Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

Certainly it is the materialist position that since consciousness is a function of the brain, the brain must build up an image of the of the world in consciousness by processing the sensory data coming in from the eyes, ears, tactile nerves, etc. 

You may recall the failure of many years of research into finding the neural structures in the brain responsible for sensory fusion in consciousness into an awareness of the world in 3-D. Especially they have been looking for visual fusion into 3-D awareness. After all this work it seems unlikely that such structures will ever be found, implying that they simply don't exist. The experience of NDEers when apparently out of body and observing the operating room or emergency room from an elevated physical location (especially when he brain is dysfunctional) also implies that 3-D sensory fusion in consciousness and therefore awareness and consciousness of the world are functions of the spirit rather than the brain.

Hmmm...I'm still not sure about the first part. It seems to me that if I play a VR game, the VR equipment is responsible for taking data and presenting the fictional video game world to me. That doesn't mean I am *just* part of the VR equipment, though obviously without me there's no one actual experiencing from that particular headset. But without the VR equipment I also cannot experience the video game.

Regarding the second point, I think you're referring to the Binding Problem? I'm not sure this is completely against the idea of the brain being involved in constructing the daily mundane world? Doesn't the very fact that NDEs happen when the brain is failing to work properly, if at all, suggest that the brain is involved with presenting mundane reality to us?  

It would be hard to see why brains exist at all if they aren't involved with the presenting of our reality during the normal course of life. Perhaps rather than "construction" it might be better to say the brain's function here is that of a reducing valve, narrowing experience so one is not viewing places like Faery and Hell while trying to drive to the grocery store. Then the NDE is consciousness less bound by localization of sensory experience.

I suppose Gallimore could technically be a materialist of sorts, just that his materialism would include Hyperspace Intelligences that created our universe.

Certainly it is the materialist position that since consciousness is a function of the brain, the brain must build up an image of the of the world in consciousness by processing the sensory data coming in from the eyes, ears, tactile nerves, etc. 

You may recall the failure of many years of research into finding the neural structures in the brain responsible for sensory fusion in consciousness into an awareness of the world in 3-D.

One of the most successful folks in visual science is J.J. Gibson.  I would suggest that his account of direct perception is valuable in parsing this problem.  The nuts and bolts of 3D vision are pretty established.  

The term "sensory fusion in consciousness" threw me.  I understand what you meant, but the science name of it wasn't there in my mind.  With some checking it is what is defined as perception.  My understanding of Gibson is that perception is direct and that subsequently, we can  be aware of our own awareness (subjectivity). Minds read inbound stimulus and "get" meaning directly from information.  Then subjective awareness aspect of mind then can observe the experience as emotional and personal.

When mind is cut-off from a stream of sensations from the senses, such as via meditation, dreams, drugs or dramatic circumstances - then it uses this direct perception sense to sort the informational reality at hand.  The fact that other voices, messengers and angels speak in times of trouble - is recorded  in all times and all places.  DMT research seems to be a supporting this persistent data trend that there are other minds to be "heard" that are non-local.

Certainly it is the materialist position that since consciousness is a function of the brain, the brain must build up an image of the of the world in consciousness by processing the sensory data coming in from the eyes, ears, tactile nerves, etc. 

You may recall the failure of many years of research into finding the neural structures in the brain responsible for sensory fusion in consciousness into an awareness of the world in 3-D. Especially they have been looking for visual fusion into 3-D awareness. After all this work it seems unlikely that such structures will ever be found, implying that they simply don't exist. The experience of NDEers when apparently out of body and observing the operating room or emergency room from an elevated physical location (especially when he brain is dysfunctional) also implies that 3-D sensory fusion in consciousness and therefore awareness and consciousness of the world are functions of the spirit rather than the brain.

In the case of eyesight, there is a very physical component.
Some abilities (as well as limitations) are built-in to the way our bodies are made. Obvious examples are the colour and monochrome sensors within the retina, which have different characteristics, so that for example as light levels fall, our vision becomes more monochrome. Another physical property is perception of motion. Our peripheral vision is quite poor, we cannot see fine detail at the sides of our visual field. But we are extremely good at observing motion. A slight movement at the edges of our visual field is easily noticed. Some of this is built into the structure of the eye itself. There is also the processing by the brain, a large part of the brain is devoted to vision. Also as I've pointed out previously, four out of five of our physical senses are located in the head and it is surely no coincidence that that allows a very direct connection to the brain. It seems fair to conclude that a primary function of the brain is to process sensory input.

Having conscious awareness of those things, that is a different matter. Since we are talking about brain-processed sensory data, then the brain must play some part. Yet at the same time, conscious awareness is something of a different kind. It may not even make semantic sense to attempt to speak of it being a function of the brain, it seems like a misuse of language as much as anything else.

The example of perception during an NDE is interesting. Commonly 360-degree vision is described, something we certainly don't have in ordinary physical vision, we are not even equipped for it. The nearest analogy might be the fact that we can hear sound from all directions, that's something we take for granted, but having all-round vision doesn't fit with our everyday experience. Sometimes there are other variations of vision, such as the ability to perceive other colours, ones for which we have no name as they are outside our experience. Then there is the ability to see in other ways, something like ultra-violet or infra-red or the ability to see right through objects.

In all those cases, the person having the NDE doesn't seem to have difficulty with these abilities, they come very naturally, as if that is quite normal and the limitations imposed by the physical body are the unusual part.

Hmmm...I'm still not sure about the first part. It seems to me that if I play a VR game, the VR equipment is responsible for taking data and presenting the fictional video game world to me. That doesn't mean I am *just* part of the VR equipment, though obviously without me there's no one actual experiencing from that particular headset. But without the VR equipment I also cannot experience the video game.

Regarding the second point, I think you're referring to the Binding Problem? I'm not sure this is completely against the idea of the brain being involved in constructing the daily mundane world? Doesn't the very fact that NDEs happen when the brain is failing to work properly, if at all, suggest that the brain is involved with presenting mundane reality to us?  

It would be hard to see why brains exist at all if they aren't involved with the presenting of our reality during the normal course of life. Perhaps rather than "construction" it might be better to say the brain's function here is that of a reducing valve, narrowing experience so one is not viewing places like Faery and Hell while trying to drive to the grocery store. Then the NDE is consciousness less bound by localization of sensory experience.

I suppose Gallimore could technically be a materialist of sorts, just that his materialism would include Hyperspace Intelligences that created our universe.

My understanding of this is: of course the brain is essential to enable human consciousness to make sense of the physical world of experience, as long as the spirit is inhabiting and interpenetrating the brain in physical life. Just as during physical life visual/hearing fusion in conscious awareness of the world absolutely requires the sensory organs. But the inner faculty of conscious awareness itself is part of the spirit, not the brain, and temporarily during a veridical NDE for instance the soul or spirit detaches from the body and brain and assumes its native existence in a spiritual realm. In this condition the spirit's sensory inputs are vastly greater and are closely related to the esp abilities only marginally manifested while in  body.

So here's something that I've referenced here before that I (unfortunately and painfully) managed to find again so I could explain what I meant further...

There is a website out there known as 'unexplained-mysteries'.com that features a forum that appears to be very popular, garnering thousands of replies in some cases. But I noticed quickly that it's home to some very nasty characters, mainly a lot of pseudo-skeptical physicalists/materialists who, despite breaking the rules of their forum on multiple threads with their vicious behaviour, still get rewarded and sometimes showered with praise. I noticed that the forum has a lot of similarieites to Reddit: there's a very blatant groupthink/hive mind there who are more concerned about earning likes/points in some form than leaving a respectful, well-thought-out comment. 

The main example of this was their very long thread back in January on Peter Fenwick and consciousness existing outside of the brain. I was appalled at the attitude and comments some of these people made towards the poor man, and how the few proponents there we viciously attacked by the dogmatic skeptics there. 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo.../#comments

Not sure if anyone here has heard of this forum or interacted with the members there, but needless to say the cognitive bias there is huge. I say this because many of these pseudo/anti-skeptics will only pop up on threads that specifically address controversial topics with pseudo-intellectual rebutalls.

To give you guys some examples of such childish behaviour, here are some actual paraphrased claims that were made byt the skeptics on that site:

"Peter Fenwick isn't a scientist, he only has a medical background. If he were a scientist he would be publishing peer-reviewed articles and not books"

"Bernardo Kastrup isn't a scientist and is mainly a philosopher of consciousness, so he's less authoritative"

Both of these statements are inaccurate. Fenwick is neuropsychiatrist and lecturer, which requires an extensive medical background. This in no way undermines what he says. He is an expert in his field in regards to end-of-life phenomena for a reason. He has also conducted multiple studies of his own that probably warranted peer-review. Kastrup also does have a scientfic background, something a lot of critics of him seem to forget. 

"Collecting the accounts of ND experiences seems as much science as collecting the accounts of people on various drugs for example, especially psychedelic ones."

And how exactly else is such a spontaneous and unpredictable phenomena supposed to be investigated besides what Parnia is doing? 

The quantity, quality, and consistency of cases shows that brains are required for consciousness.  Common sense dictates that these stories are nothing but stories. The issue is why people construct these imaginary events. That leads to insights into how we are human.

Common sense dictates that many of these are verified testimonies, if you actually took the time to look into some examples. Also, I'm fairly certain cases like Pam Reynolds' (which, as I had mentioned in my Reddit post at the time, they don't seem to know about) challenges that. This sounds like that poor article Koch wrote. 

Do Christians die and hang out with Baal before returning?  Does anyone come back and say, "I messed up. I found out I have been putting all of my time into the wrong religion. I'm converting to the right one." No, they get confirmation of their belief system. Their experiences fit in with what people know.

This perfectly captures to me the laziness of the 'skeptics' on that forum: they don't do much research. This is also a factually incorrect statement. There are many examples now of atheists having NDEs that definitely didn't confirm their beliefs whatsoever, e.g. Howard Storm. There are also many, many examples of NDEs with very little religious themes or imagery to them, and cases where they have acquired knowledge that wasn't known. 


To be fair to these people, this forum doesn't seem to discuss consciousness and NDEs very often. I also think it's telling that, despite the forum being quite old and popular apparently (to some degree at least), there is nothing to be found on many of the individuals and cases we have discussed here. 

"People might mistakenly think that the stories the teachers tell is evidence, but it is not. They are stories. Not we might want to investigate these stories and that would be to see if there is the possibility of collecting evidence to support these stories. In fact, fMRI is a possible means of collecting the evidence. Below is a means of investigating synethesia.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn818
Again we see that consciousness and experience are situated in the brain and that experiences can be detected externally by examining the functioning of the brain."

Here's another common trend I've noticed amongst pseudo-skeptics: citing old and/or outdated papers and articles that are often barely relevant to the discussion. Synaesthesia and NDEs aren't comparable outside of the claims from some NDErs that they experience it afterwards. These are simply correlations, nothing more. Extrapolating data like this is unscientific.


It's also notable that based on their language, profile pictures and behaviour, a lot of the members of this forum seem to be quite young, and dare I say, inexperienced. I am young, but the fact they genuinely call people like Peter Fenwick "irrational" and "unscientific" and a "crank" is pathetic, just because they don't like his conclusions. Meanwhile, they praise the hell out of Randi and his infamous challenge, despite the valid criticisms levelled at it and Randi himself.

It seems the thread, as many of them do on this website laughably, deteriorated into a bickering, name-calling argument that again should have warranted a moderator or admin stepping in, but no such thing happened. The immaturity of these keyboard-warriors certainly doesn't make them seem like credible people. 

"Woo:  I talk to my dead granny through morse code.

Truth:  Dead people are dead...they communicate with no one.
Woo:  Jesus was born of a virgin.
Truth:  Virgins don't have babies.
Woo:  Urantia is the center of the Universe.
Truth:  There is no center of the Universe.
Woo:  Ghosts are real and they communicate with me.
Truth:  Dead people are dead...ghosts do not exist.
Woo:  Some people can bend spoons with their mind.
Truth:  It is impossible to manipulate physical objects with one's mind.
See how easy that was?  It isn't really that hard.  Once you understand that what you believe has nothing to do with the truth of a thing."

Ah, how mature to label a religious belief as woo. And how arrogant and pompous to make assertions like that when you and your fellow 'skeptics' have already demonstrated that you'll only research into something that suits your beliefs, and proceed to extrapolate it, even if it's very outdated. 


When a user mentions veridical NDEs, they don't bother looking into his link and just dismiss it, instead finding yet another random, obscure theory of consciousness from 2015 (again, citing older studies without checking if they have aged well) called the 'attention schema theory', that'll I'll make another post about at some point. According to the main skeptic on that site, this 'psyche101' character, this theory is 'unraveling' consciousness...Yeah, sure it is. I'm sure that's why nobody has heard of it before and it's not appeared in the media that likes to exaggerate these studies. And I'm sure it's not starting with any biased assumptions from the get-go either.

They seem to know who Parnia is and his AWARE study...and yet ignore some of the conclusions and just decide to gloss over them when someone points this out. They also don't seem to be aware (pun intended) that AWARE II was ongoing at the time this thread was made in January this year. Again, poor quality research.

You trust stories. That is all you have is belief. You rarely ever provide anything to shore up your belief. You simple claim there is this information which you never show us.

That's because you have nothing. Logic and reason are applied to information and you have nothing. At best you have wishful thinking

I find it amusing that this skeptic in particular, despite another one pointing out the term 'stories' isn't accurate, seems to repeat the term 'stories' frequently. This just sounds to me like he's reassuring himself. And again, this sort of behaviour would normally, IIRC, be banned on any well-moderated forum. But not this one. Their conversation went wildly off-topic (as they often do). The OP responded and naturally the skeptics responded in quite a harsh manner. And really? The wishful thinking argument that works both ways? Seriously?


Notably, the OP correctly pointed out that the pseudo-skeptics are acting like bullies and harass proponents frequently, acting dogmatic about their beliefs in that they refuse to admit when a belief is a belief and a correlation is just a correlation. Their cruel bickering got so out of hand that eventually the 'discussion' had to be closed to further replies. 

Say that consciousness does exist outside of the brain. How? What exactly could it hypothetically be? 

I'm pretty sure I saw that Sora character on Reddit say something similar, and he was correctly told (be a materialist no less) that such an argument is fallacious and does little to undermine the opposing argument. 


Another skeptic cites an article on consciousness by Christof Koch from 2018 in regards to 'where we are now'...which is kind of adorable considering he later came out as a panpsychist, albeit briefly. Again, I ask, why is it these 'skeptics' always select outdated or old articles and research rather than up-to-date ones? 

Anyways, the quality of this forum is telling to me when the skeptics rarely even bother looking into the scientists and doctors who disagree with them. The funniest example, besides the lack of many names we use on this forum, is that someone posted a video interviewing Penny Sartori on 'What happens when we die?', by the same people who did that interview with Fenwick where he was asked the same thing. This escalated into yet another series of bickering, childish arguments and name-calling from alleged 'adults', sadly. But here's the kicker: I stumbled upon the thread by accident, because her name isn't even mentioned anywhere. At no point did they seem to discuss any of her research and studies, much like how the thread I linked here refuses to discuss any of Fenwick's studies that convinced him. 

Oh, and what's even funnier, is that these skeptics mysteriously vanish when threads appear on this forum featuring the 'evidence' they want. Besides the video with Sartori, they have posted the interviews John Cleese did and the Tom Tom festival one. and for whatever reason they just didn't bother looking into them it seems. How can you post entire threads about demanding evidence while then just ignoring ones that offer it to you?

It's notable the main ringleader of the skeptics (psyche) seems to think Parnia is on their side somehow, which as that book review of After indicates, is also unlikely.

Here's another example of his cynical dismissal when someone mentions Victor Zammit:

You are succumbing to wishful thinking. Zammit is a lawyer who is making appeals to authority. He had no evidence, he has a lateral view. Real evidence is physics, which defies life after death ideas. You don't consider that at all. You brush it aside with some ridiculous claim that science will be rewritten to include the paranormal one day. That too is wishful thinking which is entirely unsupported. It's not a valid concept by reason and logic. Anecdotes are overwhelming. Evidence, not so much.

What is it with skeptics relying on this 'wishful thinking' card so much? Also, it's ironic this guy is claiming Zammit makes appeals to authority when that's literally all he does: he keeps citing this 'schema' theory as proof that consciousness is a product of the brain and that the only authorities on consciousness are physicists (wrong). He cites people like Sean Carroll and Richard Dawkins who have been criticised to death. The idea that science will experience a paradigm shift as opposed to being 'rewritten' certainly isn't unsupported. And what's all this about 'physics denies an afterlife'? 

I made this since I feel as though I had to get this off my chest and thought I may as well post it here. It's amazing to me the extent some of these 'skeptics' will go in pushing their beliefs and misleading people. 

It's also a shame that the research they conduct seems to extend into trusting newspaper articles, such as that one I recall ruffled our feathers a bit. The one by the Atlantic from several years ago that apparently got certain things about the Pam Reynolds case wrong, leading to a person saying this:

"But it also says in that article, "But none of Reynolds’s reported veridical perceptions happened while her EEG recorded a flat line. They all took place before or after, when she was under anesthetic but very much alive.".  That's the trouble with these stories, the crucial bits seem so unverifiable just by the very nature of the experience; medical personnel who corroborate the timing of things the NDE experiencer remembers are doing so after the fact and concerning details they are not necessarily supposed to be focusing on at that moment."

IIRC, that claim is unsubstantiated and not supported by what her surgeons said. Also, burst suppression means she may as well have been dead at that point. And the details they were focusing on were crucial to that moment. I don't see why the wouldn't be.

Someone even pointed out that the oxygen deprivation theory has been virtually debunked by this point by anyone who has looked into NDEs, their features and the symptoms of oxygen deprivation. They even note what Parnia reminds us of all the time, regardless of what 'uncoordinated brainwave activity' there is...

"When a person stops breathing, their heart stops beating, and their brain has no measurable activity, that person is dead. That’s not my opinion, that is science. Without intervention they would certainly stay as such"

They also take the approach of 'if they're not all the same then they're hallucinations' while also saying 'if they're similar then they're also hallucinations'...
There's just no winning is there?

It's the internet, there's always going to be someone arguing against some belief you have.

The goal shouldn't be trying to convince the diehards, the goal should be to work on people who are amenable to changing their minds. Ten years ago I'd have doubted there would as much acceptance in STEM Academia for non-materialist views as there is today, not to mention the potential of quantum- and magneto- biology.

I think it is giant waste of time for us to worry about posters in other forums.

It's the internet, there's always going to be someone arguing against some belief you have.

The goal shouldn't be trying to convince the diehards, the goal should be to work on people who are amenable to changing their minds. Ten years ago I'd have doubted there would as much acceptance in STEM Academia for non-materialist views as there is today, not to mention the potential of quantum- and magneto- biology.

I think it is giant waste of time for us to worry about posters in other forums.

I do find it appalling however the amount of misinformation, misleading claims, extrapolation and dogmatism they displayed however. I noticed some comments saying how many of them are afraid to share their experiences out of fear from basically being persecuted and ridiculed by those horrible people. I feel sorry for the proponents/believers on there. Even when this forum has seen arguments, never have I seen the kind I saw here.

It's uncanny that they constantly insist that any evidence that isn't rooted in materialist physics or biology "isn't evidence" like it's some sort of mantra. The amount of name-calling, bullying, harassment, spamming and irrational behaviour there is ridiculous and those moderators should be ashamed for permitting it, despite it breaking most of their rules. 

I think tim has addressed that infamous Atlantic article before on the 'science' of NDEs on the AwareofAWARE blog, and how apparently it takes things out of context and makes unsupported assertions about the Pam Reynolds case that I mentioned. I also found their behaviour towards people like Fenwick disgusting. Just because he isn't a true 'scientist' doesn't make his research and beliefs any less valuable. He is still someone highly qualified on the subject of the brain and its relation to consciousness. If they bothered looking into anything else he'd worked on then they'd know that. But I still think it's notable that, in my time encountering these pseudo-skeptics, the common trend seems to be quoting or referencing articles/studies that are pretty old, or outdated, or haven't aged that well. Half the time they're barely relevant. If they're going to reference studies on consciousness, it should be checked that the study is relevant today or not and don't just start parroting studies that are many years old. NDE research can't be dismissed just because it's not what people like Parnia and Sartori are doing/have done. It's apparent to me they just don't like their conclusions and so dismiss them.

I do plan though on asking about a study the ringleader pseudo-skeptic kept insisting, in his ignorant claim that 'consciousness is not a mystery' to science.

I don't think this forum should become a place to review the content/behavior of other forums on the internet.

If I or anyone else wanted to go to other forums and see what they're up to we could do that.

If there's a relevant study or skeptical argument that's one thing, but continually bringing up what's happening in other forums is ridiculous.

Personally I think this is just more trolling, in hopes to rile up people here to go visit these other forums/blogs where skeptics can pile on. A rather pathetic attempt at reverse psychology.

I don't think this forum should become a place to review the content/behavior of other forums on the internet.

If I or anyone else wanted to go to other forums and see what they're up to we could do that.

If there's a relevant study or skeptical argument that's one thing, but continually bringing up what's happening in other forums is ridiculous.

Personally I think this is just more trolling, in hopes to rile up people here to go visit these other forums/blogs where skeptics can pile on. A rather pathetic attempt at reverse psychology.

I didn't know whether to post it here or on my other rant thread, though I acknowledge that it's not really a 'skeptical talking point' in some areas. I thought though the claims they made a few months back when Pam Reynolds (only mentioned in August for the first time somehow on their site) was brought were questionable. 


I suppose I may as well post the main skeptical talking point here then, instead of in a separate thread as I had originally planned. It revolves around the ringleader claiming that consciousness is 'not a mystery to science', mainly because of this 'successful' materialist theory of consciousness he referenced by Michael Graziano called the 'attention schema theory', which also claims to have evidence supporting it:

https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/44388/publications

This was from 2015 (once again, a skeptic citing an older source that, on this website at least, hasn't been followed up on since 2017):

We recently proposed the attention schema theory, a novel way to explain the brain basis of subjective awareness in a mechanistic and scientifically testable manner. The theory begins with attention, the process by which signals compete for the brain’s limited computing resources. This internal signal competition is partly under a bottom–up influence and partly under top–down control. We propose that the top–down control of attention is improved when the brain has access to a simplified model of attention itself. The brain therefore constructs a schematic model of the process of attention, the ‘attention schema,’ in much the same way that it constructs a schematic model of the body, the ‘body schema.’ The content of this internal model leads a brain to conclude that it has a subjective experience. One advantage of this theory is that it explains how awareness and attention can sometimes become dissociated; the brain’s internal models are never perfect, and sometimes a model becomes dissociated from the object being modeled. A second advantage of this theory is that it explains how we can be aware of both internal and external events. The brain can apply attention to many types of information including external sensory information and internal information about emotions and cognitive states. If awareness is a model of attention, then this model should pertain to the same domains of information to which attention pertains. A third advantage of this theory is that it provides testable predictions. If awareness is the internal model of attention, used to help control attention, then without awareness, attention should still be possible but should suffer deficits in control. In this article, we review the existing literature on the relationship between attention and awareness, and suggest that at least some of the predictions of the theory are borne out by the evidence.

I suppose I should have started with that. I'm not sure if this theory has been discussed on here before, I couldn't find this guy's name anywhere else on here. I do know it has a Wikipedia article I think. And again, I'm not trying to troll. I'm aware of the trolls that have been here in the past, and trust me I'm not a skeptic, just occasionally skeptical due to the claims of others challenging or confusing me, which is worse when it involves bashing certain people I look up to.

I don't think this forum should become a place to review the content/behavior of other forums on the internet.

If I or anyone else wanted to go to other forums and see what they're up to we could do that.

If there's a relevant study or skeptical argument that's one thing, but continually bringing up what's happening in other forums is ridiculous.

Personally I think this is just more trolling, in hopes to rile up people here to go visit these other forums/blogs where skeptics can pile on. A rather pathetic attempt at reverse psychology.

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.