If qualia is real, why does it have to be paranormal

You're right Tim. Parnia describes under what circumstances it may be possible to successfully rescusitate a person. Once the cells have decayed or there is too much damage, the body is no longer viable for attempted rescucitation.

It is the case that under cold conditions in particular the cells may be preserved for many hours. But the person is by any ordinary definition, dead during those many hours.

It does not mean the brain is active and busily doing anything at all, quite the opposite.

This is cutting-edge medical science. I'm not referring to anything mysterious here.

The thing is Parnia wears two hats. Most of the time he is a medical doctor caring for seriously ill patients. Just some of the time he wears an alternate hat, where is is interested in consciousness.

Now Tim, to his credit, presents an elegant high level argument for why he believes. It's a reasonable argument. It might be partially testable. Ppl exist who claim to have tested it. The objections to it lie in trusting said tests and in independent reprocducibility. Further researchers have to feel its worth their time to reproduce.    But, invoking Parnia, one should note, Parnia think the brain is the agent of consciousness.

The last thing I want is to reduce any discussion to personalities but I hope I can get away with a polite observation. We have seen the appearance (usually followed by the quick disappearance) of people who come here with the expectation of bringing science to the woo-believers. Often they are surprised to find that science is not a taboo here and that we place great importance on research, albeit research by scientists who have actually bothered to take these subjects seriously rather than dismiss it all as wishful thinking and worthless anecdotes.

While you seem much more open and less inclined to dismiss our arguments in the usual pseudo-sceptical manner, you do seem to bring a certain patronising arrogance which seems to be the inevitable consequence of the belief that the weight of science is on your side. So I feel that I need to stress, as I have on many occasions, that most of us on this forum are very well aware of the demands of the scientific method. Of experimentation and repetition. However, as I am sure you will accept, these subjects don't always lend themselves to the scientific method and plenty of scientists would consider such research un-scientific (or even anti-scientific) to start with. Parnia has had to tread a a narrow path to guarantee acceptance of his research. He has clearly hedged his opinions on numerous occasions so as not to fall into the category of heretics occupied by the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin. In short, he has to face, to a much greater degree, the kind of patronising arrogance we here are used to from sceptics.

I once asked one of our regular sceptics whether he actually believed that every anecdote, every research experiment, any and all evidence of paranormal anomalies - masses of which we have been at pains to present in this forum and previously at Skeptiko - if he believed that not a single element of that mass was true. His simple answer was that he believed all of it was deception or delusion. 

Thus it often seems to me that, while we here are at pains to consider the science, those who come here to lead us back to the light of reason do so with a conviction that looks, to us, like unwavering faith. One of your early comments which seemed to dismiss NDE reports with the usual hand-wave anoxia explanation is an example of what I mean. If you want to be taken seriously here, then please take us seriously.

The sceptics always get it wrong and Steve...well, I've no idea what he's talking about.

I'm still waiting for Steve to link to a single thread where he has actually won an argument. I don't even mean one where I or anyone else concedes,

I just want a thread where he concludes with something other than a tantrum, rage-quit, or stubborn insistence that he - contrary to all intervening discussion/facts - is right.

I'm still waiting for Steve to link to a single thread where he has actually won an argument. I don't even mean one where I or anyone else concedes,

I just want a thread where he concludes with something other than a tantrum, rage-quit, or stubborn insistence that he - contrary to all intervening discussion/facts - is right.

How would you decide who ‘won’ a thread? Member vote?

The last thing I want is to reduce any discussion to personalities but I hope I can get away with a polite observation. We have seen the appearance (usually followed by the quick disappearance) of people who come here with the expectation of bringing science to the woo-believers. Often they are surprised to find that science is not a taboo here and that we place great importance on research, albeit research by scientists who have actually bothered to take these subjects seriously rather than dismiss it all as wishful thinking and worthless anecdotes.

While you seem much more open and less inclined to dismiss our arguments in the usual pseudo-sceptical manner, you do seem to bring a certain patronising arrogance which seems to be the inevitable consequence of the belief that the weight of science is on your side. So I feel that I need to stress, as I have on many occasions, that most of us on this forum are very well aware of the demands of the scientific method. Of experimentation and repetition. However, as I am sure you will accept, these subjects don't always lend themselves to the scientific method and plenty of scientists would consider such research un-scientific (or even anti-scientific) to start with. Parnia has had to tread a a narrow path to guarantee acceptance of his research. He has clearly hedged his opinions on numerous occasions so as not to fall into the category of heretics occupied by the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin. In short, he has to face, to a much greater degree, the kind of patronising arrogance we here are used to from sceptics.

I once asked one of our regular sceptics whether he actually believed that every anecdote, every research experiment, any and all evidence of paranormal anomalies - masses of which we have been at pains to present in this forum and previously at Skeptiko - if he believed that not a single element of that mass was true. His simple answer was that he believed all of it was deception or delusion. 

Thus it often seems to me that, while we here are at pains to consider the science, those who come here to lead us back to the light of reason do so with a conviction that looks, to us, like unwavering faith. One of your early comments which seemed to dismiss NDE reports with the usual hand-wave anoxia explanation is an example of what I mean. If you want to be taken seriously here, then please take us seriously.

There is an appetite for these reports and stories, and that demand creates a market. 

Thus, there will always be a lot of these reports driven by all sorts of desires and motives. 

It is a logical fallacy to say due to the number of these stories, at least one must be true.

An analogy might be with the number of ‘patriots’ that came forward with stories of fraud following the 2020 election. Surely some of these stories are true?

How would you decide who ‘won’ a thread? Member vote?

I explained the criteria in the post you're quoting?

There is an appetite for these reports and stories, and that demand creates a market. 

Thus, there will always be a lot of these reports driven by all sorts of desires and motives. 

It is a logical fallacy to say due to the number of these stories, at least one must be true.

An analogy might be with the number of ‘patriots’ that came forward with stories of fraud following the 2020 election. Surely some of these stories are true?

Sexual harassment in the workplace is closer to the varied reports of the paranormal than disputation of a single event.

Is every woman just hysterical or misreading cues or having post-coitus regret?

I explained the criteria in the post you're quoting?

Would still need an arbiter. I’m not sure that would be someone who considers ‘winning an argument’ the same as link dumping to fringe esoteric philosophers. 

Sexual harassment in the workplace is closer to the varied reports of the paranormal than disputation of a single event.

Single event? I admire your optimism. Lol.

I’ll stick to my analogy thanks.

Would still need an arbiter. I’m not sure that would be someone who considers ‘winning an argument’ the same as link dumping to fringe esoteric philosophers. 

I don't consider those posts winning an argument, just expanding the breadth of an argument. Unlike Steve I am not here to proselytize/convert people to my faith.

Let Steve pick a thread, if he can.