, it is you, as you criticize opponents without even getting their arguments right to begin with. Obviously, then, your beef with them is not with their arguments, but with the fact that their conclusions aren't your conclusions. What could be more ideological than that? Your comment that your interpretation is the common sense one is just another way I saying that any other interpretation is absurd. This is just further evidence that you have too much emotionally invested in survival being true, or NDEs being indicative of survival, to objectively consider whether that might not be the case.
Paul: I only pressed that point because you continually kept making a big deal out of it. Indeed, it is the first comment of yours in the "Passion for Fairness" thread, resurrecting something from the "NDEs in the Press" thread. You were committed to seeing me in a certain light because I didn't distinguish what I'd read from what I had intended to read, and then, by accident, I happened to remember something that called into question your conclusion about me. If you find it rude to press you in the way that you pressed me by resurrecting the issue, then I suggest you not draw sweeping conclusions from your hair-trigger desire to find something on which to dismiss what I have to say, lest you have to go to the bother of looking at the actual arguments I present.
I was not in that thread, a thread about NDEs after all, interested in talking about more than NDEs or survival in a general sense. My question was that, given so many different ways survival could be demonstrated, it had not been. And it was a legitimate question to ask. I mentioned, for example, the failure to unlock Ian Stevenson's combination lock after his death and other such tests of survival. (So obviously I knew a little something about this that others evidently did not.)
There was no need for me to talk about the Sharada case, or Runki's leg (Braude, I think, covered the weaknesses in the case well enough), or Mrs. Piper's obviously imaginative controls like Phinuit, or other mediums' astral travels to a nonexistent civilization on planet Mars, or the stuff that Robert Almeder dealt with in my second list, like his mistaken belief that the Osis-McCormick experiments were replicated, or the airplane flight where crashed airplane parts were reused in another craft, allegedly prompting the deceased pilot of the old flight to have conversations with the passengers of the new aircraft, and so on and so forth. I can throw out a list of cases I know about, but to what end? Expecting me to critique any one of those things is another matter--as putting together a decent critique take a great deal of time. I didn't have the time to do one for any one of those things then, and don't now. It's hard enough just keeping up with the existing posts here!
Posted by: Keith Augustine | March 26, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Leo: I present the issues concerning the survival evidence that no one else talks about very much. There's no point in reinventing the wheel; I leave it to survival proponents to keep rehashing their best cases, as they've done quite abundantly over the decades. I'm not going to do it for them, and I see no point in repeating them.
The point is for readers to read BOTH what the survivalists have to say and what their critics have to say, instead of just reading what the survivalists have to say. The vast majority of people who know anything at all about this stuff only know your side of the story, wouldn't you say? All I am doing is trying to provide a little balance. Do you really think that survivalists should have the only say about the issue?
Posted by: Keith Augustine | March 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Ok go on then, one more go. Thanks for the reply Keith. Although you see it differently I definitely didn't look for something to prove you wrong. I felt you were avoiding my question. I still don't think you have answered it (there were three parts: what you read, what you took issue with and why).
You have already explained why you haven't answered it but without this I don't have many options in terms of my conclusion however, as you mentioned, you don't care what I think. Whilst this is true and you are entitled to this view, it is also impolite in my opinion. I on the other hand was interested to know why you think the way you do. So I am left with no idea what you have read other than a late recollection of a few books (none of which I have read and therefore am unable to comment on), no idea of what you rejected in the research in these books, and no idea why.
In the thread in which I raised it, it was reasonable question. It isn't in this thread I agree. Despite how it may seem I am open minded about survival and definitely not convinced as yet although I do think there is a lot of evidence to support it. You're right to say that I re-opened the thread. The reason for this was that way back when I asked you about what you had read (it really wasn't intended to trip you up) you didn't reply initially and when you did your initial response was unhelpful (to be honest the list of books you do mention you sound somewhat hazy about but that may be the way you mention it) despite your confident assertions about the subject under discussion. My view was and is that you did not answer the questions I posed. You have every right not to. I inferred that this was because you had not read the same research that I had eg Lodge, Crookes etc. and which I found pursuasive (or in fact any of the major works that address the issue). I am still of that opinion.
I think I will leave it here for now as you are quite right that this is distracting from the purpose of this thread.
Posted by: Paul Welsh | March 26, 2009 at 11:38 PM
keith,
Your side has been given many chances to present your case. Examples of scientists that have presented the case that mind is produced by the brain, and in their view their is no soul. Steve Pinker, Susan Blackmore, Steven Novella among others] They have been given plenty of media talks.
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/dawkins_pinker_index.ht
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
As far as Mrs Piper goes. Their is a godo critique on Martin Gardner's debunking of her mediumship.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/08/how-martin-gard.html
I wonder what you think of this direct test for survival which was proven.
Houdini's code
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/ford/houdini.htm
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | March 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM
I got a few questions for Keith myself. I would appreciate if he answered them.
a.) Are you telling us it is IMPOSSIBLE for a soul ( or something similar) to be made of some kind of material?
b.) Are you telling us that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the same forces that naturally created the entire universe, created life, created consciousness , created human level consciousness could not create naturally create something like a soul ( especially if you accept something like multiverses. In such a scenario some kind of God and Soul must exist)
Let's say there was an ancient culture that we didn't not know the following about:
a.) when it began
b.) when it ended
c.) how to read it's language
Would you be highly impressed if an archaeologist insisted only his interpretation of the data could be correct? If someone observed the tremendous lack of knowledge about this culture, and proposed a different explanation, would you consider this to be an " God of the Gaps" argument? ( I am very curious about this one cause so far I have said nothing about God at all in any of my responses)
If an consensus archaeologist of reported an ancient culture did not possess iron but then a tomb from this culture was found and inside it was iron Swords would you now consider this consensus to be mistaken?
If you somehow traveled back in time would you be impressed with a scientific consensus from say 1800? 1500?
If you told someone you could possibly repair someone's fence would you consider this a promise and legally binding contract?
What is the air speed velocity of an unladen sparrow?
Now for general comments:
Actually a common sense view of the Loch Ness monster would be mistaken ID for the simple fact that:
a.) Plesiosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years.
b.) surely a body would have washed a shore by now.
c.) you would have to have a family of them breading
As for Bigfoot I will simply observe if this creature is somewhat intelligent he will avoid humans with a passion ( maybe aliens think the same way) and it might possibly bury it's dead. Even if not I will observe the Pacific North West is what experts refer to as huge, desolate and sparsely populated.
The Flight you mentioned was Flight 401. Oddly enough my late Grandfather was a plane inspector, he knew the pilots and he met people who claimed to have seen their Ghosts. Not saying this as proof but I did find it neat that you mentioned this case.
I will touch more on encephalitic cases later.
Posted by: Kris | March 27, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I am going to have to pass on a lot of these questions for the time being. I'm way too behind on my work as a result of posting so much here already, and consequently have to concentrate on that work.
That said, I will get back to you on this stuff--eventually--because if I don't, I know you'll treat it as a dodge. Please remind me what you want me to answer when the time comes. Between now and then, a couple of preliminary points to partially answer the most recent stuff:
* I have not read any primary source material from Oliver Lodge or Wm. Crookes. (I never included any of them on either of my lists.) Most of my reading has been concentrated on recent presentations of the survival evidence, since those researchers have filtered out a lot of the chaff leaving only the "best cases" in their estimation to concentrate on. Best to do that, lest you be accused of picking an easy case to dissect and ignoring what the researchers themselves deem the most evidential ones.
* Neither Steven Pinker nor Susan Blackmore has ever, to my knowledge, presented positive evidence that the brain produces consciousness. They have only critiqued the survival evidence--if they have even done that. (Only Blackmore has critiqued survival evidence, of the three, to my knowledge.) Novella has provided a brief summation of the evidence for production, but not an extensive case. The only more extensive cases for production I'm aware of have come from those now deceased: Paul Edwards, Barry Beyerstein, and Corliss Lamont. Consequently I concede that there is a lot of room for more fully making such a case at this point in time. (And that's exactly what I plan to do in my book.)
* I notice that Leo mentions a critique of Mrs. Piper. I wonder what he would say about James Munves' JSPR critique of the same. One of the most touted aspects of her mediumship was her communication with "GP," and Munves found that to be way overblown--and he had looked into the records with the assumption that there was something to her mediumship, not in order to debunk it. Add to that that the vast majority of her controls are admitted to be inventions by the researchers who studied her, and that most of the time she was clearly fishing for information, and so on, and it looks like a case of desparately looking for any grain of truth amongst all the chaff of falsehoods.
* No, I don't think it impossible that there be a "physical soul"--I just think that if there were such a thing, there would be some evidence for it all around us. There would be extra energy coming from this thing if it is to effect the physical brain, and we could detect that--but we don't. It's precisely the need for this sort of tangible evidence to distinguish what we dream up from what actually is the case. In fact, I find the notion of an astral body much more feasible than that of a disembodied mind, though both face conceptual problems--and one in particular is common to both of them. Disembodied minds face more conceptual difficulties, though, and the prospect of bodily resurrection is so unlikely that, if you asked me, the only plausible way to survive death left is via some sort of astral or etheric body. It's only that such a thing is only "plausible" relative to the other options for surviving death; it is implausible itself for various reasons, just less problematic and more credible than the other two ways of surviving death.
* The issue isn't whether it is impossible that nature created souls; the issue is whether it is plausible, whether there's good enough reason to think it did. I happen to think that there is not; it's somewhat of a pipe dream to think that, given how "indifferent" nature is to our fate on this side of life, that nevertheless nature somehow saves us from complete annihilation at the last possible moment. It would be nice, but that's different from believing that its actually so.
* On what's "common sense," I think almost any impartial observer would note that common sense suggests that OBEs should not contain perceptions of things that don't exist if something leaves the body during OBEs, that living persons should not be encountered in NDEs if NDEs are visits to "the other side," and so on--regardless of the fact that strained counterexplanations can be given for such things. So the common sense argument would seem to be able to cut both ways, to say the least.
Posted by: Keith Augustine | March 27, 2009 at 01:16 AM
Tell you what Keith
Is a month enough time to catch up on some work? I have been kinda busy with work too . Being a teacher, a member of the National Guard and working on my Masters is time consuming! If a month is enough I will repost these questions then, sound fair?
I am glad you pretty much concede that you can possible have material souls or a natural process that created souls. This is a important because if you admit this you cannot say we are in of itself going against Materialism and Naturalism, which removes a huge argument from your arsenal. So it isn't impossible under either philosophies, therefore we just need to discuss the evidence for and against it.
I still plan on writing about encephalitic cases but if you are busy I will understand if you do not respond.
Posted by: Kris | March 27, 2009 at 01:26 AM
Oh another question. Have you ever read the book Mindsight? Just curious?
Posted by: Kris | March 27, 2009 at 02:11 AM
Keith,
Anyone can point to weaknesses in particular evidence, for example; the Phineas Cage case that you mentioned before, new information suggests that the seriously maladapted Gage described by Harlow may have existed for only a limited number of years after the accident—that in later life Phineas may have been far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than has been thought.
Now the production theory would predict that his lost of functionality and social abilities would be lost forever especially with the state of his brain damage. But that ain't so.
Embellishment also appears the case in this case, with the uncertainty of Harlow's sources for the changes he describes in Phineas, combined with the fact that he waited almost twenty years (between his first and second papers) to communicate those changes, constitute one of the central puzzles of the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
Another piece of evidence Keith to argue his case for extinction is the brain split experiments which are controversial. Many scientists among even Dr. Gazzaniga admitted to John Searle that he couldn't tell Searle if that showed two separate conscious selves or not.
True, Keith mainstream science often ignores parapsychological evidence because it is threatening to the precious naturalistic worldview. Their's a lot to lose.
I can go and on and on and continue to poke big holes in the cases against survival.
Posted by: leo2ee710@hotmail.com | March 27, 2009 at 05:11 PM
Just asking again
Is a month good enough for you Keith? If not let me know.
Thanks
Posted by: Kris | March 27, 2009 at 07:33 PM
Keith what about the possibility that an out of body experiencer sees what he wants to see, creates things there and around them?
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | March 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM
I would just like to respond about Keith saying OBE's should not contain perceptions of things that don't exist, and should not contain living people. As far as im aware cases of NDE's which involve living people are quite rare, usually the living person disappears after a while, and these cases are much more common within children, rather then adults (Maybe a child would need 'comforting' or something, hence the appearance of living people).
The majority of NDE cases including OBE's that i have read, usually have contained verifiable details and conversations of things that really happened,suggesting they are not hallucinations. As a hallucination by definition is when the person sees things that aren't real.
There have also been a number of cases where the person has seen people they were not aware were dead, or had died shortly before, If there is a normal explanation for this, I would like to hear it.
As far as the split Brain experiments go, they have not to my knowledge produced two different personalties, and on the contrary had much less of an affect on the patient then was expected. With the main thing affecting being motor skills.
Posted by: Robbie | March 28, 2009 at 01:28 PM