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

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. 

My mind has been changed before. So it's untrue you
can never change my mind. For example, I used to
believe the fat hypothesis, I was once a born again
Christian.   Your goal should however to refine
your own articulation of your thoughts.

Given Shermer's interests and his lack of gainful employment elsewhere, 
I'd be shocked if he never read a serious book
on NDEs. He has made debunking his job.  He certainly is biased
but he probably read studies.

His brain hypothesis is partially routed in his
person experience. He suffered an hallucination
during a biking accident.   If one envisions
two opposing hypotheses, we pretty well have 
something happening to the brain vs brain
not being involved.

My mind has been changed before. So it's untrue you
can never change my mind. For example, I used to
believe the fat hypothesis, I was once a born again
Christian.   Your goal should however to refine
your own articulation of your thoughts.

Given Shermer's interests and his lack of gainful employment elsewhere, 
I'd be shocked if he never read a serious book
on NDEs. He has made debunking his job.  He certainly is biased
but he probably read studies.

His brain hypothesis is partially routed in his
person experience. He suffered an hallucination
during a biking accident.   If one envisions
two opposing hypotheses, we pretty well have 
something happening to the brain vs brain
not being involved.

Michael Shermer » Skeptical About Skeptics 
                  
He particularly warns his readers against people who have ideologies to pursue, whose pattern of thinking “consistently ignores or distorts data not for creative purposes but for ideological agendas”. Unfortunately he himself has an ideology to pursue and makes untruthful and pseudoscientific claims.

For example, in his “Skeptic” column in Scientific American in March 2003, Shermer cited a research study published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal, by Pim van Lommel and colleagues (Near death experiences in survivors of cardiac arrest).

He asserted this study “delivered a blow” to the idea that the mind and the brain could separate. 

Yet the researchers stated the exact opposite, and showed that conscious experience took place during a period of clinical death when the brain was flatlined. As Jay Ingram, of the Canadian Discovery Channel, commented: “His use of this study to bolster his point is bogus … He could have said, ‘The authors think there’s a mystery, but I choose to interpret their findings differently’. But he didn’t. I find that very disappointing.” (Toronto Star, March 16, 2003).

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.

I will look into your video.

My understanding of neuroscience is highly limited but I believe
to have consciousness, you need a huge number of neurons
working together. Back when I got my C+ in grade 10
biology, "our" understanding of the brain was much more
primitive than it is today.

I gather Dr Parnia's articulation of his thoughts were 
pretty clear in the interview he linked.   My guess is,
his personal philosophy is closer to mine. One can
be spiritual and materialistic without contradiction.
He clearly respects ppl who aren't materialists.   One
cannot magically prove materialism is "right". It's 
an axiom.

I will look into your video.

My understanding of neuroscience is highly limited but I believe
to have consciousness, you need a huge number of neurons
working together. Back when I got my C+ in grade 10
biology, "our" understanding of the brain was much more
primitive than it is today.

I gather Dr Parnia's articulation of his thoughts were 
pretty clear in the interview he linked.   My guess is,
his personal philosophy is closer to mine. One can
be spiritual and materialistic without contradiction.
He clearly respects ppl who aren't materialists.   One
cannot magically prove materialism is "right". It's 
an axiom.

Just to add, I'm not a neuroscientist or expert in any way, nor do I claim to be. The information is there for anyone to look at if they choose to. I always try to make sure I don't post anything without a good basis for doing so. Thanks for the discussion !

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.

Please, you constantly insinuate others - even professional scientists - who disagree with you have been tempted away from intellectual truths. Even in this very thread you're insulting the proponents in this forum.

The number of times you've called the neuroscientist Tallis a "damned fool" for not believing in the materialist-faith...you've yet to give us an actual counter-argument. You don't win arguments because you simply lack an[y] genuine intellectual stance, you just insist you are right over & over.

And you're forgetting the personal attack you made against Maaneli, a pro-Psi physicist, but I guess that wasn't to him directly. Instead you ran away to JREF to call him a "woo-monger of the worst kind" behind his back in hopes of getting physicists there to come to Skeptiko. Instead they laughed you off and said they weren't interested in wasting their lives like you were.

One would think in the intervening years you'd learn some physics. Instead you managed to think field effects referred to Psi on this forum...

As for Shermer, here's some of his thoughts:

The “new mysterians,” Flanagan says, contend that consciousness can never be explained because of the limitations of human cognition...I contend that not only consciousness but also free will and God are mysterian problems—not because we are not yet smart enough to solve them but because they can never be solved, not even in principle, relating to how the concepts are conceived in language. Call those of us in this camp the “final mysterians.”

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.

To paraphrase Peter Hankins:

"If consciousness is an illusion, who precisely is being fooled?"

My understanding of neuroscience is highly limited but I believe
to have consciousness, you need a huge number of neurons
working together. Back when I got my C+ in grade 10
biology, "our" understanding of the brain was much more
primitive than it is today.

But this just runs into the very problem Sam Harris brings up.

If each neuron has no consciousness, how does the summation of Nothing give us Something?

To paraphrase Peter Hankins:

"If consciousness is an illusion, who precisely is being fooled?"

If the self is part of the illusion, nobody is fooled.
That is the point I tried to make.

If the self is part of the illusion, nobody is fooled.
That is the point I tried to make.

Illusions refer to a sensory deception.

How can there be no one being fooled?

I think those of the physicalist faith just use the word "illusion" inappropriately, because what they want to believe is somehow consciousness can be reduced to the physical. This makes no obvious sense, so then consciousness has to be "illusory" to make their religious belief work.

It's not much different than creationists who say Satan put fossils in the ground to trick us.