Narrow Minded MSM Scientist

Something that I think is good about me, is that I’ve nothing to prove, nothing to lose and I’d rather talk to someone who openly thinks I’m stupid than someone who hides their thoughts - it doesn’t bother me. 

So. Where do you think I’m being stupid? 

Stan: Caroline Watt is a stand alone person who’s views on Parapsychological matters I both disagree with and dislike

Since you've nothing to prove and nothing to lose why do you speak affirmatively about parapsychological stuff?

Since you've nothing to prove and nothing to lose why do you speak affirmatively about parapsychological stuff?

I’ve no idea. Probably the same reason that you ask smartass questions. 

I’ve no idea. Probably the same reason that you ask smartass questions. 

You've altered that, Stan

https://www.amazon.com/Neurology-Conscio...0128009489

Linda

A link to a $100 book on Amazon.  Okay.

Would you be willing to summarize the establish science that limit consciousness to the brain?

Oh, and for what its worth you may want to listen to the author's first 90 seconds of this video.  He makes an interesting point about established consciousness science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzu84rjPGI

A link to a $100 book on Amazon.  Okay.

Would you be willing to summarize the establish science that limit consciousness to the brain?

It's a deep and rich science which seems to take at least 488 pages to summarize...what exactly are you asking from me? A soundbite, like "consciousness resides in the brain"?

I'm sure you're aware of this, but just because you are unfamiliar with the science, and unwilling to read a book about it, does not make it go away.

Oh, and for what its worth you may want to listen to the author's first 90 seconds of this video.  He makes an interesting point about established consciousness science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzu84rjPGI

You mean the part where he says, "we're looking at the brain" with respect to tackling the mystery of consciousness?

You may be conflating two different things. There is a difference between understanding where something is to be found, and having worked out all the details. For example, just because we don't know the details of how gravity is produced doesn't mean that we can't say that it's tied to mass/inertia.

Linda

Quite. There's no evidence that she's given it any more thought, or is any more conversant with the relevant evidence, than the words "bonkers" and "woo" would suggest.

Whether it's consciousness, NDEs, off-hand remarks by politicians, or jokes by actors about their films, it's always bizarre to see Internet commentators put much twenty times more thought into tweets than their authors did.

Whether it's consciousness, NDEs, off-hand remarks by politicians, or jokes by actors about their films, it's always bizarre to see Internet commentators put much twenty times more thought into tweets than their authors did.

Sometimes such comments take on a life of their own with devastating consequences. There is the real-life story of the woman who made a tweet just before take-off on a long flight. When she landed, she found herself at the centre of a row and had lost her job.

There's definitely an argument for trying to regain a sense of proportion.

Still, this is the nature of the thing (Twitter), it is what it is.

Sometimes such comments take on a life of their own with devastating consequences. There is the real-life story of the woman who made a tweet just before take-off on a long flight. When she landed, she found herself at the centre of a row and had lost her job.

There's definitely an argument for trying to regain a sense of proportion.

Still, this is the nature of the thing (Twitter), it is what it is.

I think it’s one thing for an ‘ordinary joe’ to tweet something careless that unfortunately might go viral and have negative consequences for them. But for a high profile Professor to make a number of tweets over some time surely gives an indication of her true feelings, at the very least she should surely be aware of what she might be doing.

I respect her for being honest, it’s better having the truth out in the open than suppressing how you truly feel. At least now we are able to counter her opinions, or would be if she would take up an offer to openly discuss them on the type of discussion event we often see posted here. I suspect she personally does have the balls, but her bosses and others would oppose such a ‘pointless’ event, even if she perhaps wanted to, which I doubt.

Whether it's consciousness, NDEs, off-hand remarks by politicians, or jokes by actors about their films, it's always bizarre to see Internet commentators put much twenty times more thought into tweets than their authors did.

Nevertheless some carry a responsibility to be careful about how they express off-hand opinions. If you’re a powerful politician then you should not be tweeting misinformation or stirring up prejudice and division. If you are considered to be an expert then you should be aware that people may take your expertise as infallible and quote you in support of their own opinions.

As Silence alluded to, that's certainly a big fat book that Madam Linda linked to but as to getting us any nearer to understanding consciousness, I doubt there's even one fruitful sentence. The book title is simply a massive overestimation.        

I had a quick look at the Steven Laureys video. Laureys certainly does a good turn.  At 13.43 he says some of these patients come back and say, "Doctor, I was nearly dead!" (Unfortunately I don't think they do say that do they ?)

He then skates past the crux of the matter (veridical reports during periods of no brain activity) by highlighting the temporal parietal junction (which they like to believe provides the key to OBE's).

Our own Smithy actually had a good talk with Laureys and found him to be much more open minded than he appears to be in public. Laureys is aware that he's being watched (apparently)