Refutation/'debunking' of 'Neuroscientific Evidence-Irreducible Mind'

Maybe? I was confused based on the claims from the host, his blog and that video description.

Your first post still refers to him technically being a neuroscientist...if there's no proof of this shouldn't you remove that or add a note on lack of evidence until some turns up?

Your first post still refers to him technically being a neuroscientist...if there's no proof of this shouldn't you remove that or add a note on lack of evidence until some turns up?

That should have been adjusted now.

So unfortunately it seems this due weren't content with this, and decided to make a 6 hour long stream video debunking NDEs, or at least refuting the research of the likes of Sartori. 


So before biting my head off, please see the time stamps I reference for their main points. 

They spend a bit of time criticising apologist Gary Habermas (who apparently tried using NDEs as evidence for the resurrection of Christ)...but then go on to InspiringPhilosophy's video which cites Veridical cases as well as phenomena such as terminal lucidity, as well as the AWARE study and criticisms of the DMT theory. For the AWARE study, they accept there were two cases of verified auditory content, but it's too flawed apparently. 

The most important parts occur around the 2:40:00 mark onwards, which forms the crux of the video. 

So after a brief skim through I noticed a few things:

• They slightly address the Pam Reynolds case...with Keith Augustine's article. They proceed to make assumptions about it as well.
  
• Fodor basically uses the premissory materialism argument at one point and argues that dualists and other philosophies of mind also can't explain how NDEs work. 
  
• Sabom and Sartori had methodological issues with their studies according to Fodor because they didn't specify how to assess the accuracy of Veridical perceptions. 
  
• Fodor has the nerve to make uninformed assumptions about the Pam Reynolds case, such as claiming there was a 'malfunction' at some point in monitoring Pam's state? 
  
• Apparently the skim over one of Penny's books and dismiss her conclusions. 
  
• Dismiss what Parnia said about hallucinations with the Aware study because the results weren't good enough. 
  
• At around 3:52:00, Terminal Lucidity is brought up. For some reason, they completely gloss over that. 
  
• Fodor complains of how it would be possible for consciousness to perceive outside the body when our organs are physical. Fodor then goes into some argument about how this perception would violate the conservation of energy or something...
  
• Fodor admits that at least one of the Veridical cases he found was intriguing but dismisses the rest as 'unconvincing' early into the video. 
  
• Fodor and Nathan (the two hosts) keep citing a journal I don't recognise. I could tell whether it was the AWARE one or Keith Augustine's stuff. 
  
• Fodor seems to think the auditory cases are a product of regaining 'parts of consciousness' sufficient to allow this. Apparently it relates to a form of resuscitation. Some commenters already have noted however that Parnia has addressed this argument and Fodor is cherry picking. 
  
• The Maria's shoe case is addressed at around 3:16:00. Fodor dismisses it basically as weak evidence comparable to UFO abductions. 
  

He admittedly does cite the Journal of Near Death Studies for some of these cases...which issues however I couldn't tell. The reconstruction argument comes into play at a point as well.

I thought you and Darren had NDE researchers you could phone up and chat with?

Why not have them deal with this? 

It's...let's go with interesting...that  you can mark time stamps on a 6 hour skeptic debunking video - and the four hours video before this one - but couldn't even read the first 2 pages original Jim Tucker reincarnation report to see a skeptic was lying about what was in it.

So unfortunately it seems this due weren't content with this, and decided to make a 6 hour long stream video debunking NDEs, or at least refuting the research of the likes of Sartori. 


So before biting my head off, please see the time stamps I reference for their main points. 

They spend a bit of time criticising apologist Gary Habermas (who apparently tried using NDEs as evidence for the resurrection of Christ)...but then go on to InspiringPhilosophy's video which cites Veridical cases as well as phenomena such as terminal lucidity, as well as the AWARE study and criticisms of the DMT theory. For the AWARE study, they accept there were two cases of verified auditory content, but it's too flawed apparently. 

The most important parts occur around the 2:40:00 mark onwards, which forms the crux of the video. 

So after a brief skim through I noticed a few things:

• They slightly address the Pam Reynolds case...with Keith Augustine's article. They proceed to make assumptions about it as well.
  
• Fodor basically uses the premissory materialism argument at one point and argues that dualists and other philosophies of mind also can't explain how NDEs work. 
  
• Sabom and Sartori had methodological issues with their studies according to Fodor because they didn't specify how to assess the accuracy of Veridical perceptions. 
  
• Fodor has the nerve to make uninformed assumptions about the Pam Reynolds case, such as claiming there was a 'malfunction' at some point in monitoring Pam's state? 
  
• Apparently the skim over one of Penny's books and dismiss her conclusions. 
  
• Dismiss what Parnia said about hallucinations with the Aware study because the results weren't good enough. 
  
• At around 3:52:00, Terminal Lucidity is brought up. For some reason, they completely gloss over that. 
  
• Fodor complains of how it would be possible for consciousness to perceive outside the body when our organs are physical. Fodor then goes into some argument about how this perception would violate the conservation of energy or something...
  
• Fodor admits that at least one of the Veridical cases he found was intriguing but dismisses the rest as 'unconvincing' early into the video. 
  
• Fodor and Nathan (the two hosts) keep citing a journal I don't recognise. I could tell whether it was the AWARE one or Keith Augustine's stuff. 
  
• Fodor seems to think the auditory cases are a product of regaining 'parts of consciousness' sufficient to allow this. Apparently it relates to a form of resuscitation. Some commenters already have noted however that Parnia has addressed this argument and Fodor is cherry picking. 
  
• The Maria's shoe case is addressed at around 3:16:00. Fodor dismisses it basically as weak evidence comparable to UFO abductions. 
  

He admittedly does cite the Journal of Near Death Studies for some of these cases...which issues however I couldn't tell. The reconstruction argument comes into play at a point as well.

You basically answer your own points here. None of these are awfully convincing and even if they were, they're getting small pieces of specific studies, it's a good thing we've got more than them. The conservation of energy thing is interesting and something we need to think about, if it happens it seems to be non physical, and we know it happens so yknow. The regaining consciousness during ressucitation part lile you said has been addressed before as well. We KNOW what it's like to suddenly snap back during ressucitation, it"s disorientating, scary and fuckin awful since you just almost died, and that's if it even happens, which we know it might not during time markers for OBEs. 

I think these guys are doing shitty shots because they're debunking apologetics. They aren't interested at looking at things impartially, or looking at NDEs and how they stand on their own feet. They want them to be gone so they can say that religion is wrong and that clouds over their entire attitude. Shows you how logical some atheists can end up being.