New proponent vs. skeptic debate on survival of death in JSE

The latest issue of JSE, under the "Commentary" section at the following link, features a debate on the evidence for postmortem survival, centered on the BICS contest essays: https://journalofscientificexploration.o...ue/view/85. (Incidentally, does anyone know why the promised followup pieces by James Matlock and Michael Sudduth on the Leininger reincarnation case AREN'T in this issue?)

Probably the major proponent in the debate is Stephen Braude and the major skeptic Keith Augustine, whom PQ members probably know from his critique of NDEs as survival evidence. The new JSE editor, Houran, again has given skeptics the last word, which is kind of annoying because it's starting to look like a pattern suggestive of bias (he gave Sudduth the last word on the Leininger case in the last issue of JSE and apparently gave him the last word in reply to Matlock's forthcoming piece too).

In any case, there's a lot of interesting material in the exchange. In this final reply, Augustine presents a number of criticisms of the evidential value of Leonora Piper's mediumship, which were unfamiliar to me, though seemingly largely sourced from older material. I didn't previously know about James Munves' critique of Hodgson's research on Piper published in JSPR in 1997, for example. (This led me to realize that Alan Gauld's book from this year on mediumship cites Munves repeatedly, and points out that at least one of the claims from Munves aiming to undermine the Piper evidence, on which Augustine uncritically relies, is pretty weak: "Munves (1997-98: 143), criticizes Hodgson for having 'concealed' in the printed account of the sitting the fact that though he claims that the seance notes were his, he was absent from the sitting (having been sent out because of the sensitive nature of what was said) for a period, as estimated by Munves from the typescript, of 24 minutes, during which the notes were clearly made by Heard and several significant Pellew-related names were mentioned. 'Concealed' here is rather a tendentious word in view of the fact that the missing Pellew-related bits occupied only a single sentence of the printed paper and no specifics were revealed. However, Hodgson should certainly have mentioned his absence"). 

I wonder what PQ members think of the arguments on both sides.

We have been discussing this topic in another thread, and some of the literature, scholars, scientists, and what they think they can use as "evidence" to support some strange outlines of what they want to define as proper science.

It is too bad that we can't just tag humans with some isotope that would be tracked after death and into rebirth. This is likely the only way most of science will ever pay attention or agree that something is there.
The problem is that we have no legitimate scientific, repeatable method, of knowing for sure if we have contact with the actual remnants of any deceased person, or if memories of past lives might have other sources, etc.
So they need to drop it, plain and simple.
The arguments and methods are wasting resources and go nowhere.
This remains in the realm of religion, because we can't prove or disprove much, which leaves it open to let people make their own conclusions and believe whatever they wish to believe.
Then you have those who personally experience the reincarnation memories, or are mediums that swear they are talking to dead people (some of these dead folks have likely already reincarnated, go figure there), or have any of a number of other psi phenomena, related or not related, that have to put up with these "scholars" talking nonsense and wasting money. Then asking for more money, of course.
Talks and debates will not fix this issue.
Proper science and testing might, if they would stop fighting and pool some brain power and resources. 
But that will never happen. Because they are what they are. Products of the brainwashed education system, politics, ego. Clinging to bad science and bad experiments while arguing over past history experiments or subjects.
Does anyone else ever get the feeling that these hurdles and blockades get put in place on purpose?
These puppets are only performing, not actually thinking or acting independently?
Then we get spoon fed ONLY the information they want us to see, with a particular slant that rams that right up your behind, true or not?
These are not the droids you should be looking for, or listening to, or following, if you want to find truth and answers.
I think, at a minimum, we need to start vetting these folks with brain scans and evaluations, the reasons should be pretty obvious.

[Ninshub]

Once again, the study, and the blinders and limitations they prescribe, block the information flow between studies because they have no clue what they are doing, or how to properly design or perform these experiments.
Remote viewing has tons of accurate targets and crosses the border into OOBE and AP constantly. Trying to keep these separate using a name or technique is silly.
Ingo Swann, Sean Harribance, and many others have shown a lot of success, and we see that they obviously share particular brain patterns and neural networks that can be seen on scans. Sean located Saddam and was paid for that, by the government, while they continue to claim this isn't possible.
So we have these fakes, talkers, politics, career babies, and lots of scientists and researchers wasting resources that shouldn't be in the mix in the first place.
They are hacks, and need to go.

Can you clarify a bit in what way that specific study by Penny Sartori is not properly designed or how it "blocks information"?

I'm also not sure who you mean when you say "They are hacks". Do you mean researchers like Penny Sartori?

Once again, the study, and the blinders and limitations they prescribe, block the information flow between studies because they have no clue what they are doing, or how to properly design or perform these experiments.
Remote viewing has tons of accurate targets and crosses the border into OOBE and AP constantly. Trying to keep these separate using a name or technique is silly...

If I may offer a suggestion - I think you should be more technical and specific in your writing as it is very hard to keep track of what you are referring to.

I get the sense you believe there should be more specific subjects who have demonstrated facility with Psi, and that much of what is seen as supernatural has explanations that are more extrapolations of mundane physics...but even there I'm not 100% sure.

Can you clarify a bit in what way that specific study by Penny Sartori is not properly designed or how it "blocks information"?

I'm also not sure who you mean when you say "They are hacks". Do you mean researchers like Penny Sartori?

I would have to look deeper into Penny to answer that, it appears she works with the dying and does NDE research.
 
Hacks was referring to all those who sit around and regurgitate the same arguments using the same research materials while discrediting and bullying anyone they think hasn't done things to some standard (that they usually don't maintain, but demand from others), while doing nothing to correct the issues, further the research, and then collect fat paychecks for nothing but ranting.

So regarding Penny, not death or dying long term and then coming back as in our reincarnation questions, but survival of the momentary death scenario and coming back. Claiming it is anything else needs actual science.

The experience of almost dying and then being revived (like the nothing but dark I have had multiple times when dying and being revived). The only tunnel I experienced was actually visual, with my eyes still open and my oxygen running out, sounds started to echo and my visual field was slowly shrinking to a small circular space right in front of me. So shit happens, but it didn't make it some NDE for me personally. 

Not to discount the experiences of others, just never had an NDE, and have had a few chances for that. So it isn't universal or something actually shared across the board for everyone. 

Claiming it is universal without any real proof is a hack or a religious belief.

Not having experienced any near death experience while being in the near death situation multiple times leaves me with nothing personal to corroborate, deny, or challenge the experiences of others, or Penny. But there is no solid proof or there wouldn't be discussions and contemplation about it.

Now, if Penny is inserting her own beliefs, making assumptions, and not just reporting these experiences, or if she is taking them to a religious level and using her PhD to leverage attention while calling that science, then she is a hack, where my version of hack means interested in her own agenda, tooting her own horn, trying to get funding, or something of that nature which should be unbecoming of any scientist. 

Science should observe, take notes, share that data, make theories and then state clearly why it is a theory and not a fact. So if she is in that category, she is fine.

Science needs to then design more tests and determine if they can prove things one way or another.

If an NDE is a personal experience without any proof or way of testing that, it remains a religion or an interesting phenomena, but is still not science by itself, or a fact, or undisputed, etc. That would change if everyone experienced it, on every occasion, and saw the same place, had the same experiences. But they don't, so it is not science or fact. Btw, I don't see psychology or psychiatry in the same boat as science, because they have drifted away from science and become mostly woo woo drug pushers who have zero interest in science or actually helping solve problems or understand the mind, with a few exceptions. So most of these are hacks who don't care, and want fat paychecks as drug pushers.

But, to answer your question in a short form, even the author we recently discussed pointed out the same conclusions, the convenient avoidance of all data not related to whatever point they want to make (when data showed up in research and was repeated, they remove or alter it, thus making them hacks), without supplying any of this other data that might be resonable to other scientists for sharing conclusions across multiple other research disciplines. 

They could give a shit about other disciplines, other research, other scientists or the data that might actually apply that they refuse to look at. Again hacks.

Hacks use convenient avoidance of related phenomena that belongs to the same paranormal arena, that isn't part of whatever narrative they are using, to either support what they want you see, or deny what they want to deny. 

Hacks are not real scientists. They are mainly bullies with paper degrees on the wall. Likely purchased by mommy and daddy, not earned, and they usually don't have the skill or aptitude necessary for the work.

And most of this system is run by these hacks, not by real science or scientists.

There are exceptions, and they would then be obvious because they try to cross t's and dot i's and not drag personal agenda, butt hurt feelings, politics, religion, or other things into what they are doing, keeping it scientific.

What most of these hacks are doing is steering. This is obvious. The only other thing that comes to my mind, if this isn't malicious, is ignorance.

If you take some scientist that is either ignorant or malicious and let them design and carry out experiments or research. And then allow them to come to conclusions when they are not any kind of subject matter expert, or when they don't know the first thing about the whole field of study, or where they could compare these results and see where lines cross... or when they don't care to know about the whole arena, or con't bother to research it, or to bring people on board that do know, etc.

And sadly, this is what I see in most of these studies, and most of these hacks. 

Blinders on, barking at things they have personal problems with, not properly reporting facts or data, and then wanting the fat paycheck. All the while shitting on anyone in the way or that disagrees with them like the bullies they are.

Most doctors have this kind of tunnel vision. They don't know much except what they do every day. The really don't know anything about nutrition, the medicines they prescribe, what to pretest for, or how to follow up, and kill people constantly with this ignorance, while getting a fat paycheck for being ignorant of things they should know. Again, there are a few exceptions.

To allow this sort of scrappy hack mental disorder to run the paranormal psi research world is sad, yet they do this in all sorts of other disciplines as well, and between agencies that should be cooperating and sharing data, but never do. So it runs deeper than just paranormal. It is a problem of real repeat testing and evidence, communication, and this repeat failure brainwashing education system that shows a lack of everything.

You get my point.
In the case of NDE, we have a few tests showing certain chemistry changes and releases, how long the brain actually continues to fire and function, and more. To share similar hallucinations under the same drug is common, with similar symptoms. That doesn't make this drug induced condition something magical or some shared existence study, but it could if, for example, everyone on mescaline went to the same strange place and could interact there, all of them recalling the same interaction and environment. But it isn't. There is nobody going with them into the NDE and coming back to help confirm anything, no matter how similar these experiences are for the dying.

Sometimes, you can see the lack of science, when you see things mentioned like reincarnation markings as scars of previous lives. Yet we do autopsies all day, every day, for a long time now, and we don't see any people with those scars. Yet they claim tribal folks mark the dead and the dead come back with these markings.

That would be an example of not connecting the dots between actual things, and what they are claiming to be true or evidence, and not comparing this with other disciplines to see that the markings would be a very simple and easy way to start tracking the dead, if the markings would work this way. Then design that experiment with volunteers, just like organ donors volunteer. It isn't rocket science to actually design some interesting research and tests. But these hacks keep repeating the same garbage, not moving forward, not giving us answers, and fighting over nonsense.

Sometimes, you can see the lack of science, when you see things mentioned like reincarnation markings as scars of previous lives. Yet we do autopsies all day, every day, for a long time now, and we don't see any people with those scars. Yet they claim tribal folks mark the dead and the dead come back with these markings.

You seem to be saying since not everyone has birthmarks that mirror entry/exit wounds from a past life this is proof the reincarnation claims are false?

This seems like erroneous reasoning to me?

If I may offer a suggestion - I think you should be more technical and specific in your writing as it is very hard to keep track of what you are referring to.

I get the sense you believe there should be more specific subjects who have demonstrated facility with Psi, and that much of what is seen as supernatural has explanations that are more extrapolations of mundane physics...but even there I'm not 100% sure.

Yes, rambling and bitching, that's my strength. Lol

Thanks for the suggestion. I can try. 

For me, being technical might entail picking apart every one of the hacks, and what is wrong with these results, and what is wrong with this type of science (or lack of) and then present that in some formatted and sterile information dump. 

But, I don't care to sit down and waste my time doing this with most of these cases or subjects, because they are just so obviously bent, and it wouldn't fix anything or change the opinions of people. People only respect people they think are above them, or have more knowledge and experience. They assume others know better, when in reality, most of them don't. That fake reality crap has got to go. 

Just because someone learned how to structure some argument in some science format, or write a paper in AP format, doesn't make them the expert of anything, or better, or that they know what they are talking about. The education bullies will have you think so. They won't accept this or that. They don't like it that way. My way or the highway, we are better than you, blah blah blah.

I do realize why I'm not popular or have any fame or fortune. If this was your polite way of pointing that out.

Is that what you refer to as technical, regurgitating facts like they teach in school, repeating already known textbook data, or do you want my ramblings to have more structure like a science paper???

Not sure what would help you, since this is a chat forum. 

Most of my comments are on the fly mental regurgitations related to posts that I care comment on, and not some structured science project.

I often speak of things I have experience with, or know personally, or where I can see that the scientist or the study are not even close to how things actually work in real life, or things that can't be proven using the testing or methods they use.

And yes, these do include the wrong test subjects most of the time.

So on the mundane physics: 
When it comes to psi or supernatural phenomena, we certainly shouold apply physics and test as much as we can first, before going down the Psi rabbit hole. 
Many things can be mundane, normal, or something else that can be explained, which can disqualify things from much of the psi studies in many ways. 
These mundane things are too many to go into detail, that would likely take an entire book.

And yes, we are attempting to figure out how psi might fit into physics, or if psi would make sense in any physics arena. Perfectly legitimate in many ways. Quantum this or that is a great example of this. Quantum relationships are another great example where one area can flow into another, and should be understood and used where applicable to determine if we have the same or similar events happening. Perfectly legitimate as long as it is done properly.

Things like fakes, who can manipulate objects with magnets and try to trick people, are usually debunked using mundane physics or simple sleuth work.
It has a place and time in many things. You don't toss physics out just because you wish for the manipulation to be true.
Duh, common sense, but this appears to be lacking in all sorts of areas.

Where hacks design experiments that will totally block psi, and then claim it doesn't exist because it wouldn't dance for them on demand. Then somehow want respect because they have some accolades. I don't take the time to entertain any of their garbage, because they are garbage scientists. No respect from me, and it will take time to earn that back or dig themselves out of that hole. I can't be second-guessing if some scientist is legitimate today, not tomorrow, etc.

Once we have ruled out the mundane, then the application of the entire psi phenomena research has to apply, not just one narrow-minded area, and certainly not based on woo woo, religion, or personal preferences. 

Examples we have touched on, like telepathy being studied successfully, while at the same time using no talent folks as controls, shows not only that the no talents are not successful, but the brain scans between successful telepathy and those without success, are totally different. So different that we start naming configurations that repeat across successful telepathy subjects. 
They are that clear. 

Then hacks think they can ignore or disapprove of this data, without doing the work or proving it. Just because they think they are somehow elite and can downplay or negate these using whatever, mostly statistics or picking apart the scientists like school bullies.

So I respond emotionally to much of this, since it is so blatantly obvious and everyone thinks science is nothing but disagreement and fighting.

So why aren't we looking and using these scans to locate better subjects? 

Why not expand these types of scans to other psi phenemona?

Why do they keep getting volunteer students without talent as test subjects and then claiming it fails and is then not real? 

Because they don't listen, don't look, don't inform themselves, and waste everyone's time and money arguing that it didn't work. And this does apply across the board to all these old arguments that keep surfacing over and over like a bad case of herpes. It is disgusting.

Since we are proving psi phenomena using science and physics, it means that we do have ways of testing and measuring many psi phenomena that are legitimate, accepted, and fact. 

Only by bringing these disciplines together, do we see some of the facts we need. Speculation goes in the trash when we have facts.

Sometimes, we only get what we need by comparing study A and study B. 
So here is where the hacks fail over and over.
We might see that specific neural network patterns are relevant to some psi phenomena, and that the selection of the right subjects is entirely relevant to the success of the study USING THESE PATTERNS, and that we COULD THEN USE THIS DATA to likely determine imany other psi phenomena truths, such as, if any medium is reading your mind for information using known and measured telepathy methods, and not talking to the dead, even if that is what it "feels like" to the subject. 
We have tested mediums, and the brain neural network is different in most of them, it is like they drop off to sleep and come back, which is a definate and certain neural signature, different from telepathy. 
Not all mediums use this, and some are using telepath neural networks. Both exist, both are legitimate. Claiming one or the other as the only answer makes them hacks. Science should see this.

We don't know unless we look at it and compare that with existing data. Not comparing and not looking is the problem with hacks.

We could do a sleep study of children with past life memories that are currently having reincarnation memory dreams and IF WE USE WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, we might see that what we know about dreams and patterns, or telepaths, and other data, could likely help determine if these dreams are telepathic, or if they are downloading data from some common source, or if this has a signature of its own. But they don't. They sit and argue things and bully each other.

Hacks would rather make assumptions and insert a dream memory as some kind of proof or fact for reincarnation. It might be. It might be sometimes, and other times it might be psychometry, or telepathy, or reading some akashic record. 
To claim it is only this one thing, and nothing else, is a hack.
 
That is steering, and not followed up with proper measure for any real conclusions, other than they have proper information of someone's life. All the while the hacks sit around and pick at this data, and the research, as if it were actual real proof.  
It is obviously memories from a previously living person, where the actual source and means are still to be determined.
 
Claiming it to be obvious and unfallible proof of reincarnation, while there are still many other successful ways to get this memory data, makes them into hacks. 
Not coming up with testing and ways to check if this is valid data, not using science, not using physics, makes them hacks. 
Excluding things makes them hacks. 
Including things that don't belong makes them hacks. 
Assigning all things to one source makes them hacks. 
Acting like psi phenomena can't exist in many different ways at the same time makes them hacks. 
Not ever having experienced any psi phenomena, and making bold statements about it, can make them a hack, depending on how they approach that.

So much is lacking, the lack of sharing this information across disciplines, the lack of actual knowledge from these obviously fake "experts", and the lack of including psi research in other psi research, lack of understanding the subject matter, lack of applying the technology and physics we do have, is simply shocking to me.
What is more shocking is that everyone just follows them blindly and believes everything they say or print.

So my posts are not always technical, but heartfelt and truthful from my perspective. Technical side be damned in some situations.

Hope that was helpful, long rant, sorry.

You seem to be saying since not everyone has birthmarks that mirror entry/exit wounds from a past life this is proof the reincarnation claims are false?

This seems like erroneous reasoning to me?

Now your changing the context and twisting it. Why?

Not everyone has marks representing death. Fact.
Some do. Fact.
I'm saying that if we have village people making marks on the dead, that then sometime show up, this might be a way to create an experiment about this type of marking being carried forward. 
Where we could mark people with a number in a specific place and if reported, track that.
It is simply a strange coincidence that we carve people up in autopsy and see nothing coming forward from that.
So you took that completely out of context, when I was making a point about the dual nature of what works there doesn't work here and should be questioned as to why.
So this might not be the way the markings work.
I would have interviewed the villagers about this process, if there are rituals invovled, etc.
That is an area where we could develop some experiments or further our knowledge.
Why is everyone on here so hell bent on making everything so negative or shaking people down with bullying and false claims?
There was NOTHING there about it NOT being something interesting.
It makes me wonder what you are reading? What do you interpret?

Now your changing the context and twisting it. Why?

I just asked for a clarification?

This is why I think you should be much more clear in what you are saying, perhaps leave out some of the general complaints about the state of the world, academia, and such.

There's no insult implied, it's that I think myself and other forum members are having a hard time parsing what your arguments are.

I just asked for a clarification?

This is why I think you should be much more clear in what you are saying, perhaps leave out some of the general complaints about the state of the world, academia, and such.

There's no insult implied, it's that I think myself and other forum members are having a hard time parsing what your arguments are.

Clarification would be fine, you called me or my thinking ERRONEOUS, which is insulting. That means WRONG or INCORRECT in case you needed clarification. While then not saying what you think would be CORRECT or RIGHT.

That was an unnecessary comment that calls for conflict. 
Trying to redirect this, or excuse this as something else, shows me that you are dodging responsibility for what you type, or don't understand the consequences of calling someone out as wrong, or then stupid in this case. All the while complaining about the way I respond and wanting me to be something I'm not, or respond in a way that suits you, regardless of how I express myself and what I include. These things are not your decision to make, or to steer me for your convenience. You are way out of line here.

And, you obviously didn't bother to read the whole thing properly, or the context, before shaking me down with some insinuated insult.
You could have asked me to specifically clarify that point, but you sent me down the stupid hole instead, like many others on here that jump to conclusions and try to insult and bully in order to dominate and control, or show some higher intelligence using pompous words and hiding behind your ability to technically clarify things in some language that other technically minded people will understand. 
Your thing, your role, not mine. Just ignore me if it bothers you. How's that?

I don't think you can speak for others in the forum. YOU are having a hard time parsing things. Nobody else has said anything about it with the exception of attacking me and claiming I'm a skeptic when that is very far from any truth.

That might be because you are not a native American English speaking person? Not sure.

You use some awfully big words, and insults disquised as something intelligent.
Please stop doing that and I won't have to ignore you.

I could try to keep one thought to one sentence. One idea to a paragraph.
Dumb things down, keep it all straigtforward and simple.

Not all of my posts are directed at you, or for your eyes only.

I would like to think that most people can follow my train of thought without any issues.
How I communicate is my thing, my style. I will not bow down to your requirements.

Some might be offended at my comments if they work in these fields. But I would claim that only those who are hacks would complain. Those who are actually being scientists and doing the right thing know exactly what I am talking about, and who this includes.

Clarification would be fine, you called me or my thinking ERRONEOUS, which is insulting. That means WRONG or INCORRECT in case you needed clarification. While then not saying what you think would be CORRECT or RIGHT.

That was an unnecessary comment that calls for conflict.

Isn't that just stating my belief?

For example Nbtruthman and I have had some debates and each of us have said, in one way or another, that the other person is erroneous in their thinking without intending it as an insult. Isn't that just the very nature of debate, that each person thinks the other is incorrect?