Leslie Kean's new Netflix documentary

Was I to dismiss these "ghost" stories as mere fantasy or did this offer hope in the face of my own fears? So I have dedicated a lot of my own time to reading about such phenomena. I have weighed the evidence and sought to form personal philosophy which can accommodate such evidence without veering into the realms of religious faith or magical thinking. The views of those I would otherwise identify with are still important to me and still cause me to doubt my own conclusions but I must say that I find it ironic that those who profess to have no faith often act as though they are in the thrall of some compelling dogma.

This is kind of what I mean though. Now im certainly not religious, and I approached parapsychology with a degree of nervousness about death too but I had already come to the firm materialist conclusion so was ready to accept the results either way. But this, it almost feels like sometimes we want to give up evidence just to be with the majority view. 

Because all of us here will read things and be well informed but when people who have read nothing about any of the topics or even read things that are outright wrong, decide to come in and say you're wrong there's a weird urge to agree. Like not being ridiculed for your beliefs is more valuable than the evidence that has made them up. That's something I've been coming to terms with recently, that I can't bend to the majority. Doubt is certainly fine, without out it we'd be nutjobs, but can't let my opinions be swayed just to fit in.

The consensus asserts a powerful authority which we tend to believe is too powerful for us to question. But this is a consensus among people who, though highly educated and knowledgeable, are not well informed in these matters as you rightly point out. Paradigm shift involves dissolving and replacing the consensus and, as Sciborg has already mentioned, there are signs of that starting to take place.

Failing that, I'm definitely going to say "I told you so" when I meet my critics on the other side. 

I'm honestly starting to think that some militant atheists are deliberately cherry-picking it and giving ridiculously low reviews just for the fun of it:

If there are leprechauns? Can pigs really fly? Is grandma sitting at the table 22 years after she burned up in the house fire? Is uncle James still in his room at night even though a trade tower crushed him flat? These are questions that science is NOT asking. Why is anyone curious about after death? I enjoy sci-fi as much as the next guy, but will I still enjoy it after I am dead? Yup, Uncle James and I will tune in!

That isn't even a review lol. No idea what I'm supposed to get from this nonsense. 

But yes, like you said Smaw, I don't like feeling 'isolated' or made to feel ashamed because of this stuff and ignorant people overreacting. I'm not expecting glowing reviews because overall the documentary was disappointing and very flawed (one of the mediums presented apparently, a Dutch woman, was allegedly found to be fraudulent and using hot reading for example).

As far as I've seen website and youtube reviews have been fairly positive.As far as I've seen website and youtube reviews have been fairly positive.

What did you mean by the website reviews? 

I've checked over Twitter and responses seem fairly mixed, but again most find the 'Tommy' medium laughable, and I can see why. They shouldn't have included mediumship IMO because there's such a stigma against it. No matter what study or test they performed people would just accuse it of being fake. They weren't comfortable with the 'medium training centre' either. 

I wish more focus was given to the NDEs, Reincarnation cases, Deathbed Visions etc. than much weaker, more easily faked evidence. Most people seem to be praising the first and last episodes even on Reddit, but rightfully aren't being dismissive of the whole series.

I can't speak for Omni but I have often asked myself why those opinions bother me. The fact is that, among the people I would otherwise identify with - the people who respect research, science and truth over fabrication and delusion, the majority view is opposed to mine on these subjects. So I ask myself, what is it that convinces me but not them? 

All I can say is that I was drawn to these subjects out of a very real fear of the approaching end of my life. Everything I have ever had to wait for - sometimes for years - eventually arrives and it was as clear to me when I was 10 years old as it is now that I am almost 70 that so too will the time of my own death arrive. Had I gone along with the prevailing view of my friends and peers I would have been convinced that death means oblivion and that terrifies me for some reason. On the other hand, I was told stories by my elders who had lost family in WW2 about strange appearances of those who had died on the battlefield yet stood there in the bedroom, trying to communicate the fact that they live on.

Was I to dismiss these "ghost" stories as mere fantasy or did this offer hope in the face of my own fears? So I have dedicated a lot of my own time to reading about such phenomena. I have weighed the evidence and sought to form personal philosophy which can accommodate such evidence without veering into the realms of religious faith or magical thinking. The views of those I would otherwise identify with are still important to me and still cause me to doubt my own conclusions but I must say that I find it ironic that those who profess to have no faith often act as though they are in the thrall of some compelling dogma.

I'm not attempting to counsel you, Dave, that would be rather patronising, but if you parse through the data (and there is an awful lot of it) you'll never experience this 'death' you know is coming to you (a black pit or however you foresee it). 

Consciousness (based on the data we have) just seems to carry on and dare I say (but I'm sure you are well aware) that it's a pleasant experience for most people. Of course I'm not 'recommending' death, we can't live like that. 

The alternative is that what I've just said is all nonsense. Death is the end, it's terrifying, horrible, painful, scary. But if that's the case there should be plenty of data to back that up but I don't see much of it.

On the contrary from Erwin Brucker :

In many conversations, patients told him how they had arrived at the core of their existence in emergency situations.

Dr. Brucker describes their experiences. There is the man who has had his bowels perforated several times during an operation. There is the motorist, who lands (after an accident) in the embankment on the highway. There is the woman with a busted appendix. And all have something in common: "Suddenly, these people are outside their bodies, seeing what is going on, without first realizing that it is their own body," says the specialist in psychiatry. 

"It's only when they move closer (to their bodies) that they see that it's actually themselves that the people are concerned about." The patients describe intense sensory impressions, a kind of intermediate world, and report a tunnel and bright light through which they have approached a world beyond. Just like the patient who was "over there" and came to the conclusion: "We do not need to be afraid." After that, Dr. Brucker had the urge to write everything down. "I just could not keep it to myself." 

So after rewatching the first episode, I recall that both Greyson and Fenwick made some points about the brain 'not functioning'. Is this the same thing as brain death? Because as I understand it, they're not meaning that the brain is necessarily completely 'dead', but that the parts relevant associated with ensuring consciousness experience occurs aren't functioning properly e.g. the brainstem. So effectively, they may as well be dead. 

The attention to the Pam Reynolds case was surprising, especially the inclusion of the actual surgeons. I imagine Woerlee is probably furious. But it is a shame they didn't spend more time on Veridical NDEs...like Kimberly Clarke Sharpe's, who was featured in the documentary! 

Interesting that Greyson made the point about how all science began with collecting anecdotes. Granted I feel that's an oversimplification, but he's not technically wrong, especially when it came to investigating phenomena. 

I find it funny how a few complained of there being no mention of DMT...which shows that they didn't pay attention to what Greyson did say about drugs. I think the real shame is that although they do mention some skeptical arguments still used today, they probably didn't explore them enough for some people. But people claiming there wasn't any skepticism are just flat-out lying. 

Fenwick was also charming and funny. I loved the fact he subtlety addressed the deep brain activity argument (I think?) when he talks about those who say 'oh but there's this bit of the brain you might have missed' as misunderstanding consciousness and the assumed requirements for it. 

This comes to the point though that Bruce Greyson makes about flatlining that had me confused. He says after 20 seconds of the heart stopping, you flatline and 'have no brain activity'. But doesn't that depend on whether you're using an ECG or an EEG? He elaborates on this with the Pam Reynolds case, explaining that she had no brain activity according to her EEG.

I'm hoping he didn't accidentally conflate the terms there, but then I also understand that he's probably referring to the brainstem in laymen's terms. Hasn't Parnia said there's evidence of brain activity after 20 seconds? I'm not sure, that part had me very confused...

So after rewatching the first episode, I recall that both Greyson and Fenwick made some points about the brain 'not functioning'. Is this the same thing as brain death? Because as I understand it, they're not meaning that the brain is necessarily completely 'dead', but that the parts relevant associated with ensuring consciousness experience occurs aren't functioning properly e.g. the brainstem. So effectively, they may as well be dead. 

The attention to the Pam Reynolds case was surprising, especially the inclusion of the actual surgeons. I imagine Woerlee is probably furious. But it is a shame they didn't spend more time on Veridical NDEs...like Kimberly Clarke Sharpe's, who was featured in the documentary! 

Interesting that Greyson made the point about how all science began with collecting anecdotes. Granted I feel that's an oversimplification, but he's not technically wrong, especially when it came to investigating phenomena. 

I find it funny how a few complained of there being no mention of DMT...which shows that they didn't pay attention to what Greyson did say about drugs. I think the real shame is that although they do mention some skeptical arguments still used today, they probably didn't explore them enough for some people. But people claiming there wasn't any skepticism are just flat-out lying. 

Fenwick was also charming and funny. I loved the fact he subtlety addressed the deep brain activity argument (I think?) when he talks about those who say 'oh but there's this bit of the brain you might have missed' as misunderstanding consciousness and the assumed requirements for it. 

This comes to the point though that Bruce Greyson makes about flatlining that had me confused. He says after 20 seconds of the heart stopping, you flatline and 'have no brain activity'. But doesn't that depend on whether you're using an ECG or an EEG? I'm hoping he didn't accidentally conflate the terms there.

The brain not functioning is not the same as brain death. According to experts, brain death is the irreversible loss of brain function ie when the component parts of the brain, the various lobes or the brain stem have been too badly damaged for it to work again for whatever reason. 

After a cardiac arrest, the electrical and chemical activity between the neurons disappears (experts tell us) within 10-20 seconds, but if the patient is brought back ie his/her heart is re-started, they may recover their brain function. So although their brains may have been 'dead' at least in regard to their ability to support consciousness, the cells were still viable and there was no physical damage. 

The problem is that the various terms tend to get mixed up and it gets rather confusing. 

ECG is the measurement (from the device named the ECG) of electrical activity in the heart. EEG (from the EEG device) is the measurement in the brain.

Thanks for that clarification tim. They probably should have clarified that better in the doc. I say this because some reveiwer on IMDB falsely claimed they say that 'a flat ECG means brain death' but they never once said 'brain death' in the documentary. 

I've already seen one YT review between two cyncial guys of the series and they only really found the episode on reincarnation convincing. Why? Because Joe Rogan and his DMT theory are somehow more authentic than the two expert scientists/doctors in the series. Give me a break...

Oh, and I wanted to bang my head against the table when one of them says, referring to the Pam Reynolds case, "she could have looked up her illness online in a video on YT and the instruments used on her". Are you kidding me?

YouTube was created in 2005. The video footage shown from 2005 is not when she had the experience, which was in the early 1990s. I find it doubtful that she could have just 'looked up' and memorised the tools or whatever given what was available online in 1991. Unless of course Reynolds was a time traveller 

After a cardiac arrest, the electrical and chemical activity between the neurons disappears (experts tell us) within 10-20 seconds, but if the patient is brought back ie his/her heart is re-started, they may recover their brain function. So although their brains may have been 'dead' at least in regard to their ability to support consciousness, the cells were still viable and there was no physical damage.

This also seems to be the case with Replacement Reincarnation, where only after the seeming death and sudden recovery is there a new personality with new memories.

I suspect it won't ever be popular in the arguments for Survival because it is rather creepy to think of others suddenly slipping into our skins, but I believe when bundled with other case types it really does give us a sense the body is a kind of "sleeve" for the psyche.

Similar to how I could be in the middle of an arcade game, then have to leave but let someone else take over the session I bought with my quarters.

This also seems to be the case with Replacement Reincarnation, where only after the seeming death and sudden recovery is there a new personality with new memories.

I suspect it won't ever be popular in the arguments for Survival because it is rather creepy to think of others suddenly slipping into our skins, but I believe when bundled with other case types it really does give us a sense the body is a kind of "sleeve" for the psyche.

Similar to how I could be in the middle of an arcade game, then have to leave but let someone else take over the session I bought with my quarters.

Do you mean what is termed a walk in, Sci ? It's beyond my boggle factor but if we survive, it can't be ruled out, I guess.

Thanks for that clarification tim. They probably should have clarified that better in the doc. I say this because some reveiwer on IMDB falsely claimed they say that 'a flat ECG means brain death' but they never once said 'brain death' in the documentary. 

I've already seen one YT review between two cyncial guys of the series and they only really found the episode on reincarnation convincing. Why? Because Joe Rogan and his DMT theory are somehow more authentic than the two expert scientists/doctors in the series. 

Oh, and I wanted to bang my head against the table when one of them says, referring to the Pam Reynolds case, "she could have looked up her illness online in a video on YT and the instruments used on her". Are you kidding me?

YouTube was created in 2005. The video footage shown from 2005 is not when she had the experience, which was in the early 1990s. I find it doubtful that she could have just 'looked up' and memorised the tools or whatever given what was available online in 1991. Unless of course Reynolds was a time traveller 

The sceptics will say anything, Omni, doesn't matter how far fetched, anything at all  is always better. 

Just for the record, Pam Reynolds (apparently) went to see Dr Spetzler on a Wednesday and had surgery the next day, Thursday morning beginning at 7.30. There was no guided tour of the operation room to show her the instruments (particularly the bone saw) as some idiots have proposed (firstly they don't do that and secondly she would have been even more terrified than she already was). 

Her experience with all the veridical observations was reported as soon as she woke up some hours later (too soon they told her) to Karl Greene who immediately went to his boss Spetzler to tell him that she was telling him things that she shouldn't know.

The majority of so called sceptics are not worth listening to. That's not exactly all I'd like to say but it's best if I avoid being rude.