Well said Dan. :)
Dr. John Fischer, Another Philosopher Tries to Debunk NDEs |431|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
From a Parnia Letter Reply in Resuscitation 97 (2015) e15
...we and many others consider that recent advances in critical care and resuscitation science have made it imperative for questions related to human consciousness (referred to as the psyche through the lineage of Greek philosophers) and what happens in relation to death to now be studied through the objective lens of science rather than philosophy.
This is the very definition of conviction. I found this in 3 minutes.
If the compliant approach was indicated here, he could issue no call for imperative on the matter, because one cannot prove the null hypothesis, rather only sustain it through inductive lineation at best. Inductive sustaining, in research, is not a critical path activity to a research scientist; as their mission is to falsify the null. That avenue of research therefore would not merit any 'imperative'.
Playing 'bring it to me on a silver platter' appeal to ignorance games with self is fine. But please do not play such games with others.
There are people here who are honestly researching this issue as part of their spiritual quest. It is of key importance to them and this process should not be toyed with for the sole gain of getting jollies off canned skeptical shtick (rhetoric).
Last edited:
Expounding upon this, the appeal to ignorance is normally an informal fallacy. However it becomes a formal fallacy when used to reduce the field of alternatives artificially to a single preferred hypothesis. A key point of hypothesis reduction ethics.
Epistemologically defending the null hypothesis is one thing. However, calling every Alternative 1 - X 'supernatural' is a prevarication of hypothesis reduction. It is an attempt to certify a scientific conclusion through solely the manipulation of philosophy and its Wittgenstein terminology (semantics), rather than through deductive scientific study. This is a broach in both ethics (informal) and logical calculus (formal).
The Riddle of Skepticism
Through claiming skepticism, one has struck the tar baby and can no longer plead denial of their action in contending philosophy. With the exception of man’s inalienable natural rights, the discipline of philosophy, even an examination as to how we go about developing knowledge, cannot be employed as a means to bypass science and pretend to act in its place, as this is not the purpose of philosophy. Skepticism, the philosophy in defense of the knowledge development process (science), is likewise bound by this construct.
Ockham's Razor Plurality has been served by Parnia, near death survivors, and other researchers on this issue. The job is done. The alternative that consciousness survives death is now an imperative for research. It places the null in peril and should be the priority as next step falsification study - otherwise one is conducting religion, not science.
None of this makes a person who researches such an avenue a 'supernaturalist' - as such contentions are dishonest or ignorant on a grand scale. It is no different from robbing a bank holding the currency of our trust as a people.
Demarcation of Skepticism
Once plurality is necessary under Ockham’s Razor, it cannot be dismissed by means of skepticism alone.
This is the fabric of Parnia's conviction.
Last edited:
David Bailey
Member
However, it is worth noting that NDEers often report meeting their dead relatives, who typically will have been dead for some time.
Of course, all this is complicated by the suggestion that time does not flow in the same way out there!
David
malf
Member
Well we can ask Alex what he meant. In the context of the podcast discussion the question would seem superfluous.
malf
Member
Meh. Looks thin to me. He’s not really saying much at all.
At least you admit here that his conviction is thin. But you’re twisting my contention; I’m not asking for the silver platter. My point is that Alex is presenting a fictional silver platter to his guest in the interview.
I am not that skeptic. Along with most (all?) other members of this forum, I fully support Parnia’s position and his study designs; We need something that moves beyond the collection and collation of stories.
A letter which directly and clearly addressed your challenge was readily ascertainable. He could not have been any clearer without violating a standard of skepticism. This as a response is no better than a silver platter 'Nuh uhh'.... nulla infantis.
Merely saying that it is thin, does not carry any credibility at this point.
Good :). I did not think you were.
Agreed. We have to construct testable hypothesis from select case studies. After all, this is what case studies are for. Not proof - but sponsorship. The Point Indigo for this research (the point at which ethics need to be high and hands need to be shuffled and cut clearly).
As a note: If we are concerned about stories, then we should become very upset at psychologists and machine linear induction 'researchers' putting on a charade at the sponsorship point then - because this type of research is of low scientific value and is proffered as a distraction.
Inside these 'stories' reside the queues for deductive research pathways - and by dismissing them as 'not reliable' - we have killed science in the process.
Last edited:
David Bailey
Member
Well do you think the cases in which patients describe significant parts of their own resuscitation go beyond mere collation?
I mean what sort of thing would satisfy you?
David
Laird
Member
Tell it to Dr Parnia! I'm already on board.
Laird
Member
Here's what I think is the main quote from the transcript:
Alex said:
Seems reasonable to me. Alex makes it clear that Sam himself isn't going so far as say "supernatural", and is simply saying that according to current neurological understanding, consciousness survives death "in a way that we don't understand". I'm not sure that this implies "survives death indefinitely", and it might even be suggested that Alex by saying that Sam - as one of "these people" - isn't "saying supernatural", that that interpretation is made even less implicit. But sure, let's ask Alex whether that's what he meant.
B
Baccarat
I just can't wrap my mind around scientific experimentation finding the answer to this question. I was reminded after reading a quote I seen in one of my groups
Science doesn't nor will ever have the scientific instrumentation to answer this question
Science doesn't nor will ever have the scientific instrumentation to answer this question
B
Baccarat
I'm curious I was reading an article on researchers being able to read and record dreams. I didn't cross reference or double check the article, but I assumed that this could indirectly prove PSI and Pre Cog.
Michael Patterson
Member
My inclination is to regard this as some level of BS. Dreams are experiences of consciousness while we are asleep, as mediated by the brain. As such they tend to be analogues of non-brain, non-physical states of awareness.
Some years back I was woken by my girlfriend who wanted to tell me how she was floating out of her body and freaking out and how I calmly and clearly talked her down. I awoken from a dream in which I was standing on a desolate plain before a multi-storey construct of scaffolding only, yet there was a crane lowering a body in a fragile state. The match between her experience and my dream was perfect and detailed - right down to the fact that I was guiding the body onto 2 semitrailer trucks parked very closely side-by-side. In the dream I paused to note the trucks had ridiculously soft suspension. We were sleeping on two single beds with foam mattresses pushed together.
Now and then I come across people who claim they can interpret dreams, and tell them mine. They never get the other side.
These days I have regular 'semi-lucid' dreams. I am aware I am dreaming and that the scenario is not exactly 'real'. It usually involves me in conversation in a group, and suddenly I say I have to go, and stand up - and the alarm goes off. This happens often.
I read a lot of bollocks about dreams and dreaming. We are not within cooee of understanding because we don't come close to accepting the basic premises we need to make sense of dreams. For me 'dream interpretation' is mostly about a psychic attainment to the dream's reality than anything to do with the imagery. Maybe when our ancestors had limited experience there was a chance of making meaning from dream images - in the Biblical sense. But these days we draw so much content from so many sources the chances of any set of analogous or metaphoric images being interpreted are vanishingly small.
Unless we are schooled in an esoteric system that has a body of symbolic images, it is more likely that we will have highly personalised images that are not amenable to ready interpretation - unless by a singularly skilled exponent. I do not deny that such exist. The other problem is that some folk may have 'big dreams' with images that are fairly easy to interpert and others deeply personal ones, where analogues and metaphors are very personal. Also, we can have mystery dreams - ones that involve matters not open to the 'average' interpreter.
Alex
Administrator
It's out there. Please do a little digging on our behalf. find it and publish it here.
Alex
Administrator
Yeah, that's what I meant but first off here's a better quote from parnia
######
Evidence from AWARE and other studies, he says, raises the possibility that the mind or consciousness — the psyche, the “self,” the thing that “makes me Sam” and that makes us uniquely who we are — may not originate in the brain and may be a separate, undiscovered scientific entity, similar in nature to the electromagnetic waves that can carry sound and pictures. Modern science simply lacks the tools to show it. When we die, that entity we call consciousness or the self doesn’t necessarily become “immediately annihilated,” Parnia believes.
####
This seems clear (which is rare for dr. Sam parnia I know ) but none the less it's clear that he's moved into the survival camp. This move is even more pronounced when you look at his previous proclamations and his interview with me years ago. So I would suggest that even as conclusive as this quote is the overall body of work that he's published is even more revealing of his position regarding survival of consciousness. he along with every other credible nde researcher now asserts that consciousness survives death. I would suggest that the confusion around this issue that we can see both in dr. Fisher and in malf has more to do with cognitive dissonance and reluctance to change one's belief then it does with parsing parnias cryptically worded language which we can only assume is a product of his environment
Wormwood
Member
Right. The flat Earth analogy is a good one. Not because I think that NDE deniers are as crazy as flat earth proponents, I have more sympathy with the prior. But it further shows that people will use their beliefs to shape evidence instead of allowing the evidence to shape their beliefs. I don’t claim to be immune to this type of thinking. But I agree, the NDE evidence is pretty overwhelming. If you view it with a discerning and open mind, it seems pretty obvious with regards to the direction it points. But you have to view all the evidence and LISTEN to NDErs tell their stories. I think once that is done (and FAR too few skeptics actually do this) it almost becomes self evident that something bizarre is going on. Something that is far more profound that the result of a confused, discombobulated and dying brain.
Regarding Parnia, I think I would agree that NDEs are not scientifically proven to demonstrate ultimate survival. But I think once we use our tools of discernment outside of science, it’s just another powerful co-confirming indicator. It would be strange if all of these different lines of evidence which seem to point in the same direction were all wrong for separate reasons.
Despite this I do agree with Malf that Parnias type of research is valuable and needed. But I would say that I’m interested in his data collection, not necessarily his personal interpretation of the data. I do not mean to sound arrogant, not at all. But Parnias expertise is more valuable to his ability to perform quality studies and collect information. Once we move beyond the data collection, the interpretation of the data is something anybody can partake in.
What I mean is this. Say Parnia records an instance of an individual who experiences a veridical NDE. What does it mean that this person viewed his death from above? That’s not a question that Parnia is in any way better equipped to tackle any more than the rest of us are. He will interpret it through his own personal beliefs, and also through the strict filter of science. But there’s nothing we can really say scientifically about a verdical experience. It’s something that happened/happens. But we cannot evaluate the intrinsic nature of it scientifically, nor is a medical doctor able to make more sense of it than we are.
If I remember correctly I think his previous study only recorded one verdical experience? Is that accurate?
Last edited:
In order to get this scientific study done, and move off of the top-dead-center of stories and anecdotes as Malf has aptly contended, we have to achieve a point of permission to study this topic freely, in the minds of those who control access to our scientific public assets. Not proof mind you, but an earlier step in the scientific method called 'plurality'. Which means 'more than one' idea or speculation which is now OK to be researched.
So given this recognized standard of science, we as at-risk stakeholders (the actual owners of science) are faced with the question, 'Has plurality become necessary?' regarding NDE study. Is it now 'OK' or even imperative to research this topic as something other than merely a monist psychological phenomenon, i.e. the 'Null'? Alex is correct, Parnia is a sponsor of other-than-monist study now. This is what Parnia means by this Letter Reply in Resuscitation 97 (2015) e15
Please note that the idea that NDE's are merely closed set material phenomena, is NOT a hypothesis by a Wittgenstein standard... so it is simply the Null, or absence - it is merely a construct, a placeholder of discipline for research. Usually when the Null is not even an actual hypothesis itself, plurality is assumed - but unfortunately we have religious forces controlling study around this question, so the Null is installed as an enforced Omega Hypothesis instead (a presupposed answer which is now more important to protect, than the integrity of science itself).
This is the objection that I raise as a philosopher, and as one experienced in prosecuting hard research questions as the CEO of a research corporation. The issue is not proof and never has been - the issue is being allowed to study any other-than-monist hypothesis as a valid expression of science in the first place. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'supernatural'. In the end, the phenomenon is natural, no matter what prejudicial language we may employ. Such mischaracterizations seek to manipulate the public trust of science at Point Indigo (the hidden cheat - see below).
To date, if you have not been a psychologist PhD studying this in order to prove that it is merely a monist phenomenon of a dying brain neural-chemical retraction - one has not been doing science - rather 'pseudoscience'. This is malicious horse shit; a trick which has been played on us all - the at-risk stakeholders. This is not actually how science works in a normal hypothesis prosecution and reduction.
Let me make this clear: Those who do so, adorn the costume of science, but in no way do they want any Wittgenstein nor Popper level science completed on this subject at all. They wear the robes of science in order to enforce either religious Abrahamism or religious Monism. Either of these ancient cults is made extraordinarily angry by this research - and they will do anything in order to block it at the Indio Point: Ockham's Razor. Even to the point of faking as a researcher.
A skeptic is an ALLY at Point Indigo - he wants the answer and will prioritize any research which serves to place the Null in peril.. a religious cult faker on the other hand can be detected by his efforts to do the exact opposite, to block plurality before it can ever be declared. To spray the field of science at night with a pre-emergent pesticide which will ensure that only the answer they desire, will come true in the growing sunlight.
Terror will compromise one to their very soul. It takes courage to do actual science.
“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity”
Summa Totius Logicae, William of Ockham (frater Occham)
So given this recognized standard of science, we as at-risk stakeholders (the actual owners of science) are faced with the question, 'Has plurality become necessary?' regarding NDE study. Is it now 'OK' or even imperative to research this topic as something other than merely a monist psychological phenomenon, i.e. the 'Null'? Alex is correct, Parnia is a sponsor of other-than-monist study now. This is what Parnia means by this Letter Reply in Resuscitation 97 (2015) e15
...we and many others consider that recent advances in critical care and resuscitation science have made it imperative for questions related to human consciousness (referred to as the psyche through the lineage of Greek philosophers) and what happens in relation to death to now be studied through the objective lens of science rather than philosophy.
Please note that the idea that NDE's are merely closed set material phenomena, is NOT a hypothesis by a Wittgenstein standard... so it is simply the Null, or absence - it is merely a construct, a placeholder of discipline for research. Usually when the Null is not even an actual hypothesis itself, plurality is assumed - but unfortunately we have religious forces controlling study around this question, so the Null is installed as an enforced Omega Hypothesis instead (a presupposed answer which is now more important to protect, than the integrity of science itself).
This is the objection that I raise as a philosopher, and as one experienced in prosecuting hard research questions as the CEO of a research corporation. The issue is not proof and never has been - the issue is being allowed to study any other-than-monist hypothesis as a valid expression of science in the first place. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'supernatural'. In the end, the phenomenon is natural, no matter what prejudicial language we may employ. Such mischaracterizations seek to manipulate the public trust of science at Point Indigo (the hidden cheat - see below).
To date, if you have not been a psychologist PhD studying this in order to prove that it is merely a monist phenomenon of a dying brain neural-chemical retraction - one has not been doing science - rather 'pseudoscience'. This is malicious horse shit; a trick which has been played on us all - the at-risk stakeholders. This is not actually how science works in a normal hypothesis prosecution and reduction.
There exist 31 different genres of study at our avail, and most of these will not be deployable as long as this Indigo Cheat remains in play. Types, modes of inference and study design we could use IF AND ONLY IF we are allowed to regard this idea as an actual construct or hypothesis which any hospital or hospice can recognize, and deploy its research protocols into its regular operations, without religious refusal by condemnation.
And therein resides the Indigo Point (point of deception early in the process) - all one has to do, in order to block this science from being completed is bewitch by means of language; provide soft authoritative opposition, publish distractions, stir confusion, doubt or obfuscation at the Indigo Point - Ockham's Razor. Agents of such policy use weapon words such as 'woo', 'not rigorous', 'anecdote', 'burden of proof', 'extraordinary claims', 'stories', 'supernatural', 'and 'pseudoscience'. They conduct low value inductive study suggesting the Null might be feasible (which is then boasted as likely)...''Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.'' ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
Let me make this clear: Those who do so, adorn the costume of science, but in no way do they want any Wittgenstein nor Popper level science completed on this subject at all. They wear the robes of science in order to enforce either religious Abrahamism or religious Monism. Either of these ancient cults is made extraordinarily angry by this research - and they will do anything in order to block it at the Indio Point: Ockham's Razor. Even to the point of faking as a researcher.
A skeptic is an ALLY at Point Indigo - he wants the answer and will prioritize any research which serves to place the Null in peril.. a religious cult faker on the other hand can be detected by his efforts to do the exact opposite, to block plurality before it can ever be declared. To spray the field of science at night with a pre-emergent pesticide which will ensure that only the answer they desire, will come true in the growing sunlight.
McCulloch's Axiom - it is often possible to extrapolate the truth solely from what is banned.
Terror will compromise one to their very soul. It takes courage to do actual science.
Last edited:
superqualia
New
I am not so sure about that part...then I realize my mistake. Induction. Of course!
A conscilience of inductions? Who is the poster-child of this? Frank Tipler and his physical proof of christianity! I find it hard to take his predictions seriously. Though they are interesting. Probably because I don't understand physics.
Yes, I like Tipler and have read him.
Tipler would be an example of a 'convergence of abductions' though I would imagine with regard to extrapolating from cosmology and physics. But despite this quibble, and that I like reading his work as well Super Q, this is a great example of this principle yes.
All things being equal, the latter is superior to the midmost, which is superior to the former...
Conformance of panduction (this is a type and mode of inference, but is not a type of reason)
Convergence of abductions
Consilience of inductions
Consensus of deductions
Last edited:
Dan_LastName
Member
This is an insight that I appreciate a lot. I think it can be useful to consider beliefs themselves as driven by human needs.
If we consider believing to be a behavior, like any other animal behavior, we can posit that it is a behavior that satisfies primal needs. Same with doing scientific research. Same with analyzing data. Same with any behavior that we could name.
There are a few philosophers who experiment with a strong application of this idea. They say things like "There's not much we can say about Truth." Because, according to this view, we are always problem solving specific human problems in specific human contexts and never objectively describing an ultimate unfiltered TRUTH. This way of looking at things has a bit in common with Donald Hoffman's views---just with less math, LOL.
For example, I can't help but wonder what role the desire for greater purpose or meaning or a desire for some deep emotional connection with something more powerful than us would play in the interpretations of NDEs that are often expressed in the Skeptiko community.
Personally I do NOT think that such desires for greater purpose or meaning would undermine the logical interpretation of NDE data that folks in this community often put forth. I would see the desire for meaning, purpose, connection, etc to be influential in the development of MEANING itself in some big picture view, without which perhaps there would be no conceptual thought, language, etc. I would be interested to hear other ideas about this.
I would not suggest that this way of looking at things is an Absolutely Correct Way of Looking at Things. But it is useful for me, anyway, to experiment with.