A scary chat with ChatGPT about latest NDE account in NDE thread

[Ninshub]

All good tim! I'm not keeping track of everyone's position, I was just trying to make sense of what I was reading in this thread. And my reading could be faulty!!

We've covered these arguments over and over again on here, Sbu. There's even a case in Bruce Greyson's book where a young man has taken some substance (that's not doing him much good) and he's experiencing an OBE. Before he left his body (had the OBE), he was seeing little creatures around his legs, but from the position outside of his body, he could see no creatures and felt great. I know that's another anecdote but it's not on it's own.

I don't see how this can be interpreted one way or the other. In fact, I thought 'proponents' emphasized the distinction between non-NDE OBEs and OBEs occurring during NDEs as different experiences. This is because it's well known that various events can trigger OBEs, and this fact contributes significantly to skepticism regarding the non-mundane explanation of NDEs.

The elephant in the room is a problem for materialists, not proponents. You need to explain how that young woman in the NDE (which you stuck in the Chat box) could see what was going on around her in stage four shock (dead basically) or how the young police woman with seven gunshot holes in her brain could see what was going on when she was comatose (dead more or less). That's the elephant in the room.

I have read both accounts in the NDE thread, but since you don't want me to comment there, I didn't. However, do you have any independent sources for the account of the young policewoman? Ideally, something published in a journal would be best, but even a reference to a newspaper reporting this event would be appreciated.

I was listening to Peter Cummings yesterday, the neuropathologist, neurologist etc and he was saying the majority of neuroscientists in the second to the latter stage of their careers believe that the mind is dual to the brain, two separate things. It looks to me like the war is lost for you guys (you do seem determined to stick to your guns)

Do you have a link to this talk?

I don't see how this can be interpreted one way or the other.

What's your interpretation of Greyson's case then ?

In fact, I thought 'proponents' emphasized the distinction between non-NDE OBEs and OBEs occurring during NDEs as different experiences. This is because it's well known that various events can trigger OBEs, and this fact contributes significantly to skepticism regarding the non-mundane explanation of NDEs.

 
It depends on what you are calling an OBE. My definition is (only) a genuine separation of mind and brain which therefore falsifies materialism. You sceptics were supposed to accept veridical perception during cardiac arrest (a genuine OBE--what else could it be, for heaven's sake ?) as sufficient to allow you to stop complaining..but you didn't. You just moved the goal posts further back and now 'ghosts' have to go hunting for a specific target, like something out of "I'm a celebrity get me out of here". When you get one of those (eventually), you'll want another one and ten...thousand (well, some of you will)

I have read both accounts in the NDE thread, but since you don't want me to comment there, I didn't.

I never said I didn't want you to comment, Sbu. I like your comments, I don't agree with them but that's a different matter.

However, do you have any independent sources for the account of the young policewoman? Ideally, something published in a journal would be best, but even a reference to a newspaper reporting this event would be appreciated.

Aha ... the usual shenanigans  obviously not, Sbu as Guy Danielson wouldn't have ever have published such an event (Why would he?)and neither would any other neurosurgeon. So case closed then, Danielson has made it up or it never happened like that. Odd isn't it just how many similar reports there are from neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons. 

Remember, just one of them needs to be correct to falsify materialism so I guess you must be happy that everyone of them is either made up or never happened like that. And you think that's a reasonable hypotheses? 

Do you have a link to this talk?

 
If I didn't I wouldn't have mentioned it, Sbu otherwise someone could suspect me of BS, and I wouldn't want that. I hate BS. Here it is ...go to 1.32.50 

The Brain: An exploration of the neuroscience of stress, fear, rest and peace. - YouTube  

What's your interpretation of Greyson's case then ?

It's a case about someone who messed up his brain with psychedelics and experience various hallucinations. If it was the case that someone brought anamolous information back from using such a drug then I would definitely pay attention.

Aha ... the usual shenanigans  obviously not, Sbu as Guy Danielson wouldn't have ever have published such an event (Why would he?)and neither would any other neurosurgeon. So case closed then, Danielson has made it up or it never happened like that. Odd isn't it just how many similar reports there are from neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons. 

It seems extremely unlikely that the shooting of a police officer isn't as minimum reported in a local newspaper. In my country there's "Freedom of Information request" into police work. I would be surprised if a shooting was kept secret forever.

Remember, just one of them needs to be correct to falsify materialism so I guess you must be happy that everyone of them is either made up or never happened like that. And you think that's a reasonable hypotheses?

Yes we agree on this one. It's Karl Poppers falsification principle.

If I didn't I wouldn't have mentioned it, Sbu otherwise someone could suspect me of BS, and I wouldn't want that. I hate BS. Here it is ...go to 1.32.50 The Brain: An exploration of the neuroscience of stress, fear, rest and peace. - YouTube  

I think you misunderstood me on this one. I din't intent to insinuate it was something you made up. It was out of genuine interest to listen to the talk - and I will do maybe this evening. I also read Mona Sobhani's book after all (she is another neuroscientist)

It's a case about someone who messed up his brain with psychedelics and experience various hallucinations. If it was the case that someone brought anamolous information back from using such a drug then I would definitely pay attention.

No, Sbu, you've missed the point.  Physiological, reductionist materialists use the effect drugs and alcohol have on the brain to assert that there can be no independent mind, because if the mind is independent, why would it be affected by drugs and alcohol? 

Greyson used that report to refute this assumption. The young man was affected by the drug but then he somehow left his body and was completely clear headed, whilst still seeing his body below without the little creatures around it's (his) legs etc etc.

It seems extremely unlikely that the shooting of a police officer isn't as minimum reported in a local newspaper. In my country there's "Freedom of Information request" into police work. I would be surprised if a shooting was kept secret forever.

I don't know what you are insinuating there, Sbu. Danielson said the case was one of the highlights of his career. He didn't say it happened last year; he's been practicing neurosurgery for nearly fifty years. Did you think you could google it and get all the details ? And because you can't it never happened? You really think a neurosurgeon would make up a story like that, lol ! Do you think Lloyd Rudy made up his case? We were able to track down his assistant surgeon, Roberto Cattaneo who confirmed everything he said.

You might want to ask yourself why he didn't make up a few more while he was at it and more to the point, why would he bother ? What benefit would that have. Here are some stats released by the FBI on police officers being shot and killed. Texas is the second biggest state and has by far the most guns, nearly 600,00.

According to statistics reported to the FBI, 59 police officers were killed in the line of duty from January 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021. This marks a 51 percent increase in the number of police officers killed when compared to the same period last year.

Yes we agree on this one. It's Karl Poppers falsification principle.

Okay, so why are you still a sceptic ? There are thousands of these cases, do you believe they all have a physiological reductionist explanation ? 

I think you misunderstood me on this one. I din't intent to insinuate it was something you made up. It was out of genuine interest to listen to the talk - and I will do maybe this evening. I also read Mona Sobhani's book after all (she is another neuroscientist)

My apologies, then.

If I didn't I wouldn't have mentioned it, Sbu otherwise someone could suspect me of BS, and I wouldn't want that. I hate BS. Here it is ...go to 1.32.50 

The Brain: An exploration of the neuroscience of stress, fear, rest and peace. - YouTube  

I will agree with sbu for a moment and say that non-reductionism (or the inability to measure  subjetive experiences) doesn't exactly defeat materialism or confirm survival, with schools of thought like epiphenomenalism and non-reductive physicalism for example.

I will agree with sbu for a moment and say that non-reductionism (or the inability to measure  subjetive experiences) doesn't exactly defeat materialism or confirm survival, with schools of thought like epiphenomenalism and non-reductive physicalism for example.

But epiphenomenalism simply says nothing. It offers no answer.
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-w...6#pid41466

But epiphenomenalism simply says nothing. It offers no answer.
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-w...6#pid41466

I'm not a epiphenomenalist due to the evolutionary problems with it, but it's not about what physiological means create the qualia, but it's lack of causal power.
Yet even with the neurophysiological data about unconscious processes, very few materialists are also epiphenomenalists because of what I mentioned and other reasons. Even eliminative materialism makes more sense

I will agree with sbu for a moment and say that non-reductionism (or the inability to measure  subjetive experiences) doesn't exactly defeat materialism or confirm survival, with schools of thought like epiphenomenalism and non-reductive physicalism for example.

The scientific "proof" (proof is only available in mathematics) is not there yet, for NDE's, I accept that. So logically I accept
that sceptics don't have to officially 'concede'. However, I do consider it intellectually dishonest to just ignore the vast amount of
data there is; well attested, well researched clear cut cases where it's quite obvious what's what.

As to schools of thought, I'm not trained in philosophy and much of it seems to me to be a game of chess. If you mean by non reductive physicalism, super psi, I consider that to be unreasonable and just another excuse.

How does ChatGPT work? Here's the human-written answer for how ChatGPT works.

Harry Guinness

ChatGPT is an app built by OpenAI. Using the GPT language models, it can answer your questions, write copy, draft emails, hold a conversation, explain code in different programming languages, translate natural language to code, and more—or at least try to—all based on the natural language prompts you feed it. It's a chatbot, but a really, really good one.

But let's go back to GPT-3 as its error provides an interesting example of what's going on behind the scenes in ChatGPT. It doesn't actually know anything about me. It's not even copy/pasting from the internet and trusting the source of the information. Instead, it's simply predicting a string of words that will come next based on the billions of data points it has.

For example: The New York Times is grouped far more often with The Guardian and The Huffington Post than it is with the places I've written for, like Wired, Outside, The Irish Times, and, of course, Zapier. So when it has to work out what should follow on from The New York Times, it doesn't pull from the published information about me; it pulls from all the training data it has that list of large publications. It's very clever and looks plausible, but it isn't true.

GPT-4 does a much better job and nails the publications, but the rest of what it says really just feels like plausible follow-on sentences. I don't think it has any great appreciation for my reputation: it's just saying the kind of thing a bio says. It's far better at hiding how it works than GPT-3, though it's actually using much the same technique.

Once you see through the magic trick you realize there's no consciousness there.

It's only impressive because humans have written so many impressive things that it can shift through, and humans have used their consciousness to train the program.

I do think the work that went into faking thought is something of an accomplishment, much like there are stage magicians who can do very amazing tricks.