Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

Yeah, agreed...also I don't think this forum should devolve to the point where Youtube comments, random comments from Reddit, and so on are a major part of the content we discuss.

Even in the Skeptiko days I can't recall any skeptics drawing upon these sources, and I doubt they shift academic opinion either.

Even the general public opinion is unlikely to be shaped by this commentary, anymore than a politician should feel confident due to an online poll.

Very true. The thing is, these things are not sources. Even when I come across a newspaper article on something - let's say for example a ufo sighting, I don't take the first report I come across as the source, I try to follow the trail to the origin. In that respect, random comments on various sites are very far removed, they don't have any real place since they are not grounded in anything.

I also find it amusing when some (such as one commenter) try to undermine the idea by saying 'what about other animals as simple as microorganisms? Do they get an afterlife and have souls?'. I don't understand how this is supposed to undermine the concept despite the fact that there will be no answer that is the same. It's such a weak argument.

I couldn't find anything else in your posts highlighting skeptic Youtube comments worth responding to, so I'll just tackle this one.

The answer to "Do microbes have souls?" depends on what is meant by "soul". Some will say that of all the animal kingdom only humans have souls, though cases involved with animal ghosts and animals sighted during NDEs does seem to run counter to that.

But what about the smallest of living things, such as single cell organisms? Perhaps cells are "alters" of an Ur-consciousness, but they simply dissolve back into that Mind@Large because they aren't individuated.

However it's also possible that "soul" is better thought of as a 1st-person perspective. This perspective can incarnate all the way down to the level of particles, and all the way up to the gods. This is akin to the beliefs of the Jains and their Ladder of Being, and idea also shared by some Process Philosophers (See Eric Weiss' The Long Trajectory) and some Monadic Philosophers (see Paul Marshall's work).

The cases that suggest this sort of idea is connected more to mysticism - whether in ancient India, Greece, really all over the world - though I believe at least some NDEs have spoken some something like a Ladder of Being.

But none of this is new stuff for the proponent community, which is why it pays to read serious works rather than skimming internet comments.

When I saw there's nothing wrong ethically, I mean that the NASW (our "governing" association), which distributes a "Book of Ethics", doesn't necessarily frown on personal disclosures or discussions of personal opinions, even about religion or politics, by therapists. It all comes down to how it affects the client. It could be harmful or it could be helpful, and your job as a therapist (if you'e doing the work correctly) is to understand your motivations for disclosing personal information or offering opinions, and assess the impact it is having on clients. Do all therapists engage in that kind of honest reckoning? No.  Are many therapists insecure themselves, and prone to disclosures that are mainly aimed at improving their own moods or their status in the eyes of their patients? Yes.

Agreed.

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

Just to note made thread for the guy who's doing this research.

It's interesting as we usually think about NDE research, or advances in quantum biology & magneto-biology, as branches of science that will end up being favorable to proponents.

But this kind of thing could also be a game-changer, and at the very least shows why DMT-of-the-dying-brain is not automatically something that would go against Survival.

Just to note made thread for the guy who's doing this research.

It's interesting as we usually think about NDE research, or advances in quantum biology & magneto-biology, as branches of science that will end up being favorable to proponents.

But this kind of thing could also be a game-changer, and at the very least shows why DMT-of-the-dying-brain is not automatically something that would go against Survival.

Indeed, I don't exclude any research, to me all of it is favourable. There are so many gaps, missing pieces of how things are, that it is all useful. I just started reading a book on DMT research, but I don't read as quickly these days as I used to.

Do we know of any notable differences between NDEs and DMT experiences besides veridical content? Sci's recent post analysing the experiences for example shows several similarities, but a few differences, such as very few people described meeting anyone 'deceased' and no reports of life reviews, or peaceful voids (void NDEs seem to get ignored a lot these days in articles).

While I understand there's evidence suggesting there's definitely something more going on with DMT, most skeptics won't accept or consider that possibility.

Do we know of any notable differences between NDEs and DMT experiences besides veridical content? Sci's recent post analysing the experiences for example shows several similarities, but a few differences, such as very few people described meeting anyone 'deceased' and no reports of life reviews, or peaceful voids (void NDEs seem to get ignored a lot these days in articles).

While I understand there's evidence suggesting there's definitely something more going on with DMT, most skeptics won't accept or consider that possibility.

From someone I believe to lean in a skeptical direction, based on the conclusion ->

Despite parallels, there are profound differences between DMT and NDEs.

Scott A. McGreal MSc.

The authors concluded that their results showed that there was “an intriguingly strong overlap between specific and broad features of these states” (i.e. DMT and near-death experiences). They go on to suggest that “the putatively strong overlap between the phenomenology and neurobiology of DMT (and other psychedelic) experiences and ‘actual’ near-death experiences” should be investigated further. I agree that the findings are intriguing, and I acknowledge that they describe the overlap between DMT and near-death experiences as “putative” (i.e. something that is supposed but which may not be true). However, I also think that they overstate some of the similarities between the two kinds of experiences based on the nature of the measures used, and largely ignore some striking differences between them.

I'm sure someone can dig around and find cases that at least seem to cross over the chasm of differences.


But my point was not to show some great separation between psychedelic experiences and NDEs but rather that the brain contains a variety of substances that are part of its make up and so of course some changes will correlate with an NDE.

Singling out DMT as the chemical responsible is just one strategy in the skeptic playbook, but at least it is a strategy that leads back to work done by proponents of a sort - those who believe DMT is a gateway to some other place.

If skeptics want to promote DMT, the Simulation Hypothesis, or some other idea that pushes the public's boggle threshold that's better in the long run for the proponent side IMO. Even the Multiverse idea, as bad as it is scientifically speaking, has value in that sense.

From someone I believe to lean in a skeptical direction, based on the conclusion ->

Despite parallels, there are profound differences between DMT and NDEs.

Scott A. McGreal MSc.





I'm sure someone can dig around and find cases that at least seem to cross over the chasm of differences.


But my point was not to show some great separation between psychedelic experiences and NDEs but rather that the brain contains a variety of substances that are part of its make up and so of course some changes will correlate with an NDE.

Singling out DMT as the chemical responsible is just one strategy in the skeptic playbook, but at least it is a strategy that leads back to work done by proponents of a sort - those who believe DMT is a gateway to some other place.

If skeptics want to promote DMT, the Simulation Hypothesis, or some other idea that pushes the public's boggle threshold that's better in the long run for the proponent side IMO. Even the Multiverse idea, as bad as it is scientifically speaking, has value in that sense.

Thanks for that link Sci. Interesting that someone commenting claims to have had two NDEs and isn't put off by the idea that it's just chemicals-but if that's true, then they're a definite minority. I haven't heard of anyone except that one guy claim to have had an NDE and yet still not be convinced of the reality of the experience (presumably). Then again, he may have been mistaken about his experience. Who knows...but I'll not overthink this. He isn't the first (seemingly/possibly) 'skeptical' person who has lied about their claimed NDE...

I found a handy article written by Steve Taylor about the very topic as well: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...es-and-dmt

Interesting how they were both released only a couple days apart. It's also bizarre that another writer in March 2019 tried to compare NDEs to certain kinds of acid trips, but the 'new research' wasn't all that new or impressive at all, merely going over old territory with the neurochemical explanations that have been refuted for years now, as Tim I noticed rightly pointed out in the comments. It's the same old cherry-picking of aspects of the experiences and starting from the position that there must be a naturalist explanation, ignoring the increasing number of veridical testimonials.

There is still though that wonderful article (if too short on the subject) made by another philosopher, Sharon Hewitt Rawlette, on veridical NDEs and other mysterious elements that we've mentioned on here before, even featuring a comment by Kimberly Clarke Sharpe.

Thanks for that link Sci. Interesting that someone commenting claims to have had two NDEs and isn't put off by the idea that it's just chemicals-but if that's true, then they're a definite minority. I haven't heard of anyone except that one guy claim to have had an NDE and yet still not be convinced of the reality of the experience (presumably). Then again, he may have been mistaken about his experience. Who knows...but I'll not overthink this. He isn't the first (seemingly/possibly) 'skeptical' person who has lied about their claimed NDE...

Can you quote this part?

Gladly: 

Submitted by Ryan Corke on September 13, 2019 - 9:32am

I think it is completely possible that the brain is not only producing DMT, but other hallucinogenic chemicals as well, and many of other chemicals produce any missing effects. I've had an NDE twice, and both times were very similar (the differences between the two were undetectable to me) to many of the chemicals like DMT or Salvinorin-A

This is a pseudo-skeptical retort I've seen mentioned whenever a criticism is made of the neurochemical explanations-'oh well if it's not one of them then it's a bunch of them'. But that only leaves further questions and muddies the waters even further with speculation. I find it difficult to believe that the brain can somehow produce multiple chemicals for some people during life-threatening states, and the negative side effects of these chemicals mixing, as well as the other effects of these drugs that aren't associated with NDEs, are conveniently erased/ignored in the process.