Philosophy of the Hard Problem

I agree. Blackmore isn’t even a busted flush imo. She was never even a flush lol.

I too find it’s  easier if I focus on the bits of evidence that reinforce my views and ignore the rest lol

Hi, Obiwan! There's a very recent video of her taken at her house in Devon, talking to a German journalist seeking answers to life after death and in this case near death experiences. She's doing the dying brain thing on that and he's swallowing it whole, or it seems that way.

Hi, Obiwan! There's a very recent video of her taken at her house in Devon, talking to a German journalist seeking answers to life after death and in this case near death experiences. She's doing the dying brain thing on that and he's swallowing it whole, or it seems that way.

Hey Tim   
If there’s nothing to it, why no go and do something else? Lol

Hey Tim   
If there’s nothing to it, why no go and do something else? Lol

Do you mean...Blackmore would go and do something else if she really thought there was nothing going on? (ie if she really believed that NDE's are all explainable by physiological means etc ?). Yes, that would be a good point, come to think of it. I accused Woerlee of the same thing.

Do you mean...Blackmore would go and do something else if she really thought there was nothing going on? (ie if she really believed that NDE's are all explainable by physiological means etc ?). Yes, that would be a good point, come to think of it. I accused Woerlee of the same thing.

Hi Tim
Yes if there’s nothing in it why waste any more time on it? I’m not saying that genuine sceptics aren’t valuable because I think they are but Blackmore seems to be presenting herself as an expert on the facts not simply a sceptic.  

The “why” I suppose perhaps is to prevent people being misled. Many supporters of psi started off as ardent sceptics and were persuaded by the evidence they found. Blackmore appears to approach from the opposite direction: having done some (personally I don’t think much) research she seems to be pronouncing a general verdict based on what she didn’t find in that purported research. It doesn’t seem logical to me.

I suppose Blackmore may be indicative of the weakness of the arguments against psi/NDEs etc. if she’s the best they have then it’s a sad reflection.

Hi Tim
Yes if there’s nothing in it why waste any more time on it? I’m not saying that genuine sceptics aren’t valuable because I think they are but Blackmore seems to be presenting herself as an expert on the facts not simply a sceptic.  

The “why” I suppose perhaps is to prevent people being misled. Many supporters of psi started off as ardent sceptics and were persuaded by the evidence they found. Blackmore appears to approach from the opposite direction: having done some (personally I don’t think much) research she seems to be pronouncing a general verdict based on what she didn’t find in that purported research. It doesn’t seem logical to me.

I suppose Blackmore may be indicative of the weakness of the arguments against psi/NDEs etc. if she’s the best they have then it’s a sad reflection.

Very pertinent points ! Your relaxed approach to this is correct, I know that.

I don't know if anyone here watched the 'lucid dying' video that Typoz posted. Hoffman stated that "spacetime" is dead, basically (Einstein's theory?). He (as a neurologist as well) thought the NDE data was fascinating but not sufficient to overthrow the current paradigm on it's own. 

His reasoning for this was slightly odd, namely that 98% of physicists are 'materialist/reductionists' and even if there is good evidence of mind brain separation, they will ignore it under the guise of that can't happen, so it doesn't happen. A bit like a religious creed I think he meant to say (but didn't). 

Could they really just close the page (ignore) on a article referencing empirical evidence, from a well controlled study, that demonstrated consciousness without a brain (no neurons firing)? They might initially, I suppose, but surely some of them would be curious.

Maybe a few would be curious, but I think you underestimate the twisted irrational closedmindedness that afflicts many such people. This is where with a deep enough ego investment in materialism and a dominant enough intellect, they could even have a deep NDE and then dismiss it as a hallucination. Then, if challenged on that, complacently use the old David Hume "miracles are impossible, so all evidence for miracles is absolutely false regardless of quality" argument. That phony argument has been used by materialists for a couple of centuries.

I don't know if anyone here watched the 'lucid dying' video that Typoz posted. Hoffman stated that "spacetime" is dead, basically (Einstein's theory?). He (as a neurologist as well) thought the NDE data was fascinating but not sufficient to overthrow the current paradigm on it's own. 

Some time back Hoffman gave a good podcast on Skeptiko. I think his argument would be sound except that it assumes Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I think there is a ton of evidence that this theory is false.

Maybe a few would be curious, but I think you underestimate the twisted irrational closedmindedness that afflicts many such people. This is where with a deep enough ego investment in materialism and a dominant enough intellect, they could even have a deep NDE and then dismiss it as a hallucination. Then, if challenged on that, complacently use the old David Hume "miracles are impossible, so all evidence for miracles is absolutely false regardless of quality" argument. That phony argument has been used by materialists for a couple of centuries.

Hi, nbtruthman ! I know you're speaking figuratively there, but just to reiterate, I can assure you I don't underestimate it. I find it quite depressing that in the search for 'truth' (which we should all be about, surely) some things that are clearly evident are simply not allowed to exist.

Some time back Hoffman gave a good podcast on Skeptiko. I think his argument would be sound except that it assumes Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I think there is a ton of evidence that this theory is false.

Yes, I remember. As I understand it, the fossil record is massively incomplete and requires giant 'leaps' over periods such as the Cambrian etc. Then there's the problem of the origin of life, the building blocks assembling by mere chance which is not possible according to many scientists, I believe.

Yes, I remember. As I understand it, the fossil record is massively incomplete and requires giant 'leaps' over periods such as the Cambrian etc. Then there's the problem of the origin of life, the building blocks assembling by mere chance which is not possible according to many scientists, I believe.

This is, I think, a very deep problem for us all to think about. If we were made, why were we made?

The true answer may not be G.., because there could be many things going on. For example, if you look at the programming and hardware in a modern desktop computer, you could easily come to the conclusion that only a being far in advance of us could have made it. The fact is that we (humanity) made these things and program them routinely.

The process of programming involves shuffling millions of bits in specific ways, but we have a different way of looking at that. Before compilation, we may simply decide to add a statement - x=x^2+1 (say), but after compilation that will change a whole swathe of bits in the final program. Maybe there are ways to program with DNA in a similar way!

David