(2020-08-11, 08:02 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]The next video has just come out in the Inspiring Philosophy: Irreducible Mind series - (Part 3), 38 min. - Physicalist arguments debunked, there is no evidence that the brain creates consciousness.
This one gets a little abstruse and esoteric. Released August 7, 2020, at https://youtu.be/OIJiAhRd4jI .
I am impressed by many of the silly comments on this one. One person misinterpreted that Thalamus study on monkeys (which was about WAKEFULNESS) and claimed AWARE 1 debunked NDEs (fortunately a person has corrected them but they're still in denial, ignoring the latest quotes and evidence, including from Parnia). There's also your classic 'but brain damage changes the soul' which is still only correlation, not causation. So many seem put off simply because he uses the term soul as well. Once again, it probably would have been better if another YouTuber had done this. His bold headline doesn't help-perhaps it would have been better if he used the term 'refuted' rather than 'debunked', since that's more likely to garner irrational responses.
There are also some who don't understand how cases where damage to the brain improves consciousness is evidence the brain doesn't produce it. I think it's quite obvious, since it doesn't make sense if the brain produces consciousness that you'd expect an opposing correlation. Additionally, heightened consciousness during NDEs doesn't make sense to materialism either.
Many such comments come from a physicalist called Alexander Hewett who accuses this video of the ad hoc fallacy, but then he himself goes on to try and claim that the examples in the video can be explained in a materialist manner. The other commenter he debated with of course then points out this is also fallicious, especially since Hewett does not provide explanations for what IP describes, but compares him to a creationist insisting dinosaur bones were planted by the devil regardless. I don't think this guy watched IPs two other videos either. The critics do seem to change between videos.
There's also one or two comments on general anaesthesia and how that's apparently evidence, but even then we've only just understood some of the mechanisms, and NDEs have still been reported to occur under general anesthesia.
Then of course you have those who make appeals to authority and insist 'oh but a lot of neuroscientists are materialists!', which is just an appeal to authority and popular opinion (one that isn't as popular I'd say).
I'm baffled why so many of his commenters are uninformed, not paying attention to significant parts of the video and not bothering to do their own further research. They just dismiss it or bring up old arguments that have been refuted, even split brain stuff.
But I agree that his sometimes vague explanations don't help that much. He doesn't go into as much detail or provide further elaborations on some claims he makes that would have improved his arguments. I don't understand though why so many critical, cynical militant materialists bother following him. Why would you follow someone who's content you never agree with or like? Apparently, it's quite clear some of them don't even watch the videos in full, they just comment immediately. Some of them even admit to that! Then those who have watched the series just say 'he's using a soul of the gaps argument', ignoring the implications of what he's describing, while they instead use the 'materialism of the gaps' argument.
Meanwhile, here's probably the worst video I've seen ever on NDEs that many people have actually criticised for trying to debunk them in an uninformed and unscientific manner:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HmO8l517TEg
The video is less than 10 minutes long and has the nerve to imply that Bruce Greyson is uninformed or something, and that's going by the comments because I didn't waste time watching the video since it's from 2017. I'm surprised at the comments here who are very critical of this pseudo-skeptic, and he largely just dismisses their criticisms. Such a shame this content is still on YouTube, but fortunately it doesn't get many views and, like I said, is outdated and was heavily criticised and corrected. Wouldn't surprise me if he imitated that Holy Koolaid moron who also happened to have released a video on NDEs (one that was just as bad, though Skeptiko users and those on near-death.com will already probably be familiar with it) in the same year.
And before someone says, yes, I know I'm just rambling about critical comments again, and I apologize. I feel like many of them are not only uninformed, unoriginal and close-minded, but are also needlessly harsh and repulsive, and deserve to be refuted. I needed to get this off my chest.