Mod+ 237. DR. PATRICIA CHURCHLAND SANDBAGGED BY NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE QUESTIONS

#21
Patel,

You said the Churchlands are shoddy and deceptive. I find that to be bad manners.
I explain above something about the run of the interview - which certainly provides no basis for your insult to Mrs Churchland.
I think Churchland was "right" in the way she handled an aggressive interview that started off by pushing an assumption.
Not an objective interview, and neither shoddy nor deceptive by Churchland.
 
#22
They are self-consistent to the Design provided.
Compression before a Big Bang was a state of explosive rest-to-energy potential.
It released that potential, that's all.
No need for a creator, but a definite need for physics to understand gravitation and conversion of rest mass into energy.

Its all in the book, complete with diagrams drawn for a child to understand.
Unfortunately its a long book, as "existence" is a big subject, but there are lots of easy diagrams for you to specifically dispute.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#23
Patel,

You said the Churchlands are shoddy and deceptive. I find that to be bad manners.
I explain above something about the run of the interview - which certainly provides no basis for your insult to Mrs Churchland.
I think Churchland was "right" in the way she handled an aggressive interview that started off by pushing an assumption.
Not an objective interview, and neither shoddy nor deceptive by Churchland.
Still haven't provided me with something you think she is right about regarding the nature of reality. Nor have you discussed the issue with her quoting of Van Lommel.

You also have assumed that my critique has anything to do with what you're talking about. I expect an apology in your next post for your bad manners.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#24
They are self-consistent to the Design provided.
But that's not an explanation of the laws of nature themselves.

No need for a creator, but a definite need for physics to understand gravitation and conversion of rest mass into energy.
I didn't say anything about a creator?

Its all in the book, complete with diagrams drawn for a child to understand.
I'm likely not going to bother with the diagrams if you can't explain how the laws of nature arose or why they are the way they are.

Unfortunately its a long book, as "existence" is a big subject, but there are lots of easy diagrams for you to specifically dispute.
But no equations? Is this a philosophy of nature book or a scientific text?
 
#26
Churchland was objecting to a black & white analysis of NDEs.
We don't know if they exist, but Churchland suspects they don't, based on what she does know about neuroscience.
You can't expect her to prove that is DOESN'T exist, your job is to disprove her objections.
That requires getting into weight of evidence about other neural explanations, not black & white.
If you wish to cut through the mess around this subject, you are welcome to this free resource http://1drv.ms/1tnKM6f
When I click the link, I just get this message:
Skeptiko - Error
The requested page could not be found.​
 
#27
Patel, you have got it wrong. Its quite simple
You replied to Don's comment about the interview showing Churchland to be "dodgy" (paraphrased).
You said it was the same "shoddy" stuff again from Churchland, like your example.
I am not addressing your example.
I am addressing your reference (and Don's) to Churchland being dodgy in the interview.
Its quite simple, you said the interview was shoddy by Churchland, just like your example.
I am saying the interview was not shoddy by Churchland, and that she probably baulked at the aggression and assumptions.
I am not addressing your example.

As for the link, it looks like it got tied into the thread, didn't it?
That would obviously mean you need to cut and paste just the link address into your browser, which I just tried, it worked.
Took about 10 seconds.
But here it is again with a bit of space, maybe it will link okay http://1drv.ms/1tnKM6f
 
#31
My security software says the link is suspect and won't let me connect to the site.
Its a Microsoft One Drive link, thats why ;P I was able to open it though.

Marcus, you are entitled to your opinion, no doubts there. Thing is though, other people hold other beliefs. Stuff like that what happened with the Big Bang (you are talking about compression, even so thats just as possible as a creator) cant be proven.
Its similiar to the whole neurons create the mind thingy. Science tells us that there is neuronal activity when we think. Thats not necessarly proof for mind=brain. Its just telling us that there are correllations. The rest is interpretations. Other points of view can do that as good as yours too.

Btw, whats up with all the books here? I need to write one too so i can "slap" others with it. Thats basically what it seems like to me.

And please guys, tell that man what you think about his opinion. If no one tells him he wont know why you dont agree with him.
 
#34
K9

If you can't download a PDF from Skydrive, that's your problem.
Don't waste my time with your explanations.

"Goad"? he said its insecure and I said that's nonsense. Ridiculous

"Troll" that's even more of a stretch.

K9, trolls segue, like you are doing. There is no issue with the PDF, do you expect me to say that there is? Save your little ad hominems for someone else.

Any other readers "put off" reading my work due to Patel's & K9's problems can heed Don, who had no problems.

Or you can access it via my site thehumandesign.net (also uninfected).
 
Last edited:
#36
K9

If you can't download a PDF from Skydrive, that's your problem.
Don't waste my time with your explanations.

Any other readers "put off" reading my work due to Patel's & K9's problems can heed Don, who had no problems.

Or you can access it via my site thehumandesign.net (also uninfected).
You could just answer a simple question.

When Churchland misrepresented Dr Pim van Lommel's work, was that demonstrating an inability to read or comprehend the material in question, rather than just being outright deceptive?
 
#37
You could just answer a simple question.

When Churchland misrepresented Dr Pim van Lommel's work, was that demonstrating an inability to read or comprehend the material in question, rather than just being outright deceptive?
What was that misrepresentation again? I forgot.
 
#39
What was that misrepresentation again? I forgot.
I thought you'd never ask!

Here's the pertinent section from the show's transcript:

Alex Tsakiris: Well, I guess one of the things I did want to ask you is in your book you ask the question, “Is there a neurobiological explanation for near-death experience?” Then you cite NDE researcher and a former guest on this show as answering that question with yes. You say that Dr. Pim Van Lommel believes the answer is yes. Is that your understanding of his research?

Dr. Patricia Churchland: Well, I think there’s certainly quite a bit of evidence that at least some near-death experiences have a neurobiological basis. Of course, we can’t be sure about all of them. Maybe you had one that doesn’t have a neurobiological basis. I wouldn’t really know, would I?

Alex Tsakiris: Well specifically, Dr. Churchland, you cite in your book that Dr. Pim Van Lommel holds that opinion. That’s clearly not the case. I mean, he’s written…

Dr. Patricia Churchland: Has he? Uh-huh (Yes).

Alex Tsakiris: Right. Do you want me to read to you what he’s written? He’s written that “The study of patients with near-death experience (and this is from The Lancet paper that you’re citing) clearly shows us that…”

[Churchland hangs up]
 
#40
Top