Mega-Thread: Contrary and Confusing Claims about Parnia, Greyson and more?

There's just so much contradictory stuff it's difficult coming to terms with it all. I'm a pain in the ass no doubt 

I think it's more that it is just so obvious that you're a skeptic and this persona is a poor fabrication.

I mean you seem to have all the time in the world to post skeptic arguments that you find in random comment sections and forums, tell us how their forum is larger and skeptics get more "likes"....really since you got here there's always some complaints about the nature of this forum and its participants not doing enough to examine the skeptic position.

You post negative reviews of an afterlife documentary before even watching it, claims skeptics are neuroscientists without proof, etc.

You tried to pass off a skeptic argument about a reincarnation case being fabricated that could be shown as a skeptic's lie just by reading Jim Tucker's report. Actually you didn't even need to read the whole thing, just google the relevant case names.

Just admit you're a skeptic and drop this silly persona.

The consciousness thirty minutes after death 'legend' is now 'doing the rounds' nicely (as I knew it would) and giving sceptics something to get off on. No matter that the author(s) (Sonny Dhanani) of the study, publicly retracted it all two years ago, now. 

I've posted this retraction several times on here. It was simply an artefact, end of story, but in the minds of sceptics, it's now actually a fact. 

How can you deal with people like that ? You can't, you just have to leave them to it.

What do you mean by an artefact? Was it an anomaly, or something debunked? I imagine Parnia would be aware of this.

What do you mean by an artefact? Was it an anomaly, or something debunked? I imagine Parnia would be aware of this.

An artefact is a false reading or misleading observation. Here is the retraction from the authors (again). Please read it carefully, Omni.

 The article, Electroencephalographic Recordings During Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy Until 30 Minutes After Declaration of Death, from The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences describes a case series of four patients that were part of a larger feasibility study that asked if it was possible to monitor circulatory and neurologic function in patients during the dying process (Dhanani et al, Critical Care Medicine, 2014). Feasibility studies are meant to determine whether or not a study can be done; they are meant to be starting points, and results cannot be interpreted as conclusive or definitive. All four participants that were part of this case series were critically and terminally ill and, after a thoughtful decision by the family and medical team, underwent withdrawal of life sustaining therapies to allow natural death to occur. These patients were all declared dead by standard clinical examination by their treating physicians, who were independent from the research team. Although deceased organ donation can occur when specific criteria are met and clinical death is declared in such circumstances, none of these patients were organ donors.

Importantly, using a modified type of electroencephalography (EEG) it was shown that brain activity stopped minutes before the heart stopped beating in 3 patients. In one patient, low-frequency, sporadic EEG activity occurred after the heart stopped beating. In the article, the authors state that because this activity occurred long after the loss of circulation, this activity is likely an artefact – that is, it cannot be interpreted or trusted as accurate. EEG monitoring in patients can be subject to false readings due to environmental conditions within the intensive care unit that are not related to the patient’s brain activity. 

The authors conclude that the recording is a false reading and cannot be assumed to indicate that the brain is still functioning.  Furthermore, the patient’s heart had stopped, there was no blood pressure, no breathing, no response to pain stimulus, and no pupil reaction. This fourth case highlighted the uncertainty about the use of this specific EEG method to monitor brain activity during the dying process. Future studies will need to monitor EEG activity with improved methods. The authors are currently carrying out a larger study with improved EEG monitoring techniques in order to further explore the pattern of loss of brain activity during the dying process.

This study did not and cannot draw conclusions about re-defining death or end-of-life. The authors are enthusiastic about the interest in media that this article has generated and look forward to sharing the results of their new study in the near future.

I think it's more that it is just so obvious that you're a skeptic and this persona is a poor fabrication.

I mean you seem to have all the time in the world to post skeptic arguments that you find in random comment sections and forums, tell us how their forum is larger and skeptics get more "likes"....really since you got here there's always some complaints about the nature of this forum and its participants not doing enough to examine the skeptic position.

You post negative reviews of an afterlife documentary before even watching it, claims skeptics are neuroscientists without proof, etc.

You tried to pass off a skeptic argument about a reincarnation case being fabricated that could be shown as a skeptic's lie just by reading Jim Tucker's report. Actually you didn't even need to read the whole thing, just google the relevant case names.

Just admit you're a skeptic and drop this silly persona.

I understand entirely why you may suspect all that to be the case, Sci. I've given him the benefit of the doubt, though and I'm hoping he isn't. If Omni is a secret sceptic then I apologise in advance for my naivety. But he's told me enough to warrant at least that.

I understand entirely why you may suspect all that to be the case, Sci. I've given him the benefit of the doubt, though and I'm hoping he isn't. If Omni is a secret sceptic then I apologise in advance for my naivety. But he's told me enough to warrant at least that.

Well I wouldn't hold your generosity against you Tim, you're a better man than I. 

But even in this thread you can see the pattern. You post that the criticisms don't even merit a response, I thank you for preventing me from wasting time even reading the post...and then we get quotes about how NDE researchers are fools just like Sheldrake.

Even if I'm wrong nothing is going to satisfy Omni save visitation from a ghost. Heck even that probably won't be enough but at least he can pester the ghost with the opinions on some random forum or comments under a Youtube video.

The poor ghost might think its trapped in some kind of bizarre Sartre's No Exit type Hell though...

I think it's more that it is just so obvious that you're a skeptic and this persona is a poor fabrication.

I mean you seem to have all the time in the world to post skeptic arguments that you find in random comment sections and forums, tell us how their forum is larger and skeptics get more "likes"....really since you got here there's always some complaints about the nature of this forum and its participants not doing enough to examine the skeptic position.

You post negative reviews of an afterlife documentary before even watching it, claims skeptics are neuroscientists without proof, etc.

You tried to pass off a skeptic argument about a reincarnation case being fabricated that could be shown as a skeptic's lie just by reading Jim Tucker's report. Actually you didn't even need to read the whole thing, just google the relevant case names.

Just admit you're a skeptic and drop this silly persona.

• I'm seeking clarification because these are also people I don't know. It's like being told that everything you know is a lie and not knowing whether or not to trust that person. Even though I lean towards not trusting them, I can't do that confiddently because I have so little confidence, replaced with excessive doubt. To add to this, I've seen other 'science forums' where others members kept insisting that cosnciousness is emergent or whatever, which makes me feel like my belief that it is not must be 'wrong'. 
  
• I have rewatched it and I intend to do so again. My review was not negative either. I'd give it a 5-6/10. 
  
• A brief description of James can be found in this video's description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCWUQGY4jRU
  
  
  
• I did end up reading the study and I even reached out to Tucker and he explained why that skeptic was misinformed.
  

All I am going to admit, Sci, is that I am someone who, probably irrationally, is worried about other forums excessively, trust/honesty, reassurance and having constant self-doubt. I have explained this before.

When a 'skeptic' cites Keith Augustine, or Gerald Woerlee, or Sean Carroll, I know to be cautious and careful based on what I have learned about them. But sometimes I don't, and I assume they must be right because they'll use neuroscientific or medical terms while citing articles based on often sensationalised studies. I understand that may be a thinking error on my part. 

I mean, do you guys not ever worry about other forums, such as those mentioned on Skeptiko (I assume most will know which one I'm referring to with this).

All I am going to admit, Sci, is that I am someone who, probably irrationally, is worried about other forums excessively, trust/honesty, reassurance and having constant self-doubt. I have explained this before.

Yes, we've heard your excuses before and I'm sure you will continue to recount your supposed sob story in the future.

But who can argue against smears like "Bruce Greyson's major audience is Christians" and the like, as if Christians are incapable of rational thought and argument.

When a 'skeptic' cites Keith Augustine, or Gerald Woerlee, or Sean Carroll, I know to be cautious and careful based on what I have learned about them. But sometimes I don't, and I assume they must be right because they'll use neuroscientific or medical terms while citing articles based on often sensationalised studies. I understand that may be a thinking error on my part. 

I mean, do you guys not ever worry about other forums, such as those mentioned on Skeptiko (I assume most will know which one I'm referring to with this).

But you don't just post studies, you post theories you find on Reddit and random Youtube commentary. Out of curiosity I looked up where the comments against Lommel and Sheldrake were from - Unexplained Universe. The "likes" are 2-3.

Why should I care that someone on some other internet forum has an opinion? I can look at the original sources or the articles summarizing studies on my own. The difference between you and posters here is the years of doing the work of going through arguments and/or seeking out personal paranormal experiences.

Assuming you aren't a fraud you should just accept that you don't have it in you to confidently believe in the afterlife because the level of research isn't replicable in the way QM level weirdness is. That might take years, decades, and maybe even isn't possible.

Either try to communicate with the dead or just work on accepting that after this life there is the Nothingness of Oblivion.

Yes, we've heard your excuses before and I'm sure you will continue to recount your supposed sob story in the future.

But who can argue against smears like "Bruce Greyson's major audience is Christians" and the like, as if Christians are incapable of rational thought and argument.


But you don't just post studies, you post theories you find on Reddit and random Youtube commentary. Out of curiosity I looked up where the comments against Lommel and Sheldrake were from - Unexplained Universe. The "likes" are 2-3.

Why should I care that someone on some other internet forum has an opinion? I can look at the original sources or the articles summarizing studies on my own. The difference between you and posters here is the years of doing the work of going through arguments and/or seeking out personal paranormal experiences.

Assuming you aren't a fraud you should just accept that you don't have it in you to confidently believe in the afterlife because the level of research isn't replicable in the way QM level weirdness is. That might take years, decades, and maybe even isn't possible.

Either try to communicate with the dead or just work on accepting that after this life there is the Nothingness of Oblivion.

Ok, so my take away from this is that I should at least try focusing on skeptical studies rather than comments. I do tend to place these people on pedestals when I know I shouldn't. The quote is taken from UM, not UU.

If I have a skeptical thought of my own, I'll address it or see if it has already been addressed on here more often. I have contributed to posting research and evidence on here as well, or refuting these points. Trouble is, I often think my refutations are wrong, because of doubt.

I probably care too much about other people's opinions, it's just they don't express them as opinions, they express them like it's absolute fact and if you question them you aren't 'rational' or 'scientific', among other insults. I haven't gotten used to those yet.

When it comes to cultivating personal experiences, I have considered IADC. The trouble is that I've had difficulty with meditation and letting my negative thoughts go. I can't expect psi effect if my mind is too 'clouded' so to speak. Anything else I feel almost ashamed to try because I take what these people say personally when they mock proponents or believers on their forums who do the same. That or they claim to have had their own experiences conveniently. I haven't been able to visit that Spiritualist centre since lockdown started.

And I haven't had years Sci. I've barely had one.

Anything else I feel almost ashamed to try because I take what these people say personally when they mock proponents or believers on their forums who do the same.

So the fear of looking stupid to random people on the internet that you will never meet exceeds your supposed fear of death?

If so just accept that after you die there is just Oblivion, because there is no research currently existing that can satisfy you.

So the fear of looking stupid to random people on the internet that you will never meet exceeds your supposed fear of death?

If so just accept that after you die there is just Oblivion, because there is no research currently existing that can satisfy you.

No, it's not just thanatophobia. I have addressed this in other threads.

I don't want to argue with you Sci. I'm just nervous about these claims and whether they have any shred of truth to them, or whether I can just dismiss them all, or whether my own criticisms of them are valid. I know there's no definitive proof/hard evidence. But I don't think that justifies ridicule, mockery, slanderous accusations etc. of the researchers, doctors, philosophers etc. It's horrible, because then they get likes and stuff.