Discussion split from: NDE Multimedia Resource Thread

I don’t feel that at all. Funny how we all interpret, or feel exactly the same evidence individually.

BTW I'll delete this post as I have no wish to embarrass her at all. I do think this kind of psycho-twaddle has the potential to do a great deal of damage to serious NDE research, though.

Deleted :  

You need some of this then, Stan. Only $29. 

That’s not a lot of money, if it makes someone feel like it’s done them some good, I’m ok with that. People are fooling/harming themselves if they actually are fraudsters, and I think she’s unlikely to be stealing peoples pensions. If she is a rip off merchant, I would recommend that she takes up acting professionally. 

That’s not a lot of money, if it makes someone feel like it’s done them some good, I’m ok with that. People are fooling/harming themselves if they actually are fraudsters, and I think she’s unlikely to be stealing peoples pensions. If she is a rip off merchant, I would recommend that she takes up acting professionally. 

The money is not the point, Stan. She's claiming to be able to channel the light of "God"? (what exactly is that ?) through a computer or mobile, just for convenience of course. Sorry, but in my opinion, that is the most contemptible nonsense.

I didn’t quite follow your last sentence. If we really don’t know what any effect may be, how can we sensibly choose?

We make choices all the time don’t we? Whether to something or not. “Letting it be” sounds like a choice to me lol.

As far as the effect our choices have, as far as I can see we rarely know the true ramifications of the decisions we make and how they affect other people. I think we should try to make the best choice given what we know in any circumstances because, well we often have to don’t we?

As far as the effect our choices have, as far as I can see we rarely know the true ramifications of the decisions we make and how they affect other people. I think we should try to make the best choice given what we know in any circumstances because, well we often have to don’t we?

I agree. But perhaps we ought to reflect on what you say in the first sentence I quoted, and maybe think twice before doing anything.

I think we should try to make the best choice given what we know in any circumstances because, well we often have to don’t we?

Easy to say. How does one proceed from "what we know in any circumstances" to "make the best choice"?
For example, try to rationally evaluate some measure of "bestness"? What would constitute a measurement we could use? Or guess. Or toss a coin. Or follow some instinct?

[Laird]

Hey Steve,

I first responded aiming to address your musings in relation to the quote from the video, but on consideration, my response didn't take your musings into account well enough. This for me is the most interesting part of them:

I am reminded that nothing is straightforward, a lot of things have such nuance. So would people that have good intent, but end up doing more harm, be better following this path of doing nothing, but letting things be? Perhaps my wife and I may do more harm than good, while wishing only the best for our daughter?

These are pretty reasonable questions. There are plenty of examples of where intervention has proven worse than non-intervention - such as the introduction of the cane toad to Australia. My response that 'Everything that we do has some effect on "what is"' didn't hit the mark, although I do think it addresses the quote from the video (as much as it can without context).

You're right: it's not straightforward, not least because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which might seem to suggest that those who most lack the knowledge to make successful interventionist choices are least likely to realise it, and thus least likely to realise the need to abstain from those choices.

Another conundrum is the tension between the principle that acting quickly is likely to achieve the best outcome by averting ongoing harm, and the principle that delaying a choice so as to gain more knowledge so as to make a better-informed choice is likely to achieve the best outcome by improving the choice itself. Again, as you say: it's not straightforward.

As Obiwan says (paraphrased), all we can do is to try to make the best choices we can the best way we know how.

Hey Steve,

I first responded aiming to address your musings in relation to the quote from the video, but on consideration, my response didn't take your musings into account well enough. This for me is the most interesting part of them:


These are pretty reasonable questions. There are plenty of examples of where intervention has proven worse than non-intervention - such as the introduction of the cane toad to Australia. My response that 'Everything that we do has some effect on "what is"' didn't hit the mark, although I do think it addresses the quote from the video (as much as it can without context).

You're right: it's not straightforward, not least because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which might seem to suggest that those who most lack the knowledge to make successful interventionist choices are least likely to realise it, and thus least likely to realise the need to abstain from those choices.

Another conundrum is the tension between the principle that acting quickly is likely to achieve the best outcome by averting ongoing harm, and the principle that delaying a choice so as to gain more knowledge so as to make a better-informed choice is likely to achieve the best outcome by improving the choice itself. Again, as you say: it's not straightforward.

As Obiwan says (paraphrased), all we can do is to try to make the best choices we can the best way we know how.

There is more we can do. If things turn out badly, not to beat ourselves up about it. Sometimes there may be regrets afterwards when we begin to imagine that we didn't do very well or decided the wrong thing. Hindsight can lead to harsh self-recriminations. Maybe acceptance and forgiveness sometimes are needed.

 Sorry, but in my opinion, that is the most contemptible nonsense.

I laughed this off yesterday as just a grumpy comment, but on reflection, could it not rather easily be something written by Stephen Fry, Brian Cox or Alice Roberts about the majority of topics this forum is all about. The same contempt is there, the same certainty is there. 

What’s the difference? 

Tim, are you saying that you doubt that Jane Thompson actually had the experience?

My interest is in the NDE experience itself, I may well agree with Tim that we don’t know exactly what “the light of God” is, but the difference between Tim and I seems to be that I’m open to it being something real. In fact if it isn’t real, the ‘thing’ that makes NDE experiences ‘mind blowing’ for many can be thrown out the window! I remain open to the idea that an NDEr might well be able to retain this loving light and indeed transmit it across large distances, whatever their motives may be. 

The truth is I don’t know Jane Thompson personally, the same way I don’t know 99.9% of the people in such videos personally. So I basically listen to them all with an open mind, some I really vibe with, some I don’t. But I’d be surprised if I ever have shown the same contempt for anyone making such a video as Tim has here. And it is maybe not her personally that Tim is showing contempt for, it may be her ideas, or both, in fact that is how it appears to me. “What exactly is ‘the light of God?’” Where is the difference between proponents and skeptics if proponents like Tim sometimes display the same narrow mindedness?

Maybe I am too open minded? I have my limits though, but on reaching them I hope that I just let them fizzle out, like a sparkler at the end of its short life. 

It’s a tricky thing to do Tim, calling out one lady because of her actions and beliefs, but accepting others who tell similar stories. It makes the skeptics job a lot easier imo.

I watched that NDE video interview with Jane. I took it in two parts, the first, the description of the circumstances at the outset and the NDE account itself, that was interesting. The rest, I didn't feel strongly about, in fact I got bored rather easily and couldn't watch till the end. I'm not passing any judgement here, it's just that I find NDEs interesting. What people do or say afterwards much less so. It is widely accepted that a key part of the NDE is its ability to transform a person's life. That much we can also observe here. But in the end, afterwards, we just have an ordinary person going about her life, which is where I lose interest.