[Edited for brevity and clarity]
This is hard to write, because I'm totally on Alex's side and want to be able to cheer him on. I don't want to be negative, even though most of my responses to podcasts
do focus on the negatives - somehow it's easier for me to highlight (perceived) deficiencies over (perceived) strengths. I mean no offence by it, it's just my default mode, and, generally, despite any criticism, I love Alex's interviews and the manner in which he pursues them - after all, I keep on listening to them!
I'm on Alex's side because I agree that the most reasonable, level-headed understanding of near-death experience testimony/evidence/research
does support the view that conciousness is not dependent on the brain. That is, this phenomenon refutes materialism.
But here's the kicker: in this interview, I don't think Alex "led with the right". The most evidential aspect of the NDE phenomenon is veridical OBEs. So, strike out first with that powerful right fist, Alex! I don't understand why you didn't, and didn't even mention this aspect. I don't understand why instead you led with a weaker evidential aspect of NDEs, their occurrence during anaesthesia, nor why you didn't seem prepared for the (predictable) skeptical answer, which Michael Shermer duly supplied: this is just anaesthesia awareness, of course.
In general, you seemed a little under-prepared for this interview, Alex, especially the (predicable) skeptical replies to the points you raised.
Here's another thing though: I'm not even sure that Michael Shermer deserves a place at (y)our table. As Charlie
pointed out in the preview thread, Michael has been plausibly accused of rape. It might be understandable (if wrong) that those in his own community overlook this given his contributions, but should you/we, his "frenemies"?
And I get it, the legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty". But the social standard is not and ought not to be that stringent,
at least until/if he is tried legally. Definitely he has the right to present his side of the story via his own media, but should a man with a plausible allegation of rape against him be granted a voice on
Skeptiko, especially without even being challenged on it?