Reading “Proof of Spiritual Phenomena”

I have a vague memory of enjoying it. Well enough so that the name stuck in my mind when you mentioned him!

It's not the best show on Skeptiko and I have only listended to maybe 10 interviews in total. But Ian comes accross as reasonable trustworthy to me. There's also a recent interview with him on Youtube.

https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/29..._final.pdf
A critique of Parnia that Kondziella was involved with.
It's just me or it sounds like they are trying to "brute force" a consensus? Some of the points already got addressed by Parnia and others.

It's a ridiculous paper.  He's saying that Parnia's patients weren't really dead because they weren't brain dead. Well you can't study patient's reports when they're brain dead, because they don't have any, they're brain dead and can't report anything, obviously. So in other words, Kondziella is saying that Parnia's patient's weren't really dead and their experiences happened just before they had their arrest. 

Except that cardiac arrest is a massive insult to the brain and neurologists (the experts as he should be) know that your memories
before the arrest should be lost (wiped). They can often judge the severity of the arrest by this memory loss, apparently. 

He just doesn't like the implications, it's a simple as that which is understandable but not very scientific.

It's a ridiculous paper.  He's saying that Parnia's patients weren't really dead because they weren't brain dead. Well you can't study patient's reports when they're brain dead, because they don't have any, they're brain dead and can't report anything, obviously.

The implications are that Parnia and everyone else studying cardiac arrest NDEs should just stop as they will never be able to provide any evidence to suit this critic, by definition.

That sort of attitude comes in a very similar category to that of "I wouldn't believe it even if it were true".

It's a ridiculous paper.  He's saying that Parnia's patients weren't really dead because they weren't brain dead. Well you can't study patient's reports when they're brain dead, because they don't have any, they're brain dead and can't report anything, obviously. So in other words, Kondziella is saying that Parnia's patient's weren't really dead and their experiences happened just before they had their arrest. 

Except that cardiac arrest is a massive insult to the brain and neurologists (the experts as he should be) know that your memories
before the arrest should be lost (wiped). They can often judge the severity of the arrest by this memory loss, apparently. 

He just doesn't like the implications, it's a simple as that which is understandable but not very scientific.

I noticed that the recent "skeptical" papers always propose the explanations, but never any possible objections. Like the one that was a compilation of models for NDE's did not mention the objections to the ketamine and temporal lobe theories made by other researchers.

The implications are that Parnia and everyone else studying cardiac arrest NDEs should just stop as they will never be able to provide any evidence to suit this critic, by definition.

That sort of attitude comes in a very similar category to that of "I wouldn't believe it even if it were true".

Precisely, Typoz !

I noticed that the recent "skeptical" papers always propose the explanations, but never any possible objections. Like the one that was a compilation of models for NDE's did not mention the objections to the ketamine and temporal lobe theories made by other researchers.

Anyone with even a modicum of common sense can see the gulf, the hopeless inadequacy of the materialist model compared to what is actually reported (the data). Except them.

https://broadspeculations.com/2021/09/09...-and-ndes/
This is getting pretty boring, but I'm interested if someone on the proponent side already reviewed that book and what Blackmore said in this interview
Also relevant:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...B879D6BB66

https://broadspeculations.com/2021/09/09...-and-ndes/
This is getting pretty boring, but I'm interested if someone on the proponent side already reviewed that book and what Blackmore said in this interview
Also relevant:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...B879D6BB66

I don't think anyone who is a long-time proponent cares about Blackmore's propaganda campaign.

I don't think anyone who is a long-time proponent cares about Blackmore's propaganda campaign.

The author of the review posted claims to have a similar background as Blackmore, yet I notice a lack of familiarity with NDE studies, given that he doesn't mention the responses to the rat study and Woerlee's claims.
He seems to like Blackmore's eliminativism but also enjoys the EM field theory of consciousness, which as far as I know is even less well regarded than quantum theories.

This is getting pretty boring, but I'm interested if someone on the proponent side already reviewed that book and what Blackmore said in this interview

It is an old topic. I started by trying to grasp just what is the perspective of the author of that blog. So first I read a somewhat interesting post on the same site about a practical session or several sessions in a flotation tank.
https://broadspeculations.com/2012/10/21/floating/

The description of the experience was interesting, though not profound.

What was revealing is amidst the post was this assertion:

Consciousness, as it actually exists, does have a physical basis but it is basis in biology.

I'm not sure to what extent Cross has shifted position since the 2012 date of that post. Not much change I would guess, based on the concluding line on the OBE - NDE post:

It would be a comfort to many, I’m sure, if our consciousness could exist outside our bodies and survive death. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be really any evidence for it.

The "comfort" line is a thinly-veiled euphemism for "self-delusion". That does everyone a disservice I think. A more honourable position would be to simply admit to not knowing, to leave such questions open-ended. What is also revealing in is which 'expert' he chose to write about.

If one were to make a list of prominent writers, researchers or experts in the field of OBEs or another similar list of experts in the field of NDEs, that name would probably appear, but it would certainly need to be balanced by any of the numerous more active present-day participants rather than reach so far back in time. I say far back because even thirty years ago Blackmore had already set out her sceptical position and hasn't made any significant contributions in the intervening years that I'm aware of.