Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

'brain activity precedes conscious thought'

This isn't a new claim. But it is an empty one. Conscious thought, by its nature, cannot be measured. Thus the claim really amounts to saying "measurable physical event A occurs before measurable physical event B". The only appropriate response to that is, 'So what?'

Have any of you guys heard of Ian Sawyer? I know he's been mentioned on the AwareofAWARE blog, but not on here. Though I imagine a few might be aware of him if you're active on Quora.

He's basically a militant materialist who has some obsession with trying to ridicule and debunk religious, spiritual and supernatural beliefs, including in an afterlife. He notoriously thinks he's absolutely right/certain about his own opinion as 'fact' and tends to dismiss any expert's research brought to him, or make false claims. For example, his take on the Pam Reynolds case was that it was unverified anaesthesia awareness and that Sabom is a sensationalist, and all other NDEs are caused by 'misfiring neurons and anoxia' in the brain. His understanding of NDEs of course though appears to be very suface-level, as does his knowledge of reincarnation research, which he dismisses as biased. 

He also very occasionally cites articles or studies that have either a)Been refuted or b)Debunked. Remember those articles on a Harvard study claiming to have 'pinpointed the source of consciousness' from years ago that was debunked? Yeah, he cited that once. 

Reading his bio alone indicated to me at least that he's someone with an egotistical superiority complex who for some reason has nothing better to do than put people down for harmless beliefs: https://www.quora.com/profile/Ian-Sawyer.../Afterlife

According to him, consciousness=some complex thing the brain does somehow, and if you don't agree with him you're a wishful thinker or deluded. When some of his many critics present him with examples of evidence that contradicts what he says, such as him claiming that NDEs are rooted in confirmation/religious bias, he usually ignores it or dismisses it. For example, when someone cited some work from Peter Fenwick, he refused to read/watch any of it. He was also one of those people parroting the 'pineal gland produces DMT' theory despite the lack of evidence. 

Unfortunately he is still active today, bashing anyone with a religious or spiritual belief-he once even commented his usual materialist mantra to someone claiming to have recently experienced a death in their family and asking about what others believed. So clearly he has no emotional intelligence whatsoever.

Has anyone else had encounters, arguments or 'debates' with this guy? What on earth is his problem?

Has anyone else had encounters, arguments or 'debates' with this guy? What on earth is his problem?

I wouldn't personally waste any time on him, Omni. He's a typical (or sounds it by what you've said) closed minded critic who doesn't know the research, has already made his mind up (because it stands to reason) and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

There is nothing you can do about people like him. The internet is full of them, best to just let them be, it makes them happier that way.

I wouldn't personally waste any time on him, Omni. He's a typical (or sounds it by what you've said) closed minded critic who doesn't know the research, has already made his mind up (because it stands to reason) and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

There is nothing you can do about people like him. The internet is full of them, best to just let them be, it makes them happier that way.

He does claim that if your brainstem goes down, then its 'irreversible death', but I'm pretty sure that's not true. It just means consciousness shouldn't be possible. His criticisms of the Reynolds case sound like he just parroted Woerlee, since he's the one who largely proposes the 'anaesthesia awareness' stuff. At least he doesn't get that much attention most of the time. He does plenty of well-earned criticism though. But this sort of thing reminds me why I don't like Quora. There's just so much contradictory information, arguing, troll accounts, impersonators and ignorance on there on all manner of subjects, far greater in ratio to people actually knowledgeable about a topic.

I unfortunately also saw this account, from skeptic Paul Forshaw, who claims to have had an NDE yet remains a convinced atheist. He claims his NDE only involved some kind of OBE where he travelled to the beginning of the Universe and experienced the Big Bang or something. So far my doubts are:

• He claims NDEs are all culturally biased/based on expectation, which we know is not strictly true from the extensive literature.
  
• He doesn't ever say, at least on the page linked, what actually caused his NDE in the first place. He just says he was in 'great pain' after he 'stopped breathing'. No details about what actually happened to him 25 years ago. This is very suspicious to me since virtually all NDE accounts I've read/heard (that came across as at least mostly genuine) always  explain what happened to them.
  
• He doesn't come across as a very nice guy at all based on his post history and very condescending, arrogant tone. Like other dubious 'skeptics/atheists who had NDEs but remained skeptics/atheists', he is displaying none of the reported after-effects of NDEs or any knowledge of them. Only the basic jist of a typical NDE experience. 
  

From reading his description, does anything else strike you as suspicious about his account? It's just I'm noticing mroe of these claims now, and they make me doubtful, even if they are in the extreme minority IF true. IIRC, IANDS reported that 98% of NDErs confidently believed in an afterlife/continuation of consciousness after death of some sort.

He does claim that if your brainstem goes down, then its 'irreversible death', but I'm pretty sure that's not true. It just means consciousness shouldn't be possible. His criticisms of the Reynolds case sound like he just parroted Woerlee, since he's the one who largely proposes the 'anaesthesia awareness' stuff. At least he doesn't get that much attention most of the time. He does plenty of well-earned criticism though. But this sort of thing reminds me why I don't like Quora. There's just so much contradictory information, arguing, troll accounts, impersonators and ignorance on there on all manner of subjects, far greater in ratio to people actually knowledgeable about a topic.

I unfortunately also saw this account, from skeptic Paul Forshaw, who claims to have had an NDE yet remains a convinced atheist. He claims his NDE only involved some kind of OBE where he travelled to the beginning of the Universe and experienced the Big Bang or something. So far my doubts are:

• He claims NDEs are all culturally biased/based on expectation, which we know is not strictly true from the extensive literature.
  
• He doesn't ever say, at least on the page linked, what actually caused his NDE in the first place. He just says he was in 'great pain' after he 'stopped breathing'. No details about what actually happened to him 25 years ago. This is very suspicious to me since virtually all NDE accounts I've read/heard (that came across as at least mostly genuine) always  explain what happened to them.
  
• He doesn't come across as a very nice guy at all based on his post history and very condescending, arrogant tone. Like other dubious 'skeptics/atheists who had NDEs but remained skeptics/atheists', he is displaying none of the reported after-effects of NDEs or any knowledge of them. Only the basic jist of a typical NDE experience. 
  

From reading his description, does anything else strike you as suspicious about his account? It's just I'm noticing mroe of these claims now, and they make me doubtful, even if they are in the extreme minority IF true. IIRC, IANDS reported that 98% of NDErs confidently believed in an afterlife/continuation of consciousness after death of some sort.

Anyone can claim to have an NDE, Omni. Has he got his medical report handy with dates, his admittance into hospital etc? I suspect (though I could be wrong) that he's just making it up. 

It would be an appealing statement (for sceptics) to hear. An actual experiencer denouncing it as a delusion, because who better to know than an actual experiencer? 

Unfortunately, they can't have it both ways. They don't believe the vast majority of experiencers who are convinced by their NDE. So they can't therefore cherry pick some guy who claims he isn't convinced by it, can they. That would be unscientific and these sceptics would not want to be called that.

Reading his bio alone indicated to me at least that he's someone with an egotistical superiority complex who for some reason has nothing better to do than put people down for harmless beliefs: https://www.quora.com/profile/Ian-Sawyer.../Afterlife

"I have over 800 physical books and around 250 ebooks..."

Anyone can claim to have an NDE, Omni. Has he got his medical report handy with dates, his admittance into hospital etc? I suspect (though I could be wrong) that he's just making it up. 

It would be an appealing statement (for sceptics) to hear. An actual experiencer denouncing it as a delusion, because who better to know than an actual experiencer? 

Unfortunately, they can't have it both ways. They don't believe the vast majority of experiencers who are convinced by their NDE. So they can't therefore cherry pick some guy who claims he isn't convinced by it, can they. That would be unscientific and these sceptics would not want to be called that.

Well I skimmed his profile for stuff relevant to NDEs and I don't think so. Though to be fair, not having records on hand can be said for plenty of people online claiming to have had NDEs, even NDERF (though I think some monitoring is used). But I suppose the points I made regarding the questionable authenticity are appropriate then, unless someone is able to find on his profile where he explains what caused his NDE or why we should believe him.

It was only today I saw a Professor Emeritus of Psychology say that NDEs 'are actually very variable' on Quora and just a product of hypoxia/anoxia. I then looked up his work on Google Scholar, and none of it was really relevant to NDEs, especially none of his most 'recent' work.

I suppose though at the end of the day, what has been bothering me are skeptics/atheists who remain a disbeliever in the continuation of consciousness after death after claimed NDEs. I do understand that anyone can claim to have one (and I've already poked holes in the claims made by several already, in terms of them being questionable or based on a misunderstanding of what an NDE is)...but I can't shake the feeling that they might not be lying, or misremembering or confusing their experience with an NDE?

On Quora, I've now seen a handful of these, as there are quite a few threads responding to such questions about skeptics and NDEs. Many of them have repeated/copy-pasted answers, and not very many answers at that. And none citing sources that have aged well.

Most of them who did attempt to describe an NDE just sounded like very vague OBEs or not actually NDEs, but rather what IANDS defines as a 'close brush with death', which is where nothing happens/nothing is recalled. We know this is very common, but it's not an NDE, no matter how these pseudoskeptics will try to claim it is.

This is something Jan Holden has had to stress several times apparently, but the media (and by extension, many skeptics and atheists) don't understand this. But again, 98% of NDErs report believing in something better after death. 

The rest didn't provide much detail other than what your average person might know about an NDE-the tunnle, bright lights and an OBE. That's it. I also saw one poster point out (citing Fenwick for example) that these athiests aren't ever describing a complete NDE, but rather a pseudo-NDE, or NDE-like condition with only one or very few of the aspects of NDEs...ones that can notably be easily plagiarised or easily invented. 

Take this pretty small thread for example of 'answers' to "Have you stopped being an atheist after an NDE?". Notice something in common? Not a single response is from someone who understands what was being meant by an NDE. On threads with similar titles, I noticed this was fairly common as well. A bunch still don't have answers, or are just reposts. It still impresses me that lots of people think NDEs are 'I almost died because of *insert accident here*' stories.

So far, the only one that has me a bit stumped is this one (which is surprising, given he implies his daughter who also apparently had an NDE may be a believer). 

I had major surgery (a Whipple) in December 2016. Afterwards in ICU my breathing slowed to 2 breaths a minute. Somehow this was missed by the nurse dedicated to looking after me. I had to be revived and some time later another nurse said to me that they ‘almost lost me, they had trouble getting me back.’
While all of this was going on, I dreamed that I was being lead up into a great white cloud-like expanse. Someone kind was holding my hand, encouraging me. I looked down and saw snow capped mountains. I remember thinking that if I was able to jump and hit the snow at the right angle I might make it even though the air was too thin and it was too far below.

Foremost in my mind were my two daughters. I had to get back for my girls. I let go of the hand and jumped. It was incredibly cold and I had trouble breathing as I tumbled over and over in the snow, falling down the mountain. Somehow I had acquired a suit like a space suit with a visor showing a HUD readout of my altitude. Some sort of control center was shouting instructions at me through the helmet, counting down the altitude. I returned to consciousness wearing a full face oxygenation (desaturation?) mask surrounded by medical staff shouting my name. Coincidentally, my eldest daughter also had a near death dream experience 8 years earlier when she was five. She too had had a general anesthetic for surgery, to remove a cyst behind her ear. Keep in mind that we are not a religious family and hadn't discussed the afterlife or death with our 5 year old daughter.

I was sitting with her on the couch a few months after her surgery. We weren't discussing her surgery or any related topic, she just seemed to have a moment of reflection and told me about her ‘dream when she was asleep in hospital.’ This is what she said - keep in mind that she was 5. An articulate 5 yo but five nevertheless.

She was standing in a white room that went on forever. She wasn't worried, just standing there as if she was waiting. After a while she saw a small dot in the distance. Slowly, it got bigger and bigger. After a while she realized that it was our dog, Ned (a beautiful family dog our red cloud kelpie that had died when she was two years old.) Ned skidded to a halt in front of her, sat down and said ‘You have to go back, it's too soon.’ My daughter asked, ‘You can talk?’ Ned replied, ‘We can all talk here’. End dream.

So there you go. Two for the price of one related as directly and faithfully as possible. Make of them what you will. Im still pondering.

What do you guys make of that one? He seems more open-minded to the afterlife than most, but I'm suspicious that he refers to both experiences as 'dreams' and conflates that with a NDE, and then goes on to say his NDE didn't affect his beliefs. It's very strange and much more dreamlike for a supposed NDE, and doesn't feature any of the usual features of an NDE besides feeling another loving presence. Perhaps this is another example of a "near-near-death experience", or a dreamlike coma experience. Either way, this is what he posted.

I suppose though at the end of the day, what has been bothering me are skeptics/atheists who remain a disbeliever in the continuation of consciousness after death after claimed NDEs. I do understand that anyone can claim to have one (and I've already poked holes in the claims made by several already, in terms of them being questionable or based on a misunderstanding of what an NDE is)...but I can't shake the feeling that they might not be lying, or misremembering or confusing their experience with an NDE?

On Quora, I've now seen a handful of these, as there are quite a few threads responding to such questions about skeptics and NDEs. Many of them have repeated/copy-pasted answers, and not very many answers at that. And none citing sources that have aged well.

Most of them who did attempt to describe an NDE just sounded like very vague OBEs or not actually NDEs, but rather what IANDS defines as a 'close brush with death', which is where nothing happens/nothing is recalled. We know this is very common, but it's not an NDE, no matter how these pseudoskeptics will try to claim it is.

This is something Jan Holden has had to stress several times apparently, but the media (and by extension, many skeptics and atheists) don't understand this. But again, 98% of NDErs report believing in something better after death. 

The rest didn't provide much detail other than what your average person might know about an NDE-the tunnle, bright lights and an OBE. That's it. I also saw one poster point out (citing Fenwick for example) that these athiests aren't ever describing a complete NDE, but rather a pseudo-NDE, or NDE-like condition with only one or very few of the aspects of NDEs...ones that can notably be easily plagiarised or easily invented. 

Take this pretty small thread for example of 'answers' to "Have you stopped being an atheist after an NDE?". Notice something in common? Not a single response is from someone who understands what was being meant by an NDE. On threads with similar titles, I noticed this was fairly common as well. A bunch still don't have answers, or are just reposts. It still impresses me that lots of people think NDEs are 'I almost died because of *insert accident here*' stories.

So far, the only one that has me a bit stumped is this one (which is surprising, given he implies his daughter who also apparently had an NDE may be a believer). 

What do you guys make of that one? He seems more open-minded to the afterlife than most, but I'm suspicious that he refers to both experiences as 'dreams' and conflates that with a NDE, and then goes on to say his NDE didn't affect his beliefs. It's very strange and much more dreamlike for a supposed NDE, and doesn't feature any of the usual features of an NDE besides feeling another loving presence. Perhaps this is another example of a "near-near-death experience", or a dreamlike coma experience. Either way, this is what he posted.

I think this is just more shit that you should be ignoring and not at all looking at. If you're so paranoid about people still being atheists what's it say about you? You paranoid about not being in the big group of nonbelievers and jush wish they'd all come around? People aren't always gonna agree with us, shit we've just got to live with. There's a fair few people that have stayed atheists after NDEs, but that takes effort, explaining away and rationalisation and even then there's always the nibbling bit at the back of the mind. 

And again, you're giving attention to people who haven't done any decent level of research. Doctors don't listen to anti vaxxers who have only read studies who agree with them. I've read both sides, professional researchers read both sides, we're all still convinced that this is some remarkable shit. Listen to people who know better, not the guys who have only read NDE debunking posts that they already agree with. 

ALSO ALSO this is literally ONE fucking nobody. Literally nobody. If this was Novella, or Frankish or anybody it'd be something. Surely you aren't so paranoid Omni that now we're going to be making enemies out of random fuckin strangers on quora who aren't even anyone. What's next, infamous youtube user SpiceMom246 posted these several poorful informed youtube comments?

Again, like, gotta stop looking around man. At least figure out how to deal with these people yourself. Literally all it takes is a youtube search. Eventually your doubt is going to become needlessly contagious to everyone else on here.

Ok, well enough of Quora then. I will ask about something bothering me that Novella posted in the comments on that 'hearing the dead' article. 

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...-receiver/

He basically says the analogy isn't neuroscientific ally accurate enough, it's not falsifiable, tighter correlations can only be explained via materialism etc.

At one point, he says this:

A more accurate analogy would be this – can you alter the wiring of a TV in order to change the plot of a TV program? Can you change a sitcom into a drama? Can you change the dialogue of the characters? Can you stimulate one of the wires in the TV in order to make one of the on-screen characters twitch?


Well, that is what would be necessary in order for the analogy to hold.

As we have learned more and more about brain function, we have identified many modules and circuits in the brain that participate in specific functions. During the Afterlife debate I gave a few of my favorite examples.

Disruption of one circuit, for example, can make someone feel as if their loved-ones are imposters, because they do not evoke the usual emotions they should feel. Disruption of another circuit can make a person feel as if they are not in control of a part of their body – so-called alien hand syndrome.

A stroke that leaves the ownership module intact but unconnected to the paralyzed limb can rarely result in a supernumerary phantom limb – the subjective experience of having an extra limb that you can feel and controlled (but that does not exist).

Seizures are also a profound area of evidence for the mind as brain theory. Synchronous electrical activity in particular parts of the brain can make people twitch and convulse, but also experience smells, sounds, images, feelings, a sense of unreality, a sense of being connected to the universe, an inability to speak, the experience of a particular piece of music, a sense of deja vu, or pretty much anything you can imagine. The subjective experience depends on the part of the brain where the seizure occurs.

He goes on about more cases of brain damage and then says everything we think has a correlate in the brain...which to me sounds like he's admitting this is still all correlative. 

I'm not aware if this has been addressed before since this post is from all the way back in 2014, but given Novella cited it in his most recent argument with a proponent on his blog on the 'hearing the dead' post, he must still think it holds water. 

In terms of the analogy, it isn't perfect. We know that. No analogy is. But when you tweak parts of a radio or TV, the signal can change to great degrees. It can be distorted, garbled, warped, even pick up something else (hence alterations in personality and memory, possibly even language, as the receiver/brain is picking up another signal-possibly another consciousness). 

Not sure about his other points though. He did receive some criticism for this though in his comments.

Edit: I was able to find a rebuttal from Kastrup though. No idea if Novella responded to it, but it's probably unlikely. Novella hasn't posted about Kastrup since 2012, and like with Tallis, he very rarely bothers looking into anything else they say again: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/06/...s.html?m=1