EthanT
Member
I knew Wiseman has admitted that - do you have a link to Dawkins' statement.
David
Sorry David, I get my skeptics mixed up sometimes ;-) you're correct, I meant Wiseman
I knew Wiseman has admitted that - do you have a link to Dawkins' statement.
David
Can the mods please remove everything not directly related to the most recent show?
I've re-read the entire thread because for some time I've had the suspicion these threads are intentionally derailed. On the face of it we have an interesting podcast with one of the more credible figures in the NDE world, on oncologist who's untaken lengthy research into the phenomenon. Dr Long is the kind of physician who might add to the sum total of NDE knowledge, but his words prompted a thread that grinds to an off-topic halt. There's something of a pattern to these, and this is how this one panned out.@Alex, this is what happens when there's no more MOD+.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure this is really a turn-on read for potential new forum members.
There's something of a pattern to these, and this is how this one panned out.
"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves"
Carl Jung
I removed the previous post because I'd sent it in a hurry, and didn't want what I'd said to be misconstrued because I ran out of time.I could have sworn I saw a post here saying something unexpected? Never mind ;)
"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves"
Carl Jung
However I think it's important that long threads on important topics like this should be summarised in the same way Michael Larkin condenses the original podcast.
Having a consistent alternative would help tremendously. Look what a consistent view does. For example, it's able to help understand how nature works; how to apply that knowledge in a practical way to construct a computer so someone can write the materialist way of looking at reality is wrong.Well I think you will find that proponents hold a wide spread of views. The fact (IMHO) that there is something wrong with the materialist way of looking at reality, doesn't mean that 'we' have a consistent alternative.
Play fair, include yourself in this list.I've re-read the entire thread because for some time I've had the suspicion these threads are intentionally derailed. On the face of it we have an interesting podcast with one of the more credible figures in the NDE world, on oncologist who's untaken lengthy research into the phenomenon. Dr Long is the kind of physician who might add to the sum total of NDE knowledge, but his words prompted a thread that grinds to an off-topic halt. There's something of a pattern to these, and this is how this one panned out.
Page 2: Small Dog claims Dr Long clearly has a religious agenda, prompting off topic discussion to;
Page 5: Smithy's Book, adds to Dr Long's claims;
Page 7: Small Dog conflates NDEs with mental illness, off topic discussion to;
Page 9: Kamarling's defence of evidence in post 173, and against accusations of skeptic victimisation;
Page 10: Steve001 ignores this and insists Skeptiko victimises individuals;
Page 11: In response I discuss skeptical debating methods, leading to;
Page 13: "Gabriel's diatribe" accusation by Arouet
Page 14: Steve001 responds to discussion with one liners, Arouet begins lengthy exposition of his beliefs, leading to off topic discussion;
Page 16: Malf's request to remove off topic material.
Is this thread untypical of NDE podcasts, or exactly on method? The reader can decide.[/QUOTE
No problem with that. Interested parties can re-read the thread and see if my summary falls short of the facts.Play fair, include yourself in this list.
Or a concise summary of organised scepticism as played out on a proponent forum. Let the reader decide.It is bluster designed to distract from substantive argument
If you mean by philosophy Western philosophy, no. From my reading at that time I was captivated by Alan Watts and his exposition of Taoism and Zen Buddhism. Eventually I read a lot of Suzuki on Zen and then lots of others in the same vein, D. E. Harding (Douglas E. Harding) sticks in my mind, but now, I can't even remember most of the names of the authors or the books that I was reading at that time. Really the 'Big Mind' theme, at least by my reading of it, of Taoism/Zen was the thing - very attractive and made a lot of sense after the experience. (Looking back at that with your question in mind I'm pretty sure that some of what I was reading would have in some places given at least passing mention to idealism but it was all new to me and my focus in reading was always the spiritual aspect, rather than intellectual concerns, and so as a reader I'd be registering the bits that were of immediate interest and overlooking the rest. That sounds a bit like being stupid but I think most people read in that way to some extent - some things jump off the page, some things don't.)You mention that you read several spiritual books after the accident and NDE... Did you also read philosophy? If so, what metaphysical stance would you say is a better approach to "reality" after the experience?
It would be disingenuous to suggest that we are not clear on the line that seperates "skeptics" and "proponents" on this forum as it relates directly to this topic. It is central to almost every discussion. We mean, quite clearly, that either consciousness is something that is generated by (produced by, derrived from, depends on...) the brain or that it exists (or likely pre-exists) independently of the brain. I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that you said in the past that you lean towards mind == brain.Do I believe consciousness is fundamental? I'm never sure that we've identified what is fundamental, my guess is we haven't. But I lean towards consciousness being a fundamental property of this stuff we've identified.
It would be disingenuous to suggest that we are not clear on the line that seperates "skeptics" and "proponents" on this forum as it relates directly to this topic. It is central to almost every discussion. We mean, quite clearly, that either consciousness is something that is generated by (produced by, derrived from, depends on...) the brain or that it exists (or likely pre-exists) independently of the brain. I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that you said in the past that you lean towards mind == brain.
People on this forum who can be regarded as "proponents" are those that have examined a great deal of the evidence--scientific, anecdotal, personal, or otherwise, for a wide range of phenomena including psychic phenomena, apparitions, NDEs, reincarnation memories, shared death experiences, etc., and simply cannot accept, based on any evidence that we have to date, that these phenomena are produced by brains.
What exactly do you think I fear? I have fear for the health of my family but beyond that I can't think of anything that keeps me awake at night. If you mean death, I have no fear whatsoever. I don't want to die a lingering, painful death or lie comatose for years, but I'm as convinced as I am of anything that we survive. Near death experiences fit what I would expect of the dying experience. All those believers and atheists who've looked around the curtain and reported back, I don't think they're in on a big scam or deluding themselves. I don't believe they're proselytising by the back door, or have pressure on their eyeballs.I also think it is that fear that fuels posts like Gabriel's. I get it, I do. There is some suspicion that I'm trying to trick people, to game the system.
Nah, I can't speak for others, but I don't view any methodological issues as a threat, I understand what they aim to accomplish and I'm all for them in that regard. At the same time, I do think that at this point in our understanding of reality that an overly rigid insistence and fixation on certain controls and biases can actually inhibit our understanding of and interaction with certain phenomena. The little bit that I know of psychic phenomena was obtained only after I temporarily put aside such instance and actually spent time interacting with it, for myself and especially with those who are able to exhibit it more easily than others. It is equally part of our duty not to brush aside the importance of that as well.I get that the methodological issues that I present are seen as a threat. But I don't think that fear is warranted. I also think it is that fear that fuels posts like Gabriel's. I get it, I do. There is some suspicion that I'm trying to trick people, to game the system. And while I get the fear, and don't blame them for it, I think there is also a duty to not simply brush these concepts aside. Just like I would not be warranted in just brushing your ideas aside (and I don't think I do).
What exactly do you think I fear? I have fear for the health of my family but beyond that I can't think of anything that keeps me awake at night. If you mean death, I have no fear whatsoever. I don't want to die a lingering, painful death or lie comatose for years, but I'm as convinced as I am of anything that we survive. Near death experiences fit what I would expect of the dying experience. All those believers and atheists who've looked around the curtain and reported back, I don't think they're in on a big scam or deluding themselves. I don't believe they're proselytising by the back door, or have pressure on their eyeballs.
Skeptics fall into three camps as far as I'm concerned. Those who are ideologically driven and think society will go to hell in a handcart if we embrace anything except absolute reductionism and primitive realism. Those who have a screw loose (in the nicest possible way), boffins who can't eat without dribbling and think everything will succumb to the microscope if they stare long enough. And those who have never given things much thought and don't really care enough to look.
I don't see any reason to doubt the testimony of NDErs except ideological constraints, eccentricity or sheer ignorance. The only people I'm replying to on Skeptiko are the ideologists, the rest are beyond any words I can offer.