Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

I agree that what happens on other forums is not something we should be involved in. If there is a problem on (some other) forum, report it to the administrator of that forum. If it doesn't work out, leave.

There's no place for endlessly doing this:


I think OmniVersalNexus has been given a lot of leeway on this forum, but this stream of rants about other forums is not a valid use of this space.

Understood. It is a shame though given I had expected a forum like that to be neutral, whereas I know not to even bother with the skepticforum or Steven Novella's blog for example. I have posted the main 'skeptical talking point' as that theory of consciousness the pseudo-skeptic kept appealing to as evidence of materialism or something.

Graziano's theory would mean puppets are conscious. I'm not accusing him of that, it's something he readily admits:

“It seems crazy to insist that the puppet’s consciousness is real. And yet, I argue that it is. The puppet’s consciousness is a real informational model that is constructed inside the neural machinery of the audience members and the performer. It is assigned a spatial location inside the puppet. The impulse to dismiss the puppet’s consciousness derives, I think, from the implicit belief that real consciousness is an utterly different quantity, perhaps a ghostly substance, or an emergent state, or an oscillation, or an experience, present inside of a person’s head. Given the contrast between a real if ethereal phenomenon inside of a person’s head and a mere computed model that somebody has attributed to a puppet, then obviously the puppet isn’t really conscious. But in the present theory, all consciousness is a “mere” computed model attributed to an object. That is what consciousness is made out of. One’s brain can attribute it to oneself or to something else. Consciousness is an attribution…"
 - Michael Graziano (2013), [i]Consciousness and the Social Brain, p. 208[/i]

Also a longer rebuttal from Kastrup:

The desperate art of obfuscation: A rebuttal of Michael Graziano

Please don't go and post this on the other forum, and then come back here with their replies though. If we want to argue with people in another forum we can join those internet spaces on our own.

Graziano's theory would mean puppets are conscious. I'm not accusing him of that, it's something he readily admits:

“It seems crazy to insist that the puppet’s consciousness is real. And yet, I argue that it is. The puppet’s consciousness is a real informational model that is constructed inside the neural machinery of the audience members and the performer. It is assigned a spatial location inside the puppet. The impulse to dismiss the puppet’s consciousness derives, I think, from the implicit belief that real consciousness is an utterly different quantity, perhaps a ghostly substance, or an emergent state, or an oscillation, or an experience, present inside of a person’s head. Given the contrast between a real if ethereal phenomenon inside of a person’s head and a mere computed model that somebody has attributed to a puppet, then obviously the puppet isn’t really conscious. But in the present theory, all consciousness is a “mere” computed model attributed to an object. That is what consciousness is made out of. One’s brain can attribute it to oneself or to something else. Consciousness is an attribution…"
 - Michael Graziano (2013), [i]Consciousness and the Social Brain, p. 208[/i]

Also a longer rebuttal from Kastrup:

The desperate art of obfuscation: A rebuttal of Michael Graziano

Please don't go and post this on the other forum, and then come back here with their replies though. If we want to argue with people in another forum we can join those internet spaces on our own.

I wouldn't dare Sci, the 'skeptic team' as they label themselves come across as exceedingly dogmatic bullies who refuse to respect anyone that doesn't agree with them. Several seem to have noted that on their forum. Ironically I spoke to a former materialist today online who said he had an 'awakening' and admitted he has since become more humble and he was a lot wiser and nicer than I would have expected. Perhaps the militant ones don't start out like that then.

It's interesting how this ringleader of the 'team' had said "His theory is unravelling what mystery remains and I don't see any problems with it, it's scientific, empirical and rational". Now that I've read that rebuttal, I can safely say that is most definitely not a fair judgement. 

What other criticisms would be worth noting besides those? I suppose there's that the evidence cited supporting the theory doesn't seem to be all-that new, and is based on interpretations of existing phenomena, mainly the concept of attention. Subjective interpretations? Also, I didn't read any further developments on that site since 2017 of the theory. It's hardly 'accelerating' as NDE research is.

Edit: naturally other criticisms would include not taking into account phenomena that suggest contrary to the materialist position as well I guess.

I'm pretty sure Graziano's theory has received a variety of criticisms, his book is from 2013.

I'd look at his use of the word "Information", maybe read E.J. Loew's There are No Easy Problems of Consciousness as Kastrup is probably giving him too much credit.

Who’s Afraid of Life After Death?

Neal Grossman

The evidence for an afterlife is sufficiently strong and compelling that an unbiased per-son ought to conclude that materialism is a false theory. Yet the academy refuses to ex-amine the evidence, and clings to materialism as if it were a priori true, instead of a posteriori false. I suggest several explanations for the monumental failure of curiosity on the part of academia. First, there is deep confusion between the concepts of evidence and proof. Second, materialism functions as a powerful paradigm that structures the shape of scientific explanations, but is not itself open to question. The third explanation is intellectual arrogance, as the possible existence of disembodied intelligence threatens the materialistic belief that the educated human brain is the highest form of intelligence in existence. Finally, there is a social taboo against belief in an afterlife, as our whole way of life is predicated on materialism and might collapse if near-death experiences, particularly the life review, was accepted as fact.

This was a momentous experience for me, because here was an educated, intelligent man telling me that he will not give up materialism, no matter what. Even the evidence of his own experience would not cause him to give up materialism. I realized two things in that moment. First, this experience cured me of any impulse to argue these things with recalcitrant colleagues; it is pointless to argue with someone who tells me that his mind is already made up, and nothing I can say will change it. Second, this experience taught me that it is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis: that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things “must” be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis: that evidence is not relevant for its truth). My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis that, as a scientific hypothesis, might be false; but rather as dogma and ideology which “must” be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term “fundamaterialist” to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence.

Thanks for that Sci, I'll check out this lecture he gave too. Never heard of the Theosophical Society before.

Who’s Afraid of Life After Death?

Neal Grossman

Brilliant article- thanks for posting it.

In the Neal Grossman lecture above, the guy he quotes at 46.09 is Steve Fanning. If anyone's interested, a simple google will bring up quite few articles where he talks about his life review etc. He sadly died in 2018.

What would you guys cite as the most convincing case of verified reincarnation, out of curiosity? I ask this because some skeptics of reincarnation I've seen tend to make the following claims:

• "If reincarnation was real then we'd have more cases being reported, but they occur more in countries where it's already believed."*
  
• "Ian Stevenson only interviewed impressionable children who could have been coached."
  
• "If past life cases were real then we'd have children claiming a past life being able to speak languages they couldn't possibly know or understand by natural means."
  

*This one I've mentioned before and I don't take it that seriously, since I find it to be generalising and have seen it used in borderline racist arguments. Tucker's work also refutes this idea. 

When it comes to the argument that it's all just based on coaching children, I also don't find this too strong. Children are also rebellious and forgetful, their imaginations more fantastical than concrete. While there may be some cases where this applies, ones where details are verified makes this a more difficult claim. 

The last argument is one I haven't really seen been made but again I don't find it that great an argument. If the many children claiming past lives are quite young, meaning they're still getting the grasp of their own raised language with still-developing brains, then how would they be able to spontaneously recall a language the way these skeptics demand? 

I continue to be baffled by the double-standard demands from militant pseudo-skeptics. First they say that things like this need better study to 'be taken seriously by science', but then they'll turn around and complain about Universities who then do studies into things like reincarnation. You can't expect hard evidence or proof of these phenomena if you then demand that what research there is going on today shouldn't receive funding!

I think blanket dismissals are just pointless.

One can always rationalize away phenomena with claims like those.

But I think when someone is looking for ways to avoid even looking at cases, it says more about their fears than the reality of phenomena.