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

I think Physicalism would have to mean our very thoughts are illusory. In fact there are Physicalists/Materialists who make this argument, the Eliminativists. I agree with their arguments, I just think these very arguments show the position to be absurd.

Well, that depends. If you assume our thoughts are an illusion played out towards a separate self, then you might be right.
But if we see the self being part of the 'illusion', it becomes a whole other situation.

Hmm...so ignoring everything else that's been said in this thread so far cause it seems to have devolved into a bit of back and forth.

If qualia is real, it does not have to be paranormal. If consciousness is real, it does not even have to be nonphysical. There are many well argued positions out there supported by evidence saying that qualia and consciousness are very much completely reliant on the physical world and that there is nothing else. Not counting the stuff we talk about on this forum, there are a few things in regular science hinting at the fact that consciousness and qualia may pose a unique difficulty when it comes to explaining them. There's a reason why explaining consciousness with neuroscience beyond the 'mechanical' easy parts of it has not really advanced in what....50 years? And isn't advancing much now, despite numerous grand claims that the hard problem of consciousness is beginning to crumble away. If that's all the evidnece you want to go with, there's nothing wrong with betting on physicalism. It's a strong position. 

But then we have evidence coming from fields outside of regular science, big one of course being parapsychology. Should be pointed out that even in parapsychology there's no small number of people who subscribe to the idea that consciousness is purely physical and nothing else, but it's not entirely clear that that is the right answer. Generally things like pre cognition, telekenisis, bleeeehhh....mind reading are thought of as being mere extensions of what conscious or humans can do as is, there's not much that's "paranormal" about them. When we get into things like mediums, Out of Body Experiences, Near Death Experiences ect. however things get a bit more touchy. There's attempts to explain them via more physicalist methods, like things like Super Psi, but again it's not clear that they're the right answer. Mediums undergo triple blinded trials to see if they can recall information about people they've never even met, and they have very distinct interpretations of how information is received that makes it questionable whether regular PSI is the cause. Near Death Experiences are a whole ballpark of perceiving things when the brain is meant to be fully inactive, fit with correlations of accounts and weird similarities that make it questionable whether it's just brain malfunctions or PSI interpretations. 

Should also note that paranormal is a bit of a buzz word, really. Like supernatural. If ghosts are 'real', or mediums are legitimate, or pre cognition is possible, it is only weird up until we gain a better understanding of it. 'Paranormal' things can exist in a naturalistic interpretation of the world, we might just need to change our idea of what 'natural' means. 

So to answer your question, it doesn't have to be paranormal, but there's a decent chunk of evidence, if you're willing to look at it, that suggests that there's more to consciousness than what is traditionally thought, or at least stuff there that will make it even more difficult to explain than it already is. And even it does turn out that physicalism is false and something weird is going on, that just means we may have to change our idea of what 'normal' is, as we've done with numerous things in the past, rather than label qualia or consciousness as paranormal.

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?

You can't be serious, Malf ? You are actually suggesting that the phenomenon of NDE is being recreated and nurtured by book sales? That is so cynical it beggars belief. I'm not even going to bother explaining why. I don't think that comment is even worthy of you and your previous >closedmindedscepticism< , I mean you don't really believe that, surely ? You're not an idiot, Malf.

But you've never asked this of yourself, or been able to defend your position. Can you point to a thread where you actually managed to win an argument?

Even the JREF physicists laughed you off as memory serves.

I wonder all the time Sci. What you only hear et.al. from me and other skeptics that once played here is you all are wrong. That was never the message or the root of debate.  You see Sci, collectively you all are not listening to us. When the real reason me and others did play is to see if you all finally have an eureka moment. So far no eureka. This lack of a eureka includes all the decades prior to the birth of this forum in my experience. You know no skeptic has ever won an argument here. Your memory does not serve you well. I rarely comment there. 
For example how memory work against us. Shermer has not changed his point of view. He is still describes himself as a physicalist monist.Two months ago. The Shermer Show with Bernardo Kastrup

P.S. By replying, actually attacking personally as you did you are covertly supporting the collective we are right position. In all my time on Skeptiko and here, not once can I recall any skeptic making and unwarranted personal attack. Think about that.

I'm currently suffering from a bad back and typing this is hard work but I'm damn well going to do it.

Parnia's work is (arguably) the most important scientific endeavour currently being undertaken and is the only viable and satisfactory method of finally getting an answer to the biggest question of all, is consciousness produced by the brain or is it not. There can hardly be a more important question than that. 

I don't know how you sceptics seem to consistently misinterpret/misunderstand his research, it's quite bizarre, as if you would read a newspaper upside down because you don't like the headlines.

So just to remind you all (sceptics) This is the gist of where Parnia is at currently based on Aware 1. 

That thing that makes us into who we are, the mind, the self, the psyche, the soul, doesn't seem to be annihilated in the first period after death, a period in which the brain is no longer functioning. 

So that is mind without a brain !  If materialism was correct, then that shouldn't be possible, period. If the brain isn't functioning, the mind should disappear immediately but it doesn't and this guy has done the appropriate study. It's not opinion based, he's done the work. So I would argue that materialism has been falsified by science. 

I do agree, we need more data and more evidence before the whole paradigm collapses but I sure as hell can't envisage how your precious materialism is going to come out of this as the correct explanation.   

When you read this (I've posted it many times) do you just ignore it, Malf ?

I wonder all the time Sci. What you only hear et.al. from me and other skeptics that once played here is you all are wrong. That was never the message or the root of debate.  You see Sci, collectively you all are not listening to us. When the real reason me and others did play is to see if you all finally have an eureka moment. So far no eureka. This lack of a eureka includes all the decades prior to the birth of this forum in my experience. You know no skeptic has ever won an argument here. Your memory does not serve you well. I rarely comment there. 
For example how memory work against us. Shermer has not changed his point of view. He is still describes himself as a physicalist monist.Two months ago. The Shermer Show with Bernardo Kastrup

P.S. By replying, actually attacking personally as you did you are covertly supporting the collective we are right position. In all my time on Skeptiko and here, not once can I recall any skeptic making and unwarranted personal attack. Think about that.

Shermer is a f*cking idiot, (as regards his comments on psi) Steve. Come up with someone else.

Thanks, Sci and just to clarify, I'm not wrong in how I have framed the research according to Parnia and his colleagues. Entangled cat has either misunderstood what Parnia is talking about there (with the still active cells) or he is quoting the Daily Express, which continually misquotes Parnia. 

Parnia is only referring to the viability of brain cells after the heart has stopped and for how long those brain cells can survive, so that the patient can be brought back. He's not referring to consciousness as such, but his position that consciousness continues in the first period after death is still the same. 

I don't have time tonight to elaborate, though, but I'm not sure I really want to keep repeating the message, nor the forum wants to hear it (again I'm sure). The sceptics always get it wrong and Steve...well, I've no idea what he's talking about.

I was for example listening to what he was saying in this interview.

Yes, he waS talking about the viability of cells being brought back

He was also talking about brain cells being still active
and the concept of "death" being arbitrary 

Despite the fact his interviewer is clearly "into" crystals,
he made no claims about souls or consciousness outsde
the brain. He suggested the patient was still aware of
what was going around him.

Tim is welcometo his own interpretation of Parnia's
data but Dr Parnia himself doesn't agree with Tim.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz_4FGdWVF8 <=== "I am not religious myself", obviously some doctors are. It's an important question

Shermer is a f*cking idiot, (as regards his comments on psi) Steve. Come up with someone else.

An idiot? How so? I mean, one has to take Dr Shermer
with a grain of salt. His expertise is in something soft
like philosophy of science, (you can compare him to aganistic David Berlinski
who is "open to intelligent design" based on the perceived complexity of evolution).

Shermer's claim is, we should agree that effects are real
and be more careful about what conclusions we draw.

I was for example listening to what he was saying in this interview.

Yes, he waS talking about the viability of cells being brought back

He was also talking about brain cells being still active
and the concept of "death" being arbitrary 

Despite the fact his interviewer is clearly "into" crystals,
he made no claims about souls or consciousness outsde
the brain. He suggested the patient was still aware of
what was going around him.

Tim is welcometo his own interpretation of Parnia's
data but Dr Parnia himself doesn't agree with Tim.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz_4FGdWVF8 <=== "I am not religious myself", obviously some doctors are. It's an important question

The viability of the brain cells (after cardiac arrest the first stage of death) is nothing to do with his statements about consciousness continuing. You're completely misunderstanding this. 

After cardiac arrest, the blood flow into the brain stops, along with all the nutrients and energy needed to sustain it (so the experts tell us). He's explaining that the cells are still viable after death, they haven't burst (died) in the first period (after death) as was once thought. 

He's not suggesting that those cells are somehow providing consciousness after death. He's saying that the brain will work again without damage if the appropriate measures are implemented. 

Brain cells (neurons) are not consciousness in themselves, they are either the producer (as Malf, Steve001, Paul and Linda believe) or the harbourer (as we believe) but they are not identical to/with it. 

What happens when we die? Ask the brain - YouTube Just click on 3.16 and note that the video has been mislabelled (ask the brain) which is typical.

@5.45  they have a perception that their self is detached from the body. They are able to watch things, and they don’t feel any pain. They don’t feel any discomfort. They're in complete peace. They know they’re being declared dead, but they have no distress about it and they are watching everything”

An idiot? How so? I mean, one has to take Dr Shermer
with a grain of salt. His expertise is in something soft
like philosophy of science, (you can compare him to aganistic David Berlinski
who is "open to intelligent design" based on the perceived complexity of evolution).

Shermer's claim is, we should agree that effects are real
and be more careful about what conclusions we draw.

He behaves in an idiotic manner when dealing with certain areas of psi/science, like a showman, the go to 'rent a sceptic'. He still proposes oxygen starvation for the cause of NDE's after 40 years, which is just plain stupid. 

He's never read a serious book on NDE's because his position is that it can't happen, so it doesn't happen and he doesn't need to look at the evidence.

I don't know why I'm engaging with you (as a sceptic) in this conversation. However you are polite and pleasant as I've said. But I think I've had enough to be honest and I won't be able to change your mind, for sure, and of course you're wasting your time, too.