Dr. John Fischer, Another Philosopher Tries to Debunk NDEs |431|

Dr Fischer,

Thanks for joining us here - the podcasts are always enriched by subsequent discussion.

I'd like to ask you about the many cases in which part of an NDE consists of an experience of viewing the resuscitation from above. In these cases, patients are often able to report significant details of what went on at that time.

Even if you make the assumption that they had sufficient mental capacity at that time to absorb what is going on, and to remember the information, I would question whether they could see clearly what is going on. Sometimes their eyes are taped shut, and in any case I like to compare the view they would get with the view I get at the dentist receiving a filling. I am totally conscious and can hear what is going on, but I can't see any people in the room other than the dentist, I can't see the mixture being prepared to fill my tooth, etc etc. On the whole, I stare at the ceiling, not down from it.

Now compare some of the things people report after an NDE of this sort. One man was able to tell a nurse exactly where she had put his dentures, because they had been mislaid. Another was able to describe the curious movement of one doctor's arms. He had the habit of pointing with his elbows, rather than his hands, to avoid contaminating his gloved hands. NDE's seem to contain lots of details of this sort.

In addition, vision really requires the ability to move the eyes and focus on particular objects. I assume that patients are not still moving their eyes some seconds (or even minutes) into a cardiac arrest, or am I wrong?

Those are fairly mundane NDE reports, some contain much more information - such as discovering - correctly - that a friend or relative has died because they meet them on the other side, but lets focus initially on the more mundane NDE's.

David
 
Dr. John Fischer said:
told my final destination is Hell many times on many blogs. Fine, no worries--I'm in the kitchen, and I don't mind the heat. But think about it: where's the love? Where's the cool, thoughtful investigation of deep issues that we all care about? What's so bad about peace, loving, and understanding! Doesn't is seem a bit hypocritical to be so nasty (only a minority of the members of this site, of course).
Click to expand...

I apologize if my posts were unnecessarily gruff. I know first hand that undertaking the risk of coming on shows, presenting a case or publishing exposes one to unfair criticism at times, and does take courage. This generosity on your part is acknowledged. However, as my advisors/boards/bosses/peers/friends have taught me over the years, directness bearing a purpose of clarity of critical path logic on issues of great import to us all, is indeed a form of love.

Appeal to philía - using an appeal to brotherly love as an ad hominem (ignoratio elenchi personal attack) styled argument when an opponent is firm or direct in countering what they perceive to be duplicitous or ignorance-cultivating. An appeal to love and understanding - which stand alone bears merit - however, is not salient as a defense in a circumstance of logical critical path risk. A form of appeal to hypocrisy. Not everyone who is hard on you is bad, and not everyone who smiles at you is good. This is something one must teach young people entering professional services.​
​
The straw man of framing us all as equivalent to hell-accusers notwithstanding, if someone did post here telling us we are all going to hell, that would receive just as much exuberance in response as someone instructing us from a position of authority that monism is the only reality - and that any departure from this is 'supernaturalist'. The two bookends-in-fatalism are equal in their disparagement of their target - just that the hell-proponent is often not as refined in concealment of their craft.

This antipathy is exhibited no better than in your boast of authority "I will continue to publish in academic journals and with academic presses".

We caught the insult ;;/? - it does not serve to bolster your case; neither in this post, nor underpinning the broader issue at hand. We will continue firm in our insistence upon ethical and deductive modes and types of inference, and in opposition to Blackmore-styled shallow linear abduction, fast with conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Alex said:
noted. thx.
Click to expand...

This is disingenuous. Parnia’s work was discussed in the interview and you attributed conclusions to his work that cannot be supported. An apology to John would be appropriate.

It’s important because Parnia appears to be the only NDE researcher going beyond the the “collection and collation of stories” that makes up the bulk of NDE research. He is trying to apply some, much needed, rigor.
 
The blind seeing for the first time is an interesting bit of evidence. This happens. Here’s a couple ladies accounts of this



Veridical perception is powerful evidence, as noted by David above


Why are so many people having “life reviews” during their NDEs? Why are so many people hallucinating all of their lives memories and also experiencing them from the viewpoint of the people who they affected?

Why are people so profoundly changed by the experience? Why do people say that it the most real experience of their existence and that the experience seems more crystal clear and lucid than waking life?

Why are so many people meeting dead pets, relatives, and loved ones? Where’s all the living people in these “hallucinations.”

Why all these profound moral lessons during these crystal clear, life changing, and profound “hallucinations?”

Why do people communicate with their departed loved ones using telepathy during these “hallucinations?” Kind of weird that so many people are having these similar aspects during their hallucinations.

We also have confirming evidence in the way of the work of people like Julie Beischel, who has done very strict and scientific testing of mediums using triple blind studies. We have the overwhelming reincarnation evidence from Dr Stevenson etc. Stevenson’s research is absolutely astounding if you take the time to view it.

Lastly, here’s the nail in the coffin. And I don’t know why this doesn’t come up during debates, but I absolutely know why a denier wouldn’t want it brought up. Shared death experiences. There are a ton of these on record coming from credible people. Raymond moody has a good book on the topic. People will sometimes experience the dying persons NDE ALONGSIDE of them. Here’s one example of this powerful testimony. The people who have these experiences are not any less credible than the people who have NDE experiences which skeptics accept as real “hallucinations.” So why are living people hallucinating alongside the dying?

 
malf said:
This is disingenuous. Parnia’s work was discussed in the interview and you attributed conclusions to his work that cannot be supported. An apology to John would be appropriate.
Click to expand...
???

I think I very correctly stated Parnia's current position... i.e. consciousness survives death.

he's changed his position... makes me glad I kinda held his feet to the fire way back then.

I think an apology would be appropriate :)
 
Wormwood said:
The blind seeing for the first time is an interesting bit of evidence. This happens. Here’s a couple ladies accounts of this



Veridical perception is powerful evidence, as noted by David above


Why are so many people having “life reviews” during their NDEs? Why are so many people hallucinating all of their lives memories and also experiencing them from the viewpoint of the people who they affected?

Why are people so profoundly changed by the experience? Why do people say that it the most real experience of their existence and that the experience seems more crystal clear and lucid than waking life?

Why are so many people meeting dead pets, relatives, and loved ones? Where’s all the living people in these “hallucinations.”

Why all these profound moral lessons during these crystal clear, life changing, and profound “hallucinations?”

Why do people communicate with their departed loved ones using telepathy during these “hallucinations?” Kind of weird that so many people are having these similar aspects during their hallucinations.

We also have confirming evidence in the way of the work of people like Julie Beischel, who has done very strict and scientific testing of mediums using triple blind studies. We have the overwhelming reincarnation evidence from Dr Stevenson etc. Stevenson’s research is absolutely astounding if you take the time to view it.

Lastly, here’s the nail in the coffin. And I don’t know why this doesn’t come up during debates, but I absolutely know why a denier wouldn’t want it brought up. Shared death experiences. There are a ton of these on record coming from credible people. Raymond moody has a good book on the topic. People will sometimes experience the dying persons NDE ALONGSIDE of them. Here’s one example of this powerful testimony. The people who have these experiences are not any less credible than the people who have NDE experiences which skeptics accept as real “hallucinations.” So why are living people hallucinating alongside the dying?

Click to expand...
yeah, the whole thing is a complete slam dunk. that's why I worry about the false equivalency thing... it can be like "debating" flat earth.
 
Michael Patterson said:
I was going to do the same thing, because it seemed like fighting a battle already won. But then I got curious. If Fischer had done his homework he would know that he was on a hiding to nothing on Skeptiko. So I don't think he did any homework.

But what really got me interested was getting some clue why these guys write BS books. I know academics have to publish, which is why so much incomprehensible shite is written, so I guess doing a book gets you better/more brownie points. [that's junior girl guides, not cookies].

So, had nothing to sell and bought nothing. At least we know the opposition hasn't developed any killer argument we need to be afraid of.
Click to expand...
Nope not yet
 
Wormwood said:
The blind seeing for the first time is an interesting bit of evidence. This happens. Here’s a couple ladies accounts of this
Click to expand...

Thanks WW for that work. This is an example of an observation set which is

Falsifying of Monism - No
Deductive - Yes
Inductive - Yes
Abductive - No
Probative - Yes
Reliable - No

Our folly resides in this - we take observations which are probative, and dismiss them for lack of being reliable. Then we take only 'reliable' information and attempt to make that set of observations then probative.

One of the ways to detect this game is to actually have run a research corporation and directed discovery labs in their work. This paradoxical impasse is not obvious at first blush. I can see how science enthusiasts might fall for the sciencey appearance of such activity. Thereafter, they bully stakeholders with chest pounding about 'rigor' and 'reliability'. To a certain critical mass, this is a charade.

Reliable observation (in the invalid context) is commonly that which is generated by a psychologist, followed up by a machine or measuring device of some kind; things which will not be as easily assailed by outside agency (who could harm our reputation). This meta-praxis will fail most often. Because the psychologist can develop a hypothesis (or approach construct at the least), which explains anything, everything and nothing all at the same time (i.e. pseudo-theory). Thereafter the machine-measure can be employed to inductively and linearly affirm, the contentions of the psychologist. What a deal! A research corporation CEO's dream!

The entailed formal fallacy of soundness is akin to The Streetlight Effect. The ethical foible is called an Indigo Point Cheat - which happens inside the murky predicate world of flawed skepticism.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone find any direct quote from Parnia, or conclusions from his papers, that supports a conviction that consciousness survives death?
 
Enrique Vargas said:
Excuse me, but I'm a bit confused: you are using the photo of our dear friend Doug who passed some time ago, evidently you are not Doug. Why would you assume the personality of a deceased forum member? https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-our-beloved-friend-doug-has-passed-on?highlight=Doug
Click to expand...

Enrique, I think maybe you ought to search to see if this Doug didn’t perhaps write posts using this pic when ‘our Doug’ was alive and well. I’m sure he did.
It’s not the same Doug. ;)
 
Steve said:
Sam Parnia is a proper scientist, in that he goes strictly on facts. I suggest that he answers your question in this video.

Click to expand...

Yep... This is exactly how I understood Parnia’s position. This is not how Alex presented it in the podcast.
 
malf said:
Yep... This is exactly how I understood Parnia’s position. This is not how Alex presented it in the podcast.
Click to expand...

Parnia's position is precisely why scientists have a limited role on this subject. He cannot go beyond evidence derived from a scientific approach as described. So 'life' after death is possible - but to what extent.

I am almost going to ignore the comment made by the other guy - to the effect that "we don't have consciousness before our birth" because that is not 'scientific' statement - and its not true. But this statement should focus us on the presumption that consciousness begins in the brain - and the essence of the question to Parnia is whether this brain-rooted consciousness continues.

There is a brain-rooted consciousness that is formed at our birth, and it continues for a time at our death. But the error in thinking here is that the 'mind' equals psyche, which is more properly rendered as soul. Psyche became 'mind' as Enlightenment thought evolved. This fixation with the brain is a red herring, and there is abundant evidence this is the case. So we have to understand that our consciousness has two aspects to it - an enduring aspect and a temporary one - and 'we' are a fusion of both while we are in our physical bodies.

The guy interviewing Parnia has misrepresented a bunch of things, and so has put Parnia's statement in a misleading light.

Opponents of NDEs argue that we don't know enough about the brain to know whether it is actually in a null state during a NDE, and for me the argument that the brain has to be inactive is misleading and irrelevant. The brain is active and engaged when we are involved in out of body activity at night. We can be operating on a 'lucid' level and be dreaming at the same time.

While Parnia's work is interesting on one level, it has meaning only if we accept the materialist premise to start with. And if you do that you are stuck with Parnia's limited assertion - which is of no use at al if you want to understand NDEs.
 
I appreciate Parnia's measured perspective.

I also acknowledge that I have certain perspectives I am experimenting with and trying to cultivate based on my own life experience, the goals I have for myself as a person, my personal psychology (such as it is), the structures of my body and my physical needs, the philosophical perspectives that captivate my passion, my social milieu, the deep history of my culture, etc.

I don't like the term "agnostic" because it is a loaded term in this day and age. I like the notion of not-knowing. Dr. Parnia acknowledges a high degree of not-knowing in the video, which I appreciate.

I like to play with the idea that meaning--as in the meaning of words, feelings, experiences, objects, etc---is driven by physical human needs, emotional human needs, deep psychology, desires, personal history, cultural history, etc. When a person graduates from high school or gets married or has a baby or gets a promotion or whatever, we might say that these events were very meaningful for them. We might say that coming on a discussion forum and sharing ideas with others is a meaningful experience. The experience is meaningful regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of one's comments.

We might say that it is very meaningful for a person to believe in extended consciousness or life after death. For other people, it is meaningful to believe that there is no life after death. It is useful for me to consider that the meaningfulness of a belief for the believer does not depend on the accuracy of the belief.

I will give my standard disclaimer: I do not know if there is life after death, spiritual realms, etc. There may be for all I know. That said, I prefer to adopt a stance of not-knowing. I am not a debunker. It is important for me to note that it is possible to adopt a stance of not-knowing without being a debunker. I do not claim that my perspectives are Absolutely Correct Truths of the Universe, but I do claim that my perspectives are useful and meaningful to me.
 
Last edited:
malf said:
Yep... This is exactly how I understood Parnia’s position. This is not how Alex presented it in the podcast.
Click to expand...

I listened to a bit of the podcast and then searched through the transcript for "Parnia". As far as I can tell, all Alex asserted is that Sam Parnia's position is that consciousness survives death - which it is. It isn't that consciousness survives death indefinitely, but then, Alex didn't say that it was. He just used the phrase "survives death". Whether that's for a few minutes, a few hours, or indefinitely is left unspecified. Perhaps you are suggesting that in leaving the duration unspecified, Alex has implied "indefinitely", which I agree is not Dr Parnia's (official) position?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top