Dr. Mark Pitstick After Death Communication Shatters Materialism |468|

#62
Why? If the device is really being activated by users, then it is kind of like using a pendulum to get yes/no answers. You end up talking to your own subconscious, which controls the movement of the pendulum.
Then you ask the same discarnate the same questions using different people.
 
#63
You might be able to show a device is being affected anomalously, but how can you know if it is being affected anomalously by discarnate entities, aliens, inter-dimensional beings, or plain old humans? Many mediums have been connected to PK. There is no way to know if the PK agent is the living or the dead.
How do you know there is NOT a teapot circumnavigating mars right now? Then there is. Q.E.D.

They want video. I hope you get where this is going. ITs a physical system. None of this immaterial silliness which helps no one. I am fine with consciousness being immaterial, it just doesn't help us understand anything. It just points out our own stupidity.
 
#65
The truth is that getting widespread agreement on how to perform a scientific experiment is very hard. Rationality is an art, not a science.
I think there is consensus about using double-blind conditions, which Schwartz does not employ particularly well. If you talk to other parapsychologists about Schwartz in private, they will admit his methodology is terrible... but he's such a nice guy and he's a credentialed academic so they don't call him out. He's one of them after all, even though his work is highly questionable.

I've lost a lot of respect for many parapsychologists I know because they don't call Schwartz out. Maybe they are silent to protect Julie Beischel, who used to work with Schwartz but has improved the methodology greatly since working on her own. I think Beischel's work is far more interesting than Schwartz's because it seems to have been done using proper controls.

Schwartz has a history of questionable behavior and his own university has disciplined him. Mediums he has worked with in the past have also questioned his ethics. His work is tainted.
 
#67
I think there is consensus about using double-blind conditions, which Schwartz does not employ particularly well. If you talk to other parapsychologists about Schwartz in private, they will admit his methodology is terrible... but he's such a nice guy and he's a credentialed academic so they don't call him out. He's one of them after all, even though his work is highly questionable.

I've lost a lot of respect for many parapsychologists I know because they don't call Schwartz out. Maybe they are silent to protect Julie Beischel, who used to work with Schwartz but has improved the methodology greatly since working on her own. I think Beischel's work is far more interesting than Schwartz's because it seems to have been done using proper controls.

Schwartz has a history of questionable behavior and his own university has disciplined him. Mediums he has worked with in the past have also questioned his ethics. His work is tainted.

No I agree. But if others get the same result, what then? Call him out? For what, acting like other psychologists? It's special pleading. No one calls out other professional scientists unless they don't like their results. I mean no one is following say, sex researchers that find women get aroused by animals or cannot accurately predict their arousal -- and get aroused by women more often than men. That's just one example, there are many.

Or maybe they are right? I am not a specialist in that area, or even a scientist.

But I do agree he has a reputation problem. But so what. Either it works or it doesn't.

It seems like many here don't want it to work, which is perplexing. He's beyond the double blind protcal and engineering now. That's irrelevant if the device works. But yes I do predict it won't work.
 
#68
Of course it does! If consciousness is not confined to the brain, then it certainly helps to explain NDE's, ESP, and indeed just about any psychic phenomena!

What exactly is your point?

David
Then write out how immaterial does that. You can't. IT just states 'x' doesn't exist. That doesn't affirm anything. Its dumb.

Maybe it's not confined to the brain, sure. But no one here believes sayings its immaterial helps right? No one thinks they have a better understanding of the mind by noticing it is not made of matter. Right, like no one is now better at using their own mind now that they know it;s not dependent on matter.

Can you name any consequence besides apparent survival from this worldview? Does it predict anything else? I see cultural reasons for doing so, but not scientific ones.

Umm if you don't have a reason for holding a belief, you probably shouldn't be confident in that belief. Maybe we survive, but if we do survive, it has some obvious physical relationship. Which is why I find Schwartz approach so interesting. It ought to reveal the physical relationship.

Ok ok, name something new we could discover from his device from an immaterial perspective. An experiment, something. I mean it would confirm immaterialism is true, right?!

You guys or non materialist I guess. I prefer post materialism since it at least TRIES to refer to something.
 
#69
Maybe it's not confined to the brain, sure. But no one here believes sayings its immaterial helps right? No one thinks they have a better understanding of the mind by noticing it is not made of matter. Right, like no one is now better at using their own mind now that they know it;s not dependent on matter.
Huh?

Of course it helps. First we don't have to dwell so long on material-world issues. Sure, we need to be fed and clothed and warm and the rest. But we can see our place differently, not confined to a little life here, but part of something larger, more vast and timeless. We don't need to worry over mortality since that doesn't affect our existence. It is like being able to breathe, being released rather than confined to a stuffy cage.

There are other consequences. Being freed from materialism means we are not just a bunch of chemicals. When we feel or express love, this is real, it isn't just chemistry. We have been fed that propaganda for too long. It is time to reclaim our selves and live as what we are.
 
#70
It seems like many here don't want it to work, which is perplexing. He's beyond the double blind protcal and engineering now. That's irrelevant if the device works. But yes I do predict it won't work.
I'm not wishing for it to fail, my real response is more like the ancient words, "and there is nothing new under the sun". It is neither good nor bad, just one more same old thing.
 
#71
It is like being able to breathe, being released rather than confined to a stuffy cage.
I should add, there are so many ways in which it affects me, I just take them for granted, that I forgot to even mention them. Being in telepathic contact with others is one. I don't deal very often in details of the sort we express in words, such as names or numbers. But via telepathy I get emotional experience, sharing in what others are feeling, for better or for worse, when that is intense. Extreme emotion is readily transmitted and received via telepathy. That's one thing I take for granted.

Another is that it is possible to connect with the so-called deceased directly some of the time. Also especially through dreams, there is an open doorway through which we can be contacted and share and interact.

If we believed our mind was simply the brain, we'd be obliged to dismiss all of this as insanity. Many people cope with this incongruous and incompatible connection by ignoring it, shutting it out, much as a sufferer from tinnitus tries to live with an unwelcome sound. But while tinnitus is not welcome, these other things are, because they are normal. It is the shutting out which is so artificial and counter to our nature.
 
#72
Then write out how immaterial does that. You can't. IT just states 'x' doesn't exist. That doesn't affirm anything. Its dumb.

Maybe it's not confined to the brain, sure. But no one here believes sayings its immaterial helps right? No one thinks they have a better understanding of the mind by noticing it is not made of matter. Right, like no one is now better at using their own mind now that they know it;s not dependent on matter.

Can you name any consequence besides apparent survival from this worldview? Does it predict anything else? I see cultural reasons for doing so, but not scientific ones.

Umm if you don't have a reason for holding a belief, you probably shouldn't be confident in that belief. Maybe we survive, but if we do survive, it has some obvious physical relationship. Which is why I find Schwartz approach so interesting. It ought to reveal the physical relationship.

Ok ok, name something new we could discover from his device from an immaterial perspective. An experiment, something. I mean it would confirm immaterialism is true, right?!

You guys or non materialist I guess. I prefer post materialism since it at least TRIES to refer to something.
I think it is useful to think of an analogy from science. At one point, people believed that for one body to disturb another, there had to be contact between them. Then someone (Newton I guess) came up with the idea of a field - the earth's motion is affected by other bodies far away in space because each body puts out a gravitational field. Now from a certain point of view that is just a cop-out - just saying there is a field doesn't solve anything - and at the time people were quite hung up on this point. There were attempts to postulate a mechanical substructure to space to supply the necessary contact forces to run gravitational attraction. I suppose that for a time some people went along with the idea of a gravitational field purely for practical calculations, but they still believed in a mechanical substructure of some sort!

The basic problem was that the old notion of physics, where A influenced B by being in contact with it, constrained what physics could explain - you simply could not (reasonably) explain the motion of heavenly bodies in that way.

Science expanded enormously as a result of introducing fields - yet to a believer in contact forces, fields were just a horrendous piece of word play that should have no place in science!

Curiously by now, the contact forces are explained in terms of fields - the situation has totally reversed.

There were similar conceptual hang-ups with QM.

Now the thing about materialism is that there is stuff that seems to happen that materialism cannot reasonably explain. ESP and presentiment (neither of which are explicitly about survival after death) are two good examples. A scientist can either convince himself that every example of these phenomena is fake/mistakes/statistical flukes, or he should KNOW that something has to give. Adding a new postulate that consciousness is not generated in the brain, but the brain communicates with consciousness is a new idea - very much like a field - that breaks the old paradigm, but can explain a lot.

I pointed out previously that every successful ψ experiment provides data that can potentially be understood in terms of non-material consciousness - it isn't just about life after death!

David
 
#73
I think it is useful to think of an analogy from science. At one point, people believed that for one body to disturb another, there had to be contact between them. Then someone (Newton I guess) came up with the idea of a field - the earth's motion is affected by other bodies far away in space because each body puts out a gravitational field. Now from a certain point of view that is just a cop-out - just saying there is a field doesn't solve anything - and at the time people were quite hung up on this point. There were attempts to postulate a mechanical substructure to space to supply the necessary contact forces to run gravitational attraction. I suppose that for a time some people went along with the idea of a gravitational field purely for practical calculations, but they still believed in a mechanical substructure of some sort!

The basic problem was that the old notion of physics, where A influenced B by being in contact with it, constrained what physics could explain - you simply could not (reasonably) explain the motion of heavenly bodies in that way.

Science expanded enormously as a result of introducing fields - yet to a believer in contact forces, fields were just a horrendous piece of word play that should have no place in science!

Curiously by now, the contact forces are explained in terms of fields - the situation has totally reversed.

There were similar conceptual hang-ups with QM.

Now the thing about materialism is that there is stuff that seems to happen that materialism cannot reasonably explain. ESP and presentiment (neither of which are explicitly about survival after death) are two good examples. A scientist can either convince himself that every example of these phenomena is fake/mistakes/statistical flukes, or he should KNOW that something has to give. Adding a new postulate that consciousness is not generated in the brain, but the brain communicates with consciousness is a new idea - very much like a field - that breaks the old paradigm, but can explain a lot.

I pointed out previously that every successful ψ experiment provides data that can potentially be understood in terms of non-material consciousness - it isn't just about life after death!

David

I actually think we could have a form of physicalism that allows life after death. So, there is philosophy and metaphysics to fill in the gaps right now, but no science.

I really think what is happening is that scientists cannot explain consciousness so they try hard to deny anything they cannot explain, esp etc. Also people overestimate the knowledge that scientists have today in general. We need to call out scientists for being overconfident, something that is the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Its easier to see their ignorance when surveys of expert opinions are given on evolution, global warming, problems in engineering that require applied science. But no one now claims those topics are non-physical is my entire point!

So, why would scientists be in such denial? I dunno. But there is no reason to jump ship into nothingness. There is no difference in the camps other than me pointing out one side is empty. Wrong? I mean, no, there is nothing wrong with placeholder names. But we might be mortal. A very good chance actually. This is why we hope for explanations and predictions.

How often are people wrong about what exists? All the time. Since what exists is very specific and we see so little of reality. My guess is that consciousness survives, but almost nothing remains of our personal selves.

Which means no justice of course. No reason for outrage over anything. Hey, why is it so easy to come up with examples of evil but examples of good are always weak? I think alex is doing the same thing. He thinks he is being clever or doing something important in the new age community by pointing out evil exists, yet its so much easier to come up with REALLY bad actions and beliefs but much harder to find the opposite.

Being good is more of the default state. Sort of like truth telling is the default state also. Most people are not planning on how to be bad every day, we just act out of basic goodness every day. Why won't someone notice that? Because the contrast with evil is so much easier to see.

I think evil is mostly if not entirely caused by ignorance. Just look at how much "evil" no longer exists.
 
Last edited:
#74
I actually think we could have a form of physicalism that allows life after death. So, there is philosophy and metaphysics to fill in the gaps right now, but no science.
Of course, before you can go there you have to define what consciousness is! If you define it as something akin to a computer program, then that might be possible, but your conclusion probably derives from your weak definition.
I really think what is happening is that scientists cannot explain consciousness so they try hard to deny anything they cannot explain, esp etc. Also people overestimate the knowledge that scientists have today in general. We need to call out scientists for being overconfident, something that is the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
We certainly agree there!
Its easier to see their ignorance when surveys of expert opinions are given on evolution, global warming, problems in engineering that require applied science. But no one now claims those topics are non-physical is my entire point!
Shorn of its politics global warming would be an extraordinarily uninteresting meteorological phenomenon which would itself be subsumed by the physics of gases. Evolution is utterly different, because I for one am convinced that the ID crowd have put forward convincing proof that species evolve as a result of intelligent design with RM+NS contributing in a minor way. Did you ever read my discussion of Behe's book?

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/
In Darwin's day, genes were conceived of very vaguely, but now we know that they are composed of long strings of DNA bases maybe even Darwin would retract his theory.
So, why would scientists be in such denial? I dunno. But there is no reason to jump ship into nothingness.
There is no difference in the camps other than me pointing out one side is empty. Wrong?
But isn't the concept of a field in physics equally vacuous?
I think evil is mostly if not entirely caused by ignorance. Just look at how much "evil" no longer exists.
Well it is easy to think of evil deeds that were not caused by ignorance - listen to any of Alex's 'evil podcasts', so I would say, is there such a think as evil caused by ignorance? Maybe an example would help?

David
 
#75
...is there such a think as evil caused by ignorance? Maybe an example would help?
Most evil in the world today is caused by ignorance.

Consider the Hundreds of Millions of people murdered by Babylon's Banksters in only the last century simply because most people are ignorant regarding who actually rules over them.
 
#76
Of course, before you can go there you have to define what consciousness is! If you define it as something akin to a computer program, then that might be possible, but your conclusion probably derives from your weak definition.

We certainly agree there!

Shorn of its politics global warming would be an extraordinarily uninteresting meteorological phenomenon which would itself be subsumed by the physics of gases. Evolution is utterly different, because I for one am convinced that the ID crowd have put forward convincing proof that species evolve as a result of intelligent design with RM+NS contributing in a minor way. Did you ever read my discussion of Behe's book?

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/
In Darwin's day, genes were conceived of very vaguely, but now we know that they are composed of long strings of DNA bases maybe even Darwin would retract his theory.

But isn't the concept of a field in physics equally vacuous?


Well it is easy to think of evil deeds that were not caused by ignorance - listen to any of Alex's 'evil podcasts', so I would say, is there such a think as evil caused by ignorance? Maybe an example would help?

David
Of course, before you can go there you have to define what consciousness is! If you define it as something akin to a computer program, then that might be possible, but your conclusion probably derives from your weak definition.


But isn't the concept of a field in physics equally vacuous?


Well it is easy to think of evil deeds that were not caused by ignorance - listen to any of Alex's 'evil podcasts', so I would say, is there such a think as evil caused by ignorance? Maybe an example would help?

David
I don't have any useful insights when it comes to making progress. That's why I found skepticism about the soulphone so ridiculous. We need help. If survival occurs, good communication would allow the possibility of major progress. That seems more important than opinions on what evil is. We are that dumb.

The missing moral knowledge is what is taught in NDE's.

If you believe experience doesn't count as a type of knowledge, then I agree that knowledge is not the issue with most forms of moral disagreement. Some people just don't care, but they would if they were the one experiencing the injustice.

Fields are useful, immaterialism bio-robot nonsense is culturally useful, scientifically meaningless.
 
#77
I don't have any useful insights when it comes to making progress. That's why I found skepticism about the soulphone so ridiculous. We need help. If survival occurs, good communication would allow the possibility of major progress. That seems more important than opinions on what evil is. We are that dumb.

The missing moral knowledge is what is taught in NDE's.

If you believe experience doesn't count as a type of knowledge, then I agree that knowledge is not the issue with most forms of moral disagreement. Some people just don't care, but they would if they were the one experiencing the injustice.

Fields are useful, immaterialism bio-robot nonsense is culturally useful, scientifically meaningless.
I guess you like to write cryptically (particularly that last sentence), whereas I like to write as transparently as possible.

Maybe election night is getting to you.

David
 
#78
I guess you like to write cryptically (particularly that last sentence), whereas I like to write as transparently as possible.

Maybe election night is getting to you.

David
Tensor fields. Useful. Now use a word to describe the kind of non-physicalism that helps us understand the mind. You cannot. The only false claim that materialism makes is that the mind is synonymous with the brain.

It's why when Alex wanted to go the quantum physics route I just threw up my hands. The measurement problem is still an unsolved problem. Don't make metaphysical conclusions from ignorance. IF you don't know how to create a good test, don't hand the class the answer key with answers you cannot verify. We need better questions.



What would a non-physical soul phone protocol look like? Nothing right? Well, there are mediums. But we need better accuracy. What background assumptions must change to make the soulphone work? If it cannot work, why?

It was a really disappointing interview.

HEY ALEX, what would you ask the spirits on the other side if it works? Would you ask them if physicalism is false? I want to know how we got here. Is it a technology? Seems like a fast way to travel, but you lose yourself in the process.
 
Last edited:
#79
I suspect Dr. Pitstick only cooled off on the Dream Team aspect because Alex pushed him. In other interviews I’ve heard on the Soul Phone where no pushing was present, the team was presented without reservation.

Given the culturally relative nature of NDEs it’s certainly interesting that scientists are contacting non other than the archetypal image of genius himself—Albert Einstein! It could be said he is to scientists what Jesus is to Christians.

Are the implications of this that Einstein’s genetics and upbringing were not causal factors in his genius, rather his very soul contained his brilliance? What does this say about those of us of more limited cognitive capacity? I personally was hoping for a substantial upgrade when I died, returning to my pre-birth genius nature—uninhibited by my grey-matter. Alas! It seems this is not to be the case and I am destined to remain of rather middling intellect for all eternity.

It seems we are left to conclude the same two things we always do:

There demonstrably exists an extra-conscious realm.

Any literal interpretation of what comes through that realm falls flat on umpteen different logical points.
 
#80
I suspect Dr. Pitstick only cooled off on the Dream Team aspect because Alex pushed him. In other interviews I’ve heard on the Soul Phone where no pushing was present, the team was presented without reservation.

Given the culturally relative nature of NDEs it’s certainly interesting that scientists are contacting non other than the archetypal image of genius himself—Albert Einstein! It could be said he is to scientists what Jesus is to Christians.

Are the implications of this that Einstein’s genetics and upbringing were not causal factors in his genius, rather his very soul contained his brilliance? What does this say about those of us of more limited cognitive capacity? I personally was hoping for a substantial upgrade when I died, returning to my pre-birth genius nature—uninhibited by my grey-matter. Alas! It seems this is not to be the case and I am destined to remain of rather middling intellect for all eternity.

It seems we are left to conclude the same two things we always do:

There demonstrably exists an extra-conscious realm.

Any literal interpretation of what comes through that realm falls flat on umpteen different logical points.
That's interesting. In at least half of the interviews, pitstick would state, 'we don't talk about the dream team' or a similar comment would occur. Sometimes he doesn't get any pushback, sure but I don't remember alex presenting much of an argument. He too often starts with the conclusion and level 3 questions, forgetting there is so much disagreement.

I wouldn't be so certain in an afterlife from this soulphone, mediumship, NDE's, and so on. Yes, a commercial device is a slam dunk. But even still its not proof in the formal sense. But it's good enough for most I would think.
 
Top