A new Guardian article on near-death experiences

And by this reasoning both the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot are real too.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot

I invite you to “individually and credibly debunk in detail every single one of these cases”

As I expected, you refuse to really look at the actual data, and without substantiation simply claim it’s flimsy and equivalent to Loch Ness monster and bigfoot sighting reports, despite the existence of many much higher quality multiply witnessed and verified accounts of paranormal extrasensory perception during NDEs. 

How about actually credibly debunking some of the detailed cases given in the book I cited?

To start with, just as an example to establish bona fides in this claim, please debunk in detail the following case, documented in pages 95-103 of the the book I cited: this case is of the (then) 35-year-old American singer-songwriter, Pamela (Pam) Reynolds (1956–2010).

Remember, to be successful and credible in your claim that genuine veridical NDE OBEs and other NDE paranormal phenomena do not exist, and that all the veridical NDE data is useless anecdotal rubbish, you have to do this for every single one of the more than 120 cases given in the 2nd edition of The Self Does Not Die.

And by this reasoning both the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot are real too.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot

I invite you to “individually and credibly debunk in detail every single one of these cases”

Well I wouldn't rule either out but I don't think you are really setting up the bar in a balanced way here.

These monster sightings take place in more isolated areas, without any a priori reason to think we would find evidence.

But since the materialist faith is illogical, and the cases for NDEs stretch across history and in modern times include medical professionals who corroborate what patients saw, the level of witness testimony in those cases is quite high.

Is it possible every single one of the NDE claims is a lie? Yes but it doesn't seem like a plausible explanation, unless one entertains false priors like the materialism being true. Even one has an extraordinary belief like Materialism there's no real grasp on what "matter" is supposed to be.

We can also assume all the observations in history that were not documented by videotape are a lie, but this again seems like a position of extreme disbelief to me...Similarly one can posit Psi explanations of some variety for NDEs but to simply insist all the people who've claimed/corroborated the OOBE aspects were mistaken or lying seems like extreme act of disbelief.

I guess I'll still bother to furnish one quote, only because it shows the poor and biased quality of the thinking. Any physical brain function-based theory of NDEs has to contend with the empirical evidence of the many veridical NDE OBEs. Predictably, the article hardly mentions this problem except to dismiss it with an imperious scientismistic hand-wave:

Oh they quoted Blackmore but her research work in parapsycholoy has been criticized heavily, seems like she went into pseudoskepticism for the money and fame.

Berger finally concluded:

“Blackmore’s claims that her database shows no evidence of psi are unfounded, because the vast majority of her studies were carelessly designed, executed, and reported, and in Blackmore’s own assessment, individually flawed. As such, no conclusions should be drawn from this database…. Blackmore is extremely vocal in decrying psi research in her writings, on television and radio, and before the skeptical advocacy group CSICOP (the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), citing her own work as the basis for her strong convictions. … [She] has achieved a notable position in the skeptical community based on her conversion from believer to skeptic during her “ten years of negative research.” Her insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, I believe that my review of her psi research has achieved a constructive end by showing that her conversion from parapsychologist to CSICOP Fellow had no scientific basis in her own experimental work.”

The same journal issue also includes a response by Blackmore to Berger’s critique, in which Blackmore conceded “I agree that one cannot draw conclusions about the reality of psi based on these experiments.” Near the end of his critique Berger had written “During my aborted meta-analysis of Blackmore’s published work, I was struck by patterns in the data suggestive of the operation of psi…. Without a serious meta-analysis of the original unpublished source material, complete with weighting for flaws…the issue of whether the Blackmore experiments show evidence for psi cannot be resolved.” Presumably eager to nip this embarrassment in the bud, Blackmore hastened to say “I am glad to be able to agree with his final conclusion – ‘that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted.’”

Well I wouldn't rule either out but I don't think you are really setting up the bar in a balanced way here.

These monster sightings take place in more isolated areas, without any a priori reason to think we would find evidence.

But since the materialist faith is illogical, and the cases for NDEs stretch across history and in modern times include medical professionals who corroborate what patients saw, the level of witness testimony in those cases is quite high.

Is it possible every single one of the NDE claims is a lie? Yes but it doesn't seem like a plausible explanation, unless one entertains false priors like the materialism being true. Even one has an extraordinary belief like Materialism there's no real grasp on what "matter" is supposed to be.

We can also assume all the observations in history that were not documented by videotape are a lie, but this again seems like a position of extreme disbelief to me...Similarly one can posit Psi explanations of some variety for NDEs but to simply insist all the people who've claimed/corroborated the OOBE aspects were mistaken or lying seems like extreme act of disbelief.

I've noticed that you hold a very binary view on philosophical matters. It seems to be either NDEs are exactly as you and others here wish them to be, or materialism holds true. In reality, many contemporary philosophers explore a wide range of ideas between these two extremes. For instance, consciousness might be an emergent, non-reproducible phenomenon that dissipates with bodily death. It would require divine insight to dismiss this idea outright. That's the essence of metaphysics: entertaining various ideas, even if they can't be conclusively disproved. Similarly, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be disproved, regardless of one's personal stance on the matter.

Regarding quality of evidence I disagree with the assertion that I'm not creating a level playing field with the Bigfoot evidence. Although largely anecdotal, similar to 'paranormal' aspects of NDEs, there are photographs from the pre-digital era that purport to prove Bigfoot's existence.

I've noticed that you hold a very binary view on philosophical matters. It seems to be either NDEs are exactly as you and others here wish them to be, or materialism holds true. In reality, many contemporary philosophers explore a wide range of ideas between these two extremes. For instance, consciousness might be an emergent, non-reproducible phenomenon that dissipates with bodily death. It would require divine insight to dismiss this idea outright. That's the essence of metaphysics: entertaining various ideas, even if they can't be conclusively disproved. Similarly, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be disproved, regardless of one's personal stance on the matter.

Regarding quality of evidence I disagree with the assertion that I'm not creating a level playing field with the Bigfoot evidence. Although largely anecdotal, similar to 'paranormal' aspects of NDEs, there are photographs from the pre-digital era that purport to prove Bigfoot's existence.

Yes, it just might be, as long as a boatload of converging evidence from disparate paranormal sources is closed-mindedly dismissed out of hand, especially from NDEs, cases of the reincarnation type (CORTs), and mediumistic communications. And as for consciousness having "emerged" from special configurations of matter and energy in motion, ever heard of the Hard Problem of consciousness? Qualia, conscious awareness and perception, are real because we continually experience them, but also are immaterial and of an existentially, fundamentally, different order of reality than the physical. Unless you think for instance that perception of the color red has wavelength, weight, velocity, spacial location, etc.

And it just won't do to claim that emergence of mind from matter is analogous to new physical properties emerging from special combinations and configurations of matter and energy, like the property of "liquidity" from the properties of H2O molecules in a certain temperature range. The problem with that is the fact that the property of liquidity is still basically physical and is composed of various physical parameters in the same existential order of physical reality as that of the H2O molecules, whereas consciousness and its various properties such as awareness, thought and perception are in an entirely different and higher existential realm than matter and energy. The "emergence" you refer to as a likely possibility is akin to magic or some sort.

"Regarding quality of evidence I disagree with the assertion that I'm not creating a level playing field with the Bigfoot evidence."   This is itself your own bare assertion with virtually no evidence presented for it.

I've noticed that you hold a very binary view on philosophical matters. It seems to be either NDEs are exactly as you and others here wish them to be, or materialism holds true. In reality, many contemporary philosophers explore a wide range of ideas between these two extremes. For instance, consciousness might be an emergent, non-reproducible phenomenon that dissipates with bodily death. It would require divine insight to dismiss this idea outright. That's the essence of metaphysics: entertaining various ideas, even if they can't be conclusively disproved. Similarly, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be disproved, regardless of one's personal stance on the matter.

Regarding quality of evidence I disagree with the assertion that I'm not creating a level playing field with the Bigfoot evidence. Although largely anecdotal, similar to 'paranormal' aspects of NDEs, there are photographs from the pre-digital era that purport to prove Bigfoot's existence.

Yeah you didn't understand my argument and/or I poorly communicated it, so let me attempt to clarify -> Regarding the first bolded part I've posted about a variety of metaphysical arguments that reject a personal afterlife or any afterlife. So there isn't a dichotomy between materialist being false and survival being true, as I've noted a few times on this forum.

------------------------
edit: Also I presented an alternative for NDEs besides Survival in my last post?

Similarly one can posit Psi explanations of some variety for NDEs but to simply insist all the people who've claimed/corroborated the OOBE aspects were mistaken or lying seems like extreme act of disbelief.

-----------------------

But there are a variety of events across history that happened before the invention of cameras or live video recording. There are events today that are reported on by journalists, and cases that require witness testimony because nothing was recorded. 

Most of us believe that many of these unrecorded events happen - sometimes due to the volume of anecdotes, sometimes due to the quality of the witnesses. It also helps that now we can see the interviews, read people in their own words, etc.

Regarding Cryptids I don't rule them out, any more than I rule out many Deep Weird cases, but they are anomalies from our expectations. But given Materialism is false, we do have reason to think Consciousness is not reducible to brain function. This doesn't mean Survival is true, just that NDEs provide evidence for something that is in accordance with valid philosophical conclusion.

With NDEs we have both a volume of anecdotes and quality witnesses. If we reject the materialist belief system that says NDEs are impossible, we are left with a good reason to take NDEs seriously. This doesn't mean one has to believe in personal survival, but rather that dismissing this research without actually countering good cases seems like arguing in bad faith.

There's also the places where NDEs occur & how they have convinced people involved with the NDEr's medical care, in addition to the commonalities between Survival evidence types. 

edit: Also the fact that trying to explain whatever "matter" and the "physical" are have led us toward Fine Tuning and the varied interpretations of QM that say Consciousness is at the Ground level of reality. Not to say one has to accept Fine Tuning is due to mental causation or that QM requires Consciousness, but these are valid interpretations in line with Survival & Psi evidence. Which are all in line with the metaphysical arguments for an irreducible Consciousness.

And it just won't do to claim that emergence of mind from matter is analogous to new physical properties emerging from special combinations and configurations of matter and energy, like the property of "liquidity" from the properties of H2O molecules in a certain temperature range. The problem with that is the fact that the property of liquidity is still basically physical and is composed of various physical parameters in the same existential order of physical reality as that of the H2O molecules, whereas consciousness and its various properties such as awareness, thought and perception are in an entirely different and higher existential realm than matter and energy. The "emergence" you refer to as a likely possibility is akin to magic or some sort.

Again, you rely on 'divine insight' to make claims for which there is no evidence. The notion that the world can only be understood from a bottom-up perspective is an unproven assumption borne out of reductionism. Contrary to this, there exists a considerable body of objective facts (as opposed to the often-mentioned speculative claims on this forum) that highlights the shortcomings of this assumption. Examples include the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics, emerging ambiguities in various cosmological observations, and the failure of genetic and epigenetic information to foster advancements in medicine. The principle of emergence is gaining traction as a mainstream perspective in understanding complex systems. For more information, see https://bigthink.com/13-8/reductionism-v...hilosophy/.

Again, you rely on 'divine insight' to make claims for which there is no evidence. The notion that the world can only be understood from a bottom-up perspective is an unproven assumption borne out of reductionism. Contrary to this, there exists a considerable body of objective facts (as opposed to the often-mentioned speculative claims on this forum) that highlights the shortcomings of this assumption. Examples include the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics, emerging ambiguities in various cosmological observations, and the failure of genetic and epigenetic information to foster advancements in medicine. The principle of emergence is gaining traction as a mainstream perspective in understanding complex systems. For more information, see https://bigthink.com/13-8/reductionism-v...hilosophy/.

Again, there is no specific refutation of my reasoning regarding the mythology of "emergence" in philosophy of mind, just some more general assertions. What exactly are my errors?

Again, there is no specific refutation of my reasoning regarding the mythology of "emergence" in philosophy of mind, just some more general assertions. What exactly are my errors?

so nbtruthman, when you can prove how molecular structures can be reduced to quantum mechanics you can claim you have refuted emergence! Until then emergence is a credible explanation for consciousness.

see https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...-chemistry