Mod+ NEW WEBSITE: Near-death experiences more than dreams, study says.

#21
I hope what I wrote didn't sound critical, Alex. I just wanted to understand a bit more, including what the process of curating includes (I guess it all comes down to whatever material being "curated" means it will be added somewhere on the Skeptiko site). Good to know only the podcasts will be numbered.
no worries... didn't take it as criticism.

It's all an experiment... we'll see how it goes.
 
#22
Maybe the aim should be to produce a series of cross-linked pages in the style of wikipedia.

Skeptikipedia.
Seriously, that project successfully links a lot of information, much of which is accumulated from anonymous sources. I think many people would prefer to contribute to this anonymously, but of course, unlike wikipedia, contributors would have to be given permission by you.

The (above) menu could link directly into those pages.

I could even imagine a role for sceptical contributors, but they would have to make a serious case (including setting out some sort of coherent world view) - not just rely on rhetoric. In any case, if something inappropriate was added, it could always be removed.

I wonder if the software used by wiki is publicly available.

David
 
Last edited:
#24
This is relevant in the broadest sense to the topic... and I think a lot of people will find it interesting. It's an interview with Ken Wilber on NPR on the topic of 'science and religion'. He specifically addresses reducing mind to brain at 25: 11.
https://soundcloud.com/integrallife...nce-and-religion-ken-wilber-and-steve-paulson
thx. I think this is a few years old. and I don't think this could be easily re-purposed for Skeptiko.

think along the lines of research that needs some explain'n
 
#27
Getting back to the NDE content!

Robert Mays seems to be stating in a more formal way something that we have all commented on many times on Skeptiko.

1) It is inconsistent to treat NDE's as hallucinations, or indeed as " ‘flashbulb memories’ of hallucinations", when NDE's demonstrably contain factual information about events while they were in progress!

2) Physiological explanations of NDE's are very weak. Also, I would add that these attempted explanations never come to terms with the highly relevant content of NDE's.

I would say that this piece is going to be useful to people starting to explore Skeptiko, because it states the real problem of NDE's in a very concise form.

What is remarkable, however, is the way in which otherwise intelligent researchers have avoided putting 2 and 2 together for so long - and will probably continue to do so!

David

David, the reason why scientists avoid "the hard problem of consciousness" is because we are still too far away from understanding it. In the same way that we don´t know for certain how the "quantum collapse" occurs. Neuroscientists are happy finding more and more connections inside the brain, which they can prove with the traditional methods.
 
Top