A major but biased new paper on consciousness

Where the F&(k did that come up from? 

What is your personal problem?

My problem is that I engaged with you in the first place. You're a 'piece of work' to call other forum members turds, including myself.
 
There's nothing in my posts that deserves such a disgusting response leaving aside the fact that you react with all the maturity of a nasty spoilt brat. I won't respond to you again under any circumstances.

How dare you insert your bets and maybe he can or can't without doing your homework.

You are just being a rotten turd here, and a bully, and have no clue what you are talking about.

Classy.

BTW Tim, I put you on ignore, so whatever dude.
Have your own private conversation without me.

[Laird]

Here's the core dynamic as I see it re the contention over NDEs in this thread.

Claim: NDEs that occur when a person is clinically dead, and when that person reports having an OBE during which they report veridical* experiences of events in the physical environment that occurred while they were clinically dead, prove that consciousness can exist without a working brain. This is prima facie evidence for the survival of consciousness after biological death.

* Those which are later confirmed to be accurate.

Counter-claim: The memory of the OBE and the veridical experiences during it might have been constructed after awakening via some sort of psi. Thus, NDEs are not proof that consciousness can exist without a working brain, and are of limited evidential value in support of the possibility of survival of consciousness after biological death.

I know that I have seen this counter-claim before, as well as refutations to it, but right now I can't remember where, nor dig them up. If anyone else can, then please do.

In the meantime, here are some of my own thoughts in the moment: this is quite an elaborate and implausible suggestion compared to the straightforward, literal interpretation that the OBE really occurred. Furthermore, all participants in this conversation apparently accept that OBEs can and do occur. Why, then, would it - apparently uniquely - be the case that they are false memories reconstructed after the fact via some sort of psi for NDEs, but in (all?) other cases real experiences? Am I misunderstanding? Maybe the claim is that in all cases, OBEs are false memories reconstructed after the fact. Why would we entertain this possibility though? Is there any good reason to?

[Laird]

Now as a moderator:

Without calling out any particular member or members, and without pointing to any specific instances of disrespect, I just want to remind members of our #1 rule, Respect, which has been broken in this thread, but which we're letting pass because we give members leeway in this regard during flare-ups.

When we have a death, and then a ghost appearing that can explain what it was like, what it is like "over there", and we can repeat that with other ghosts, confirming the same data, that is empirical. Come up with that ghost machine, and we can talk further.

hmmmmmm

Counter-claim: The memory of the OBE and the veridical experiences during it might have been constructed after awakening via some sort of psi. Thus, NDEs are not proof of that consciousness can exist without a working brain, and are of limited evidential value in support of the possibility of survival of consciousness after biological death.

In the meantime, here are some of my own thoughts in the moment: this is quite an elaborate and implausible suggestion compared to the straightforward, literal interpretation that the OBE really occurred. Furthermore, all participants in this conversation apparently accept that OBEs can and do occur. Why, then, would it - apparently uniquely - be the case that they are false memories reconstructed after the fact via some sort of psi for NDEs, but in (all?) other cases real experiences? Am I misunderstanding? Maybe the claim is that in all cases, OBEs are false memories reconstructed after the fact. Why would we entertain this possibility though? Is there any good reason to?

You asked "Am I misunderstanding?"

Yes, misunderstanding mine if you are asking me.

At least my points are not aligned with what I think you are saying in some of these statements.
Not even close.

Now as a moderator:

Without calling out any particular member or members, and without pointing to any specific instances of disrespect, I just want to remind members of our #1 rule, Respect, which has been broken in this thread, but which we're letting pass because we give members leeway in this regard during flare-ups.

Respect wasn't broken by me, Laird. I don't appeciate the 'six of one' and 'half a dozen of the other' you seem to be alluding to here. I was perfectly polite and yet you ignore this abuse which is ridiculous. 

"You are just being a rotten turd here, and a bully, and have no clue what you are talking about."

Anyway, I don't need protection from anyone, but if you're going to moderate at all, at least do it fairly.  

I for one, will apologize and try and get back on topic here.
So I'm sorry for fighting back and expressing what I was thinking Tim.
I'm sure you have your point, and I have mine. I will respect yours, please do the same.
I will be fair and peaceful. I expect the same.
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, and I will respect opinions, and expect the same in return.

[Laird]

Respect wasn't broken by me, Laird. I don't appeciate the 'six of one' and 'half a dozen of the other' you seem to be alluding to here. I was perfectly polite and yet you ignore this abuse which is ridiculous. 

"You are just being a rotten turd here, and a bully, and have no clue what you are talking about."

Anyway, I don't need protection from anyone, but if you're going to moderate at all, at least do it fairly.  

Given that response, tim, I affirm that both moderators view things the same way you do. You wrote nothing disrespectful, and the comment of Durward's that you quote was in particular disrespectful. The moderation statement to which you object was generic because Durward already feels like the bullied new kid, and singling him out for being disrespectful seemed to be unhelpful in dispelling that feeling. You're right, though, that - although it wasn't intended - the generic nature of the statement might seem to have implied that you, too, were disrespectful, which is unfair to you, and which is why I'm offering this clarification.