Five hard to swallow facts about paranormal research

The author mentioned this thread in the thread in our debate on his blog - did someone tell him? If so why? Or does he use this forum? If so Hi Michael J Baker!
 
Roberta,

Sci has already mentioned "Irreducible Mind", but I will mention it again because it contains an absolute mountain of observations made by doctors, which show a whole variety of phenomena, starting with those that are hard to explain conventionally (but you know how they argue) to those that just can't be explained. It puts paranormal phenomena into a much wider and more scientific context. The book is also referenced, so in principle you can go and look up the original work.

To me, all genuine ψ phenomena connect indirectly with the question of life after death, because they tell us that consciousness is somehow much bigger than a calculation going on in the brain, and therefore that deductions made on the basis if current science in this area, are simply not justified.

David
 
Roberta,

Sci has already mentioned "Irreducible Mind", but I will mention it again because it contains an absolute mountain of observations made by doctors, which show a whole variety of phenomena, starting with those that are hard to explain conventionally (but you know how they argue) to those that just can't be explained. It puts paranormal phenomena into a much wider and more scientific context. The book is also referenced, so in principle you can go and look up the original work.

To me, all genuine ψ phenomena connect indirectly with the question of life after death, because they tell us that consciousness is somehow much bigger than a calculation going on in the brain, and therefore that deductions made on the basis if current science in this area, are simply not justified.

David

Thanks, I wanna buy the book but it's expensive!

Can I ask out of interest David as you're a regular poster - where has all the psi evidence and related research lead you?
 
I had a skim through the page - and the comments linked in the opening post.

What I get from all this is that people are willing to discuss and contemplate any idea - except when doing so could mean reassessing one's own self. Then there is a tendency to dig in one's heels and resist. Me too. There's nothing special about my views, I'm just one more of the same.

But this is at the core of the topic - no matter how much one points at evidence here or there , or lack of evidence there or somewhere, it is still empty chatter, it helps to pass the time - unless one is willing to look in the mirror, look deep inside and be willing to reassess oneself. That's the only reason why these topics are relevant, and is the reason why they are contentious. Or maybe that's hard to swallow.
 
Last edited:
I had a skim through the page - and the comments linked in the opening post.

What I get from all this is that people are willing to discuss and contemplate any idea - except when doing so could mean reassessing one's own self. Then there is a tendency to dig in one's heels and resist. Me too. There's nothing special about my views, I'm just one more of the same.

But this is at the core of the topic - no matter how much one points at evidence here or there , or lack of evidence there or somewhere, it is still empty chatter, it helps to pass the time - unless one is willing to look in the mirror, look deep inside and be willing to reassess oneself. That's the only reason why these topics are relevant, and is the reason why they are contentious. Or maybe that's hard to swallow.

A couple of things occurs to me: firstly, I think there is no substitute for personal research. I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to find common reading with people who have very strong opinions on a subject and had to give up because they either wouldn't consider reading what I suggested as a basis for discussion or hadn't done any personal research other than trawling the Internet for opinions that support their own. I'm not saying that applies to everyone and of course we all have are own pet subjects.

Secondly, personal experience usually trumps any amount of personal reading but the experience rarely amounts to convincing evidence for someone else.
 
Thanks, I wanna buy the book but it's expensive!

Can I ask out of interest David as you're a regular poster - where has all the psi evidence and related research lead you?
Well it is just under £20 on Kindle. It is a long (and somewhat turgid) read, but it contains so much evidence. It is also probably possible to GOOGLE the title and find discussions relating to the book.

In many ways all the ψ evidence, has combined with a former interest of mine Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI - supposedly writing software that works like the human brain - was all the rage about 30 years ago, and I had some peripheral involvement, which caused me to realise that while 'experts' would hype AI to the skies, the reality was pretty minimal. Despite all the expensive grants, the end result was very very little, and that didn't seem to be due to lack of computer power.

This failure set me thinking about what it was about consciousness that made it so impossible to create on a computer. Now the ψ evidence - and I believe there is a lot - tells me that consciousness really isn't anything like conventional scientists like to represent it. It can operate over a distance on occasions (ESP), and often precognitively, there is pretty solid evidence that it continues in some people when their heart stops (sometimes for some considerable time), and there is good evidence that reincarnation happens.

None of this tells us if everyone who has a cardiac arrest has an NDE (which is entirely possible, because most people may just not retain the memory), nor if everyone has an NDE when they die, nor how many reincarnate, or how many times.

I am also fairly sure that OBE's and extended lucid dreaming gives some people a certain amount of contact with the larger reality while still healthy.

Another extraordinary line of evidence, is that drugs like LSD and DMT transport people into a very strange realm indeed. I haven't explored this personally, but it clearly suggests there is a larger realm out there - because these are just simple chemicals that bind to receptors in the brain. The filter theory of consciousness suggests that these drugs tamper with the filtering process and let the larger reality in to some degree.

Although there is a lot of evidence for expanded consciousness, it doesn't really come together in a neat way -so I believe there is a bigger picture, and if I am conscious when my time is up, I'll be scared but also intensely curious. I can't imagine what the larger picture can really be about, but one hears repeatedly that it is timeless, and multidimensional!

I don't want to become a believer in some particular version of the truth, because I'd rather maintain an open mind. Believing in something in the religious sense, seems basically silly, because if there were enough evidence we could believe in the ordinary sense, and if there isn't enough evidence, why pretend there is - as Christians and Muslims do IMHO. Buddhists maybe believe because they have amassed practical experience from meditation, so they may be different.

David
 
Last edited:
It doesn't surprise me,perhaps unreasonably, that AI has been unimpressive. In occurs to me that any attempt to properly emulate something that isn't understood is destined to fall short.
Very true, but I think it is deeper than that, because people pushed aside the Hard Problem to even contemplate AI, because if AI had worked it would have either produced zombie intelligence or magically created experience within the computer circuits (or maybe lines of code!).

David
 
Well it is just under £20 on Kindle. It is a long (and somewhat turgid) read, but it contains so much evidence. It is also probably possible to GOOGLE the title and find discussions relating to the book.

In many ways all the ψ evidence, has combined with a former interest of mine Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI - supposedly writing software that works like the human brain - was all the rage about 30 years ago, and I had some peripheral involvement, which caused me to realise that while 'experts' would hype AI to the skies, the reality was pretty minimal. Despite all the expensive grants, the end result was very very little, and that didn't seem to be due to lack of computer power.

This failure set me thinking about what it was about consciousness that made it so impossible to create on a computer. Now the ψ evidence - and I believe there is a lot - tells me that consciousness really isn't anything like conventional scientists like to represent it. It can operate over a distance on occasions (ESP), and often precognitively, there is pretty solid evidence that it continues in some people when their heart stops (sometimes for some considerable time), and there is good evidence that reincarnation happens.

None of this tells us if everyone who has a cardiac arrest has an NDE (which is entirely possible, because most people may just not retain the memory), nor if everyone has an NDE when they die, nor how many reincarnate, or how many times.

I am also fairly sure that OBE's and extended lucid dreaming gives some people a certain amount of contact with the larger reality while still healthy.

Another extraordinary line of evidence, is that drugs like LSD and DMT transport people into a very strange realm indeed. I haven't explored this personally, but it clearly suggests there is a larger realm out there - because these are just simple chemicals that bind to receptors in the brain. The filter theory of consciousness suggests that these drugs tamper with the filtering process and let the larger reality in to some degree.

Although there is a lot of evidence for expanded consciousness, it doesn't really come together in a neat way -so I believe there is a bigger picture, and if I am conscious when my time is up, I'll be scared but also intensely curious. I can't imagine what the larger picture can really be about, but one hears repeatedly that it is timeless, and multidimensional!

I don't want to become a believer in some particular version of the truth, because I'd rather maintain an open mind. Believing in something in the religious sense, seems basically silly, because if there were enough evidence we could believe in the ordinary sense, and if there isn't enough evidence, why pretend there is - as Christians and Muslims do IMHO. Buddhists maybe believe because they have amassed practical experience from meditation, so they may be different.

David

Thanks for the in depth response David - your views on this closely mirror my own!
 
Should have listend to Troy and not made any attempt to rationalise with this individual. As he did not like my posts I am no banned, which is just fine by me!!. I don't mind him criticising mediumship or survival, but its the last straw when he starts to crtiticise the validity of my PhD !!!

Dr Malcolm Lewis
 
Should have listend to Troy and not made any attempt to rationalise with this individual. As he did not like my posts I am no banned, which is just fine by me!!. I don't mind him criticising mediumship or survival, but its the last straw when he starts to crtiticise the validity of my PhD !!!

Dr Malcolm Lewis

Yeah him and his supporters get very personal don't they? Then they ban you and take away your right of reply!
 
Hi,

Yes Roberta you are quite correct. I simply should not have taken the bait!!!. Research in general is such a wide field, it is profoundly incorrect to dismiss qualitative methods of investigation; particularly in the field of survival research. I and many others who have studied this subject for any length of time realise that there is room and a need for both. However you cannot just dismiss accounts of phenomena that easily. The majority of my research in Symbolic Interactionism has been based upon accounts of individuals. As I tried to explain, it all depends upon the question(s) you are asking.
 
Should have listend to Troy and not made any attempt to rationalise with this individual. As he did not like my posts I am no banned, which is just fine by me!!. I don't mind him criticising mediumship or survival, but its the last straw when he starts to crtiticise the validity of my PhD !!!

Dr Malcolm Lewis
Seems like an admission of weakness to me,

There are always rules. Skeptiko bans people too. Still, the only way to have a valid discussion is to encourage, not merely tolerate, those with whom one disagrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Sorry if I miss typed your title Typoz, thank you for that. As I said I should have realised that its a pointless excercise taking on such viewpoints. I know what I have witnessed, and along with many other very credible researchers. Just becausae a research study is not 'qauntitiative' in nature does not make it devoid of validitiy and reliability. There are many in depth academic discussions on this point in press if proponents wish to read them.
 
Should have listend to Troy and not made any attempt to rationalise with this individual. As he did not like my posts I am no banned, which is just fine by me!!. I don't mind him criticising mediumship or survival, but its the last straw when he starts to crtiticise the validity of my PhD !!!

Dr Malcolm Lewis
LOL - people need to be pretty obnoxious or utterly flippant to get banned from Skeptiko! We don't ban people simply for taking a particular viewpoint.

David
 
What have I missed here ? Has there been a bit of a dust up ? Just curious (and nosey of course)
 
Back
Top