Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

It's a red herring. As Dr Sam Parnia has pointed out, it doesn't matter what drugs are in the bloodstream or in the brain, nor would it matter whether they were naturally produced or artificially ingested. When the blood supply to the brain is cut off, the brain rapidly runs short of nutrients and of oxygen, loss of consciousness follows within a few seconds. Under those circumstances there can be no brain-based consciousness.

In addition, there is no chemical which allows for veridical observation of events beyond the reach of the normal senses. For example seeing events occurring down a corridor, or hearing conversations taking place in another room. Or reading the innermost unspoken thoughts of all the people in the room.

Still, it's an interesting topic. There's lots of reading material available, search for "spirit molecule" on the pdfdrive website.

Besides that, is there even any hard evidence that the human pineal gland can produce DMT at all? I'm really not sure at this point. Even if it does, it's been doubted that it could produce enough to have any noteworthy effect, even in life-threatening and near-death situations. I do tend to think though that DMT isn't just some ordinary drug and there may be more to it, from a spiritual/metaphysical perspective. Especially since it's been known to make people more spiritual or even theistic on occasion.

Especially since it's been known to make people more spiritual or even theistic on occasion.

In arguing against the "psi skeptic", the best tools are exposing the misdirection in the framing - not clever facts.

Substituting an indirect event as a primary cause is a classical example - that is quickly over-turned by process analysis.

Physical chemistry has outcomes that directly effect physical events.  Chemicals can cause material changes, release energy and restructure systems.  Restructuring of systems is not measured in chemistry, but in information sciences, such as general systems theory and thermodynamics.

Alcohol has a strong effect on behavior and people say alcohol made him do it.  But in fact this is a shortcut, because we all know that alcohol changes chemistry and the chemistry changes mental capability.  Decisions made are not chemistry and are coming from strong subconscious drives.

The idea that there is a "spiritual" drug is old thinking.  Drugs are chemistry and carry no magic.  They do change mental states and capability.  The spirit is not in the drug - it is in the person's intent and her environment.  The drug may enhance a channel between them.  What is new or life changing is the opened channels.

I don't mean to be aggressive, just confident in battling materialism.

Regarding chemicals and NDEs:

"I am no longer as opposed to spiritual explanations of near-death phenomena as my article and this response to the commentaries on it would appear to suggest. Over the past two years . . . I have moved more toward the view put forward by John Lilly and Stanislav Grof: namely, that drugs and psychological disciplines such as meditation and yoga may render certain “states” more accessible. . . . After 12 years of studying ketamine, I now believe that there most definitely is a soul that is independent of experience. It exists when we begin, and may persist when we end. Ketamine is a door to a place we cannot normally get to; it is definitely not evidence that such a place does not exist."
 -Karl Jansen

I know Radin has talked about doing Psi experiments with people on drugs like DMT, given past historical reports that certain psychedelics do improve Psi functioning.

Strassman's own work has suggested that people seem to meet the same entities or types of entities when in "DMT Space", though by the time he did his study and the way he did you cannot rule out the possibility everyone had already heard of entities like the Harlequin.

The commonality among our ancestors in their cave depictions of what seem like animal-human hybrids is also of interest, although I don't doubt people will dispute whether that's inspired by some easy psychological explanation over actual spirits.

All to say it is not cut  & dry that "brain DMT" supports a mind-is-brain explanation. After all chemicals are always part of an NDE since chemicals are part of what makes up the body. Beyond all that it's worth [noting] NDEs and DMT trips share some features but are also distinct.

There's some work being done to make the DMT trips last a lot longer, in the hopes of exploring whatever/wherever the "DMT space" is and communicating with whoever is there even if those persons are just characters manifested by the mind...which itself is an interesting mystery....as Schopenhauer once said in dreams everyone is a Shakespeare.

Even the ancient way of extending DMT trips, via ayahuasca, is a point of contention against the usual bog-standard physicalist explanations:

The enigma was all the more intriguing because the botanical knowledge of indigenous Amazonians has long astonished scientists. The chemical composition of ayahuasca is a case in point. Amazonian shamans have been preparing ayahuasca for millenia. The brew is the necessary combination of two plants, which must be boiled together for hours. The first contains a hallucinogenic substance, dimethyltryptamine, which also seems to be secreted by the human brain; but this hallucinogen has no effect when swallowed, because a stomach enzyme called monoamine oxidase blocks it. The second plant, however, contains several substances that inactivate this precise stomach enzyme, allowing the hallucinogen to reach the brain.

So here are people without electron microscopes who choose, among some 80,000 Amazonian plant species, the leaves of a bush containing a hallucinogenic brain hormone, which they combine with a vine containing substances that inactivate an enzyme of the digestive tract, which would otherwise block the hallucinogenic effect… It is as if they knew about the molecular properties of the plants and the art of combining them, and when one asks them how they know these things, they say their knowledge comes directly from hallucinogenic plants.
  -Jeremy Narby, The Cosmic Serpent

Again, I don't doubt someone has come up with a mundane explanation, and perhaps the explanation is plausible. But I do think this helps emphasize that "DMT from the brain creates NDEs" is hardly a solution to the mystery.

Does anyone have any factual clarification on the whole DMT-brain stuff? Is it really 'scientific' and been proven, or is it just as speculative as I suspected?

Replied above re: DMT, but I'm still curious about the last skeptic argument you were promoting - what is the evidence that James Leininger's dad originally said that his son's past life was Larsen?

I ask because this directly contradicts what is said in Tucker's report. I googled the report and fact-checked the case in under an hour, while doing other tasks, so this information was not hidden in some book on parapsychology...so what made you think the skeptical claim was true?

Replied above re: DMT, but I'm still curious about the last skeptic argument you were promoting - what is the evidence that James Leininger's dad originally said that his son's past life was Larsen?

I ask because this directly contradicts what is said in Tucker's report. I googled the report and fact-checked the case in under an hour, while doing other tasks, so this information was not hidden in some book on parapsychology...so what made you think the skeptical claim was true?

The interesting thing is that this skeptic claims he did his own 'research' into how accessible the information about the pilot would be to the child and family which made him doubt the credibility of the case. I'll quote his 'skeptical analysis', in which he claims he found records that listed the details 'similarily' to how the James recalled them:

The details the child supposedly knew about World War II aircraft emerged only after he and his family had visited an aviation museum, the Cavanaugh Flight Museum, where the child became “obsessed” with the World War II exhibit. Tucker found evidence that Leininger’s father began doing web searchers for “Natoma” when his son was 28 months old, but he believed this to be evidence that the elder Leininger had begun researching his son’s claims, dismissing the idea that “this Christian couple in Louisiana [would be] faking a case of past life memories despite potential derision by friends and neighbors…” This despite the fact that the Leiningers used their sons claims as a springboard for media appearances, including on network television, as well as an eventual book deal. Tucker provided a blurb for the 2009 book. This is not necessarily evidence of ulterior motives, but it does weigh against the claim that it was impossible that they could or would fake it.

Tucker also declined to identify the child’s claim that “James” or “me” was piloting the plane as evidence that the child was projecting himself into a fantasy, despite the fact that the child’s name was in fact James. Instead, the elder Leininger and Tucker searched for someone named James who would match the story, creating a confirmation bias. Thus Tucker interpreted the child’s claim at age three that he was “the third James” as evidence that he knew that James Huston’s father had also been named James, despite the fact that the child did not know the surname of these men named James.


But here’s the thing I found that Tucker did not: The story of Jack Larsen, supposedly so obscure that neither the elder Leininger nor Tucker was able to learn of him without extensive archival research and the assistance of a veterans’ group, was not so obscure. Larsen had told his story in Kay B. Hall’s anthology World War II (University of Arkansas, 1995), which collected the oral histories of World War II veterans. Would it surprise you to learn that nearly all of the details attributed to the statements of the young James Leininger could be found in Jack Larsen’s oral history, in somewhat jumbled form, or that differences between the accounts seem to reflect attempts to fill in gaps in the narrative with generalized World War II material that was later found to be incorrect?

(He lists some examples of the details following this)

The order of events in Larsen’s interview, however, does not reflect the child’s claims. Larsen’s lost engine occurred in Michigan, before being sent to the Pacific. Larsen never mentioned losing anyone during the many Pacific missions he described. However, all of the raw materials were there to create a superficially convincing narrative that could not easily be checked.

Obviously, I can’t prove that anyone intentionally or unconsciously faked the claims, but nearly everything revolves around James Leininger’s father’s self-reporting. Let’s, for the sake of argument, presume someone tried to fake the story. Not particularly careful at first and looking for attention, let’s say someone takes out Hall’s 1995 book and selects a random oral history. The Leininger family lived in the San Francisco area when their son was born in 1998, before moving to Texas in 2000 and then to Lafayette, Louisiana not long after. (The exact timeline varies by source.) A copy of Hall’s World War II anthology was in the holdings of Stanford University near San Francisco. Copies could also be found at major libraries in Texarkana and Houston, Texas and in New Orleans, Louisiana, according to WorldCat. Copies may have been available elsewhere as well.

Perhaps not being too careful about it, the individual fails to check whose information is being appropriated or whether the people are still alive. Taking notes, the individual creates a story that he or she talks about with the child, providing details that the child repeats, sometimes in distorted form or out of context. This might have occurred for any number of reasons, and any number of people could have been responsible. This is of course merely a hypothetical.

Heck, it might have been entirely innocent and due only to reinforcement and feedback… Let’s say the kid goes to the museum, becomes obsessed with World War II airplanes, and someone involved with the child goes to the library and reads Hall’s World War II to help indulge the child’s interest by sharing what veterans had to say about flying in the planes. For whatever reason, someone fixates on Larsen’s story, and tells the child about it, feeding back into the child’s dreams and fantasies.

After the child starts to get attention for this story, Bruce Leininger continues to do research about the era and the Natoma Bay in order to gather new information. Because he is talking about this research, the child picks up on what his father is talking about and incorporates it into his developing story. Mistakes and errors, such as confusing the F4F and the F4U go unnoticed due to a lack of expertise. As the research progresses, other significant errors and problems with the story emerge, notably the fact that Jack Larsen isn’t dead, requiring a change of interpretation to allow what is now a strong belief in reincarnation to continue.

Perhaps significantly, the Leininger family originally put forward the idea that their son was remembering the life of Jack Larsen, until in 2002 the elder Leininger learned Larsen was still alive. It was after this point that the child’s alleged statement that Iwo Jima was the place “where” his plane had been shot down was replaced with the claim he said it was “when” he had been shot down. Around this time the person shot down becomes “James” rather than Jack Larsen, and the story is retroactively reconfigured. What had previously been interpreted as James (“me”) dreaming about the life of Jack Larsen now became James (“me”) dreaming about “James” remembering Jack Larsen. The story holds together only because, by coincidence, the person who did get shot down was named James—one of the most common names of the era. The child never utters the dead man’s last name, despite knowing Larsen’s, until after Bruce Leininger was able to find someone whose name fit the developing (and changing) story.

I of course can’t say that’s how it happened, and the discovery of the 1995 oral history doesn’t categorically exclude reincarnation. It’s possible that no one involved knew anything of the 1995 book, but the coincidence of details strikes me as suspicious. The very fact that this material existed before the child began his alleged past life dreams, and included nearly all of the facts found in those dreams in jumbled form, calls into question the value of the Leininger case for past life studies, at least until the researchers involved with the story run down all possible sources where the Leininger family could have obtained their information. The situation is made worse by the fact that most of the accounts rely on us assuming the honesty and accuracy of the Leiningers’ self-reporting of James’s statements, which of course is impossible to prove.

This is one of the troubles I have with all fringe studies—there is a lack of deep literature review and a failure to investigate the possibility of contamination, hoaxing, or fraud. Tucker, for example, did enormous research tracking down World War II records to “prove” the reincarnation, but did not look to see what material could potentially have been accessible prior to the family publicizing the “reincarnation.” I obviously can’t accuse the Leiningers of hoaxing the story, but to say this is impossible because they are Christians is to wilfully blind oneself unnecessarily. What is more likely, that a child is the reincarnation of a World War II pilot, or that someone close to the child read Jack Larsen’s oral history? Or, perhaps even more likely, that the story was continuously created and recreated through the mutual interaction of the child, his parents, internet searches, and books?

You can find the link to the full post with the details in this thread when I linked to the page via his name. I already have issues with this guy's 'skepticism'. There seems to be some mental gymnastics going on here in assuming that a parent would decide to read their child a book about World War II, even given their interest in planes, and that the child would be able to remember these details, as well as details from the father's research. I find it hard to believe James would have the attention span and sufficient memory to conveniently remember most of the details but only 'mess up' on a few things, as well as engage in many hours of research with both his parents. 

It baffles me how he can act so coy and defensive while still accusing the father of encouraging a hoax and trying to discredit Tucker. No, Mr Colavito, you can't just start making up this alternative story and sequence of events based around some research you did as well as pure speculation and call it a day while still insisting you're not accusing them. Yes. You. Are.

But that's the jist of his take Sci, and he's making quite a bold claim that he was able to find details Tucker didn't in regards to the case.

But that's the jist of his take Sci, and he's making quite a bold claim that he was able to find details Tucker didn't in regards to the case.

I'm asking if you looked at Tucker's report before you posted the link to the pseudo-skeptic argument.

Forgive me but I don't think you answered that question.

Prior to posting this guy's 'debunking'/'research' I was aware at the time that the case may not be the strongest but Jim Tucker had written about it in one of his books. I was aware that Tucker had investigated the case and found it to be unlikely that fraud was involved. I was not aware of the exact details that have been highlighted to me beyond the accounts and descriptions of the child matching up generally with what the actual pilot had experienced. This has only confused me more given the extensive work Tucker conducted is being challenged by someone who claims to have done better research into an area he didn't consider in his book. But then again, this skeptic (despite his apparent qualifications) did not do first-hand research into the case in regards to questioning the family and visiting their location to confirm his suspicions. He also didn't bother looking into any other reincarnation cases, many of which are much stronger, featured in Tucker's book or anywhere else. Tucker, as someone noted here, claims he has already looked into how accessible the information was to the family and doubts it, but then this (pseudo)skeptic thinks otherwise. The contradictions are clear, but I wonder if Jim Tucker has already addressed this criticism given it was made way back in 2014.

Prior to posting this guy's 'debunking'/'research' I was aware at the time that the case may not be the strongest but Jim Tucker had written about it in one of his books. I was aware that Tucker had investigated the case and found it to be unlikely that fraud was involved. I was not aware of the exact details that have been highlighted to me beyond the accounts and descriptions of the child matching up generally with what the actual pilot had experienced. This has only confused me more given the extensive work Tucker conducted is being challenged by someone who claims to have done better research into an area he didn't consider in his book. But then again, this skeptic (despite his apparent qualifications) did not do first-hand research into the case in regards to questioning the family and visiting their location to confirm his suspicions. He also didn't bother looking into any other reincarnation cases, many of which are much stronger, featured in Tucker's book or anywhere else. Tucker, as someone noted here, claims he has already looked into how accessible the information was to the family and doubts it, but then this (pseudo)skeptic thinks otherwise. The contradictions are clear, but I wonder if Jim Tucker has already addressed this criticism given it was made way back in 2014.

So the answer to my question is "No", you did not read Tucker's report before promoting skeptic arguments against him.

I didn't read the full report no, I was not aware he had published it for free public viewing outside of his book. With that in mind, can we still address the skeptical talking point? Or has Tucker covered this? I wasn't able to find the details on his website, though I suppose I could also try contacting him about this.

And promoting is a strong word Sci, since I don't agree with him, but I want to know whether his criticisms are even valid.

I didn't read the full report no, I was not aware he had published it for free public viewing outside of his book. With that in mind, can we still address the skeptical talking point? Or has Tucker covered this? I wasn't able to find the details on his website, though I suppose I could also try contacting him about this.

And promoting is a strong word Sci, since I don't agree with him, but I want to know whether his criticisms are even valid.

I think promoting is the right word - for someone "at war" with the physicalists you seem to be quite good at finding skeptic arguments and reproducing them here wholesale without much fact checking.

I found Tucker's report within minutes. You don't even need to read the whole thing, you can search the document for "Larsen".

I'd hate to ever be in a real war with you, guessing I'd get fragged by "friendly" fire within the first week.

As for whether the family could have found out details regarding Larsen's life, Tucker already notes that's a possibility. Not sure what else there is to say that Tim hasn't covered already. Given your skeptic was - barring some evidence to the contrary - already caught in a substantial lie I don't really see much point in taking the rest of his claims too seriously.