Stephen Berkley, Battling Grief With After Death Communication |539|

Alex

Administrator
Stephen Berkley, Battling Grief With After Death Communication |539|
by Alex Tsakiris | Feb 8 | Consciousness Research
Share
Tweet

Stephen Berkley’s new film explores the science of healing grief through after death communication.
skeptiko-539-stephen-berkley-300x300.jpg
 
Long time watcher, first time poster here. :D

I know enough about the mental health and psychology industry to know that it's a mess of corrupt, ineffective, and expensive therapies.

I think the reason that so many psychologists are close minded on the issue of consciousness is because their livelihood depends on it. In the interview even you, Alex, talked about the need for the psychologists to keep up with the science and be aware of the latest standards in their industry.

Well, of course the standard that they follow IS the DSM... it's basically their bible. The real question is why is the DSM the way that it is? If there is a conspiracy going on, the surely it is among the authors (and funders) of the DSM. These psychologists and psychiatrists are just following the industry standard of materialism that has been set for them.

https://www.dsm.com/corporate/our-company/management/supervisory-board.html

I'd love to get a deep dive into THAT whole mess of corruption and conspiracy. :eek:
 
Wonderful interview! The gap between those who are open-minded & up on the developments in their professional field of endeavor & those who seem to say, "Hey, I'm out of school, so to hell w/ what's going on," is the woeful level of purgatory. I had a doctor for years that I usually saw once a year for check-ups & the man was always right there w/ the new stuff. How about cholesterol? Why, he gave a quick run-down on the good fats & all that stuff even though I knew already that medicine that lowered your cholesterol was such a stupid idea.
I fully agree that Dr. Samuel, for example, should at least have to explain before a very large group of his peers why he's a nincompoop & not up on the science of consciousness.
 
Just in time for this article.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/othe...-after-death-is-impossible/ar-AATC76G?ocid=st
I can't believe the nonsense of scientists. You can hear the desperation with zero evidence that they've looked into the phenomena before.
Anyway, great interview.
Great points Alex on how we have to hold these fools accountable for the evidence they refuse to even look at.
J

"The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood."

What an aggravating person this Sean Carroll guy must be. Good grief.
 
"The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood."

What an aggravating person this Sean Carroll guy must be. Good grief.

Oh, I would love Alex to have him on the show and have him "explain the law of physics" when it comes to metaphysics.
It's delightful to see these folk tied up in knots.
J
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, the list goes on and on.

The hubris of physicists on this topic is astounding. Literally zero intellectual integrity.

In fairness, the battle that science has had to fight in order to challenge certain religious orthodoxies (e.g., literal interpretation of the Bible) does merit some sympathy. That said, they do their "cause" a disservice when pressed by non-dogmatic, more secular thinkers when they categorically close the door on psi, near-death, and other like phenomena. There's a "stay in your lane bro" approach that is sorely lacking.
 
Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, the list goes on and on.

The hubris of physicists on this topic is astounding. Literally zero intellectual integrity.

In fairness, the battle that science has had to fight in order to challenge certain religious orthodoxies (e.g., literal interpretation of the Bible) does merit some sympathy. That said, they do their "cause" a disservice when pressed by non-dogmatic, more secular thinkers when they categorically close the door on psi, near-death, and other like phenomena. There's a "stay in your lane bro" approach that is sorely lacking.

You know if Alex had other peers that were interested in this, why not a live debate held between those with the science, and the disbelievers? (How's that for a turn of the phrase Dawkins?)
Side note: I read "The God Delusion" and the amount of poor assumptions in the first chapter alone made me think "How could anyone think this was a good book? It's filled with propaganda, not facts!"
And that was before I even listened to Skeptiko.
J
 
You know if Alex had other peers that were interested in this, why not a live debate held between those with the science, and the disbelievers? (How's that for a turn of the phrase Dawkins?)
Side note: I read "The God Delusion" and the amount of poor assumptions in the first chapter alone made me think "How could anyone think this was a good book? It's filled with propaganda, not facts!"
And that was before I even listened to Skeptiko.
J
I've watched plenty of such debates and they tend to be non-starters because of the respective orthodoxies of both parties.

The closest thing for me were the rather well known Harris/Peterson long form discussions (I'd hesitate to call them debates formally). This was before Peterson had moved closer to a Christian-based metaphysics. He was much more dodgy regarding questions such as "Do you believe in God?" and such then. Nonetheless, he represented the "there's more" crowd and Harris represented "there's not more" crowd (on the big questions).

So, while both had inevitable biases/blindspots, it was cordial and generally "honest" in that each were careful of overstepping their bounds of knowledge (i.e., they generally DID "stay in their lanes").

All the other debates I've watched/listened pitting similar "there's more" and "there's not more" opponents were very unsatisfying. Almost more tribal in tone like so much of our geopolitical discourse these days.

My two cents' worth.
 
I've watched plenty of such debates and they tend to be non-starters because of the respective orthodoxies of both parties.
The closest thing for me were the rather well known Harris/Peterson long form discussions (I'd hesitate to call them debates formally). This was before Peterson had moved closer to a Christian-based metaphysics. He was much more dodgy regarding questions such as "Do you believe in God?" and such then. Nonetheless, he represented the "there's more" crowd and Harris represented "there's not more" crowd (on the big questions).
So, while both had inevitable biases/blindspots, it was cordial and generally "honest" in that each were careful of overstepping their bounds of knowledge (i.e., they generally DID "stay in their lanes").
All the other debates I've watched/listened pitting similar "there's more" and "there's not more" opponents were very unsatisfying. Almost more tribal in tone like so much of our geopolitical discourse these days.
My two cents' worth.

Quite possibly true. But if both are armed with studies that can be explained, it could very well turn out to be the Massey Lectures as we have here, where you poll the audience before and after to see who has the most compelling arguments.
There would be value in that I think.
I'm not interested in persona orthodoxies. I am interested in what the studies say.
For example, I don't think the Climate Change father/daughter knew what they were going up against when they came up to Alex. If they were better prepared for someone who had known his side of the aisle, they would have been ready with study after study challenging them.
J
 
In the interview even you, Alex, talked about the need for the psychologists to keep up with the science and be aware of the latest standards in their industry.

I get yr point. it seems to me that part of righting the ship is reclaiming the scientific method... reclaiming the DSM process... rather than a BLM-style defund science approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
You know if Alex had other peers that were interested in this, why not a live debate held between those with the science, and the disbelievers? (How's that for a turn of the phrase Dawkins?)
Side note: I read "The God Delusion" and the amount of poor assumptions in the first chapter alone made me think "How could anyone think this was a good book? It's filled with propaganda, not facts!"
And that was before I even listened to Skeptiko.
J
I've made a point of inviting this folks... most wont even do it once... very few ever come back for round 2.

https://skeptiko.com › sean-carroll-thinks-life-is-meaningless-314
For anyone who's listened to Skeptiko before and heard this kind of nincompoopery, Sean's not saying anything new, but it's still stunning. First, Carroll uses the infamous I-wouldn't-believe-it-even-if-it-was-true thing.

===

let me know if you find one that wants to come on
 
I've made a point of inviting this folks... most wont even do it once... very few ever come back for round 2.

https://skeptiko.com › sean-carroll-thinks-life-is-meaningless-314
For anyone who's listened to Skeptiko before and heard this kind of nincompoopery, Sean's not saying anything new, but it's still stunning. First, Carroll uses the infamous I-wouldn't-believe-it-even-if-it-was-true thing.

===

let me know if you find one that wants to come on

Absolutely folks. I just had a birthday last week, you can call it a late birthday present for me! LOL
 
I have no doubt that the experience of believing you are actually communicating with a deceased loved one can make a person feel better. The reason is that I've had very vivid dreams where I've encountered them, and when I woke-up, I felt as though I had really been in their presence, even though I know that it's only my brain creating the whole thing. So that just goes to show that you don't even have to believe in afterlives for the experience to help on an emotional level — quite significantly for me BTW.
 
I haven’t listened to that many shows recently, but I did listen to this on and very much enjoyed it.

I tend to be on the ‘it doesn’t matter’ side of the argument.

I also think that what’s important is the individual’s intent.

I tend to think the individual choices we make are what‘s important, these choices often make huge differences to people around us. Often we have no idea what the ripples (choices) we make actually achieve (or have negative impact).

Thanks to both Stephen & Alex.
 
Back
Top