Sam Parnia in Newsweek article

I'll give two answers. You are to quick to drawing conclusions.  Cut the dogmatic crap. It's an over used and distorted accusation.

Yeah.. 40+ years of hearing the same reports ? That's quick ? 

As for your never changing opinions and absurd demands for incontrovertible proof, it's fair comment to bracket it as dogma. I would also say you are bad tempered as well because my post was perfectly polite.

Yeah.. 40+ years of hearing the same reports ? That's quick ? 

As for your never changing opinions and absurd demands for incontrovertible proof, it's fair comment to bracket it as dogma. I would also say you are bad tempered as well because my post was perfectly polite.

I am only seeing the quoted parts of Steve's responses as he remains on ignore but I had to laugh at his comment about his not identifying as a materialist. It would be difficult to count the number of his posts attacking the "immaterialist" (his favoured term) position. With that in mind along with all the materialist bias he produces in links and opinions, I have to wonder what he does identify as. He is, without a doubt, the most dogmatic of any member here.

I am only seeing the quoted parts of Steve's responses as he remains on ignore but I had to laugh at his comment about his not identifying as a materialist. It would be difficult to count the number of his posts attacking the "immaterialist" (his favoured term) position. With that in mind along with all the materialist bias he produces in links and opinions, I have to wonder what he does identify as. He is, without a doubt, the most dogmatic of any member here.

It's childish to use the ignore feature. Instead choose not to respond.

I am only seeing the quoted parts of Steve's responses as he remains on ignore but I had to laugh at his comment about his not identifying as a materialist. It would be difficult to count the number of his posts attacking the "immaterialist" (his favoured term) position. With that in mind along with all the materialist bias he produces in links and opinions, I have to wonder what he does identify as. He is, without a doubt, the most dogmatic of any member here.

I don't know why I bothered responding to his post, Dave. I thought he might actually explain himself and his motives a bit better. Sadly, trying to have a discussion with Steve can be a bit like attempting to speak to a shirty 'drunk' at 2 o'clock in the morning.

My comment was a general reply. Tim's long ago reply likely jives with a majority view.
I've for years heard it claimed consciousness persists after death. The question I've never heard is: For how long?


 Not in the slightest am I persuaded by Mr. Parnia's research. Frankly, I have no idea what happens after death and for that one reason alone I have no opinion one way or another. Though I have no firm opinion it should noted no one has after thousands of years shown incontrovertible evidence of life after death. I'm pragmatic.

I don't identify myself as a materialist. That's what others do. I just go along. My position is don't argue what might be true, what you want to be true and what you think is true. It's show me it's true. If that isn't done then it's all just hopeful thinking.

What’s the general oxygen level in the brain during cardiac arrest?

 (1): Though I have no firm opinion it should noted no one has after thousands of years shown incontrovertible evidence of life after death. I'm pragmatic.

(2): My position is don't argue what might be true, what you want to be true and what you think is true. It's show me it's true. If that isn't done then it's all just hopeful thinking.

(1): Firstly, what is and is not incontrovertible is completely subjective just like all evidence which is why the concept of something being "self-evident" is ridiculous since what counts as evidence got that way because of someone's interpretation. In this case incontrovertible can only mean in your personal opinion. Secondly, actually looking for "incontrovertible" evidence is probably the least possible scientific position to hold. It completey denies statistcal reasoning. According to your argument an engineer who's designing a house MUST be a psuedo-scientific crackpot because there is no evidence, incontrovertible or otherwise, that THAT particular house will be structurally sound because it does not yet exist for such evidence to be collected. But of course engineers don't take a wait and see approach because it's ridiculous, they look at the statistics of similar methods used before and assume that, probably, this house will behave the same way. And sometimes they're wrong.

Statistically, the evidence of psi is completely incontrovertible regardless of there not being one single smoking gun study. The reasons for there not being such a study are what should get debated. Because chances are the answer will have a lot more to do with funding, education, technology and general resource allocation than anything to do with psi itself.

(2): Literally you are saying that people are only allowed to believe what you tell them they are allowed to believe. Heated debate about what may, be thought to be, or desired to be true is one of the fundamental lynchpins of organized and established science. I mean, peer reviews are not for the faint of heart  so I've heard since the whole idea is to nitpick every possible thing about your study and your conclusions. It isn't possible for someone to just "show you the evidence" asyou suggest because as I said above evidence is ultimately just a belief. Thus the idea that it's just hopeful thinking unless someone can do that without debate or touching on what they think might be true or whatever is just retarded. It cannot be done, certainly not in a non-ideological way. It is not a rational position to hold.

Granted the scientific establishment is far more about people having a job that pays them so they can live comfortably and so does not actually have any of the rigour it is mythologized to have anymore if it ever did. And since pay is involved the studies that get published or get past peer review are the ones that the money holders want to get there, not the ones that have good methods or interesting results. I've been told that, point blank, from a research psychologist by the way. That, if the government just doesn't like the results you're getting because it goes against their narrative, they will shut down your research and there is numerous proven cases of this that you can find. Here's a good compilation piece od the general problems in the field for a start:

http://theinternationalforecaster.com/to...of_Science

And that's all before the media and other monied interests get involved in the popularisation of the research or its ideas. Which of course will be the ideas that suit the interests of those paying for their popularisation. Again, if you want to look for why psi hasn't had its one landmark study, start there, because they've already got the statistics despite the restrictions and demonization. I'd argue that demonization is incredibly telling as well given some of its sources and their histories. Example, The seralini GMO study and how Monsanto smeared him over it:

https://steemit.com/news/@corbettreport/...r-campaign

Let alone all the other interesting policies and regulations around who can ask what questions of who in that whole industry and who sits on what boards and what their previous employments were, but that's another thing entirely.

Kinda reminds me of something a Chinese official said about some economic policy issue or something they were having with America, I can't remember the details anymore but the saying was "You'll know how true it is by how strongly they deny it."  I've found this to be true more often than not with these things. I suspect psi will turn out to be just another example of it.

I am only seeing the quoted parts of Steve's responses as he remains on ignore but I had to laugh at his comment about his not identifying as a materialist. It would be difficult to count the number of his posts attacking the "immaterialist" (his favoured term) position. With that in mind along with all the materialist bias he produces in links and opinions, I have to wonder what he does identify as. He is, without a doubt, the most dogmatic of any member here.

It's like me "Identifying" as a sighted person. I could identify with that all I want, but I'm still legally blind. It's one of those "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck" situations. What you identify as has very little to do with what you actually are. Or at least what you will be seen as.

Don't even know if you'll see this I wouldn't be surprised if I'm on ignore for you too.

It's like me "Identifying" as a sighted person. I could identify with that all I want, but I'm still legally blind. It's one of those "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck" situations. What you identify as has very little to do with what you actually are. Or at least what you will be seen as.

Don't even know if you'll see this I wouldn't be surprised if I'm on ignore for you too.

I'm at a loss to understand why you felt you needed to add the last sentence.

I'm at a loss to understand why you felt you needed to add the last sentence.

Because I'm replying directly to you and from what I understand if I am on ignore you wouldn't see it and thus it would probably be pointless which would be nice to know for the future.

Because I'm replying directly to you and from what I understand if I am on ignore you wouldn't see it and thus it would probably be pointless which would be nice to know for the future.

I'm just surprised that you would think I would have you on ignore. I don't put people on ignore because I disagree with them but because, over a long period, discussion with them has proved to be pointless. I've only ever had two people on ignore that I can remember - they were on ignore on the Skeptiko forums and are now on ignore here.