Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

Given my last email with him I really doubt (and hope) that he hasn't changed his mind, even if this research is recent. The authors do insist that these explanations are speculative but it's true that we'll have to wait for further research into the phenomena...if that ever happens. Hopefully he'll respond to my questions about this if he has time.

Given my last email with him I really doubt (and hope) that he hasn't changed his mind, even if this research is recent. The authors do insist that these explanations are speculative but it's true that we'll have to wait for further research into the phenomena...if that ever happens. Hopefully he'll respond to my questions about this if he has time.

As I said, just look at his co-author

Batthyány and co-authors discuss cases of paradoxical lucidity’ (terminal lucidity), the brief return at the time of death of unexpected cognitive lucidity and communication in patients with severe neurological deficits – dementias, organic brain disease and severe mental illnesses. They review this and related phenomena, considering potential biological mechanisms. They go on to discuss the ethical implications and methodological challenges facing more controlled investigations.7

Batthyány and co-authors conclude that paradoxical lucidity, if supported by rigorously controlled research, challenges standard neurological models and carries profound implications for treatment.8 Batthyány has stressed that people should not see such as cases as proof of an afterlife. However, with regard to theories of personhood and selfhood, he thinks that the phenomenon offers strong evidence against materialism or mind-to-matter reductionism

Considering his upcoming book he likely hasn’t changed his mind. Him being attached to these studies is probably for a more practical purpose: to use terminal lucidity as a means for curing things like Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 

Also to note that the 2019 paper has Michael Nahm as another co author who also isn’t a materialist from my understanding.

I don't think we have access to the contents of the papers - that is a difficulty in discussing it in detail.
The August 2020 paper is here:
Spontaneous remission of dementia before death: Results from a study on paradoxical lucidity
Abstract:

Batthyány, A., & Greyson, B. (2020). Spontaneous remission of dementia before death: Results from a study on paradoxical lucidity. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000259

The aim of this research was to study paradoxical lucidity—the unexpected return of cognition and communication in patients with diagnosed dementia—systematically in a contemporary sample. We conducted a survey of caregivers who had witnessed at least one case of paradoxical lucidity in the year prior to survey completion. We assessed diagnosis and degree of preexisting cognitive impairment, cognitive state during the lucid episode, and temporal proximity of the lucid episode to death. Detailed case reports of 124 dementia patients who experienced an episode of paradoxical lucidity were received. In more than 80% of these cases, complete remission with return of memory, orientation, and responsive verbal ability was reported by observers of the lucid episode. The majority of patients died within hours to days after the episode. Further prospective study is warranted, as paradoxical lucidity suggests that there may exist a reversible and functional aspect of pathophysiology in severe dementia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

The details and discussion within the paper is not available unless one has access or is willing to pay.

The closing sentence above,

Further prospective study is warranted, as paradoxical lucidity suggests that there may exist a reversible and functional aspect of pathophysiology in severe dementia.

- that just sounds like the usual professional language and emphasis. It is analogous to similar wording in Dr Sam Parnia who describes his research in terms of providing better patient care. From an ethical perspective that is sound, and we also need to recognise the context in which these studies are carried out. These are not mere curiosities to be stared at like specimens in a museum or art gallery, but real-life patients in a caring environment.

We should not rush to infer what the investigators might really think, these formal studies are done within the bounds of current conventional  science and very naturally the language used is that of the conventional context.

I understand that, but they're saying there's 'evidence' that some sort of brain processes might be involved, if I have that right? They reject the theory that it's akin to rat brain processes it seems, but do suggest alternative explanations with no mention of the idea that it's simply consciousness 'overpowering' the disease's effects. There's a lot of 'mights' and comparisons made to other concepts or things observed in nature or technology, but I'm unsure what they mean exactly. I understand they're not jumping to conclusions, but still; I'm surprised this is coming from Dr Greyson, I guess, but I'm not certain about the implications of their research.

They have to say that because that's how science works. We haven't reached the point where it's quite acceptable to invoke a separate mind/consciousness/soul, whatever that actually is. Greyson would be laughed at and even though it's already obvious to many scientists and physicians that something else is going on, you won't hear them proclaiming it because it's too risky for their careers. 

One of my oldest friends, a highly qualified academic believes you go to heaven when you die. And he's told me that some of his colleagues think the same thing, because when they're all pissed up at the bar after a conference, it tends to come out. But it won't come out the next day when they're presenting their latest research.

One of my oldest friends, a highly qualified academic believes you go to heaven when you die. And he's told me that some of his colleagues think the same thing, because when they're all pissed up at the bar after a conference, it tends to come out. But it won't come out the next day when they're presenting their latest research.

Nicely and succinctly put.

Nicely and succinctly put.

Thanks, Typoz

I hope I'm not repeating myself too much, though.

That is probably the case yeah, hopefully Rivas has managed to contact Greyson as well since he also seemed very confused by this and somewhat concerned Greyson has changed his mind. Hopefully Dr Greyson gets back to me soon or responds to this if the planned interview goes ahead.

Unless Greyson cancels his book, or substantially changes the underlying point of the text, I don't see why we should believe he's suddenly changed his mind.

But let's say he did change his mind - what would matter is why he changed it. For example Anthony Flew went from atheism to theism because of new data regarding fine tuning and ID plus arguments for God he hadn't deeply inspected previously.

Unless Greyson has some new evidence that completely explains away NDEs - which he clearly does not - I wouldn't care if he's shifted his opinion.