Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_Ray A]

No Ray is wasn't balanced at all. There was no substance in there only criticism of skeptics and talk of someone Parnia who is going to do studies. The whole article was biased and implying that OBE's and NDE's might truly be physically out of body experiences. So when you or Parnia or whoever actually has some subtance then you can talk about OBE' & NDE's might be true, in a highly probable way. by the way as far as Pam Reynolds ..Woerlee addressed that.

Not balanced because it doesn't lead to your "absolute knowledge" which science is yet to discover.

Now it appears to be According To The Gospel of Woerlee.

I presume you also have a full understanding of quantum mechanics? Why should I even ask such a silly question?

So this is how it works - marg is looking for criticism of NDEs. She discovers Woerlee on Google (but hasn't read a single book on the subject), and from henceforth he's the Ultimate Authority on near death experiences. Bar none. But note that in his exchange with Kevin Williams, Woerlee writes:

These are situations undergone by NDE-ers, and these situations explain why seemingly dead or apparently unconscious people can actually undergo conscious experiences such as NDEs. And these are my thoughts on this citation of Dr. Fenwick.

Note the bold. Even Woerlee is gracious enough to acknowledge that these are his thoughts, not conclusive scientific truth. That's because he can't cite any conclusive scientific studies. But marg renders this as the final word in near death studies.

I think those following marg's comments on the S/R Theory should bear all of this in mind.

[_marg]

No Ray is wasn't balanced at all. There was no substance in there only criticism of skeptics and talk of someone Parnia who is going to do studies. The whole article was biased and implying that OBE's and NDE's might truly be physically out of body experiences. So when you or Parnia or whoever actually has some subtance then you can talk about OBE' & NDE's might be true, in a highly probable way. by the way as far as Pam Reynolds ..Woerlee addressed that.

Not balanced because it doesn't lead to your "absolute knowledge" which science is yet to discover.

Now it appears to be According To The Gospel of Woerlee.

I presume you also have a full understanding of quantum mechanics? Why should I even ask such a silly question?

Here we go again. You sure you don't want to use science. Just because the person in the article mentions quantum mechanics doesn't mean there is any connection.

So this is how it works - marg is looking for criticism of NDEs. She discovers Woerlee on Google (but hasn't read a single book on the subject), and from henceforth he's the Ultimate Authority on near death experiences. Bar none. But note that in his exchange with Kevin Williams, Woerlee writes:

These are situations undergone by NDE-ers, and these situations explain why seemingly dead or apparently unconscious people can actually undergo conscious experiences such as NDEs. And these are my thoughts on this citation of Dr. Fenwick.

Note the bold. Even Woerlee is gracious enough to acknowledge that these are his thoughts, not conclusive scientific truth. That's because he can't site any conclusive scientific studies. But marg renders this as the final word in near death studies.

I think those following marg's comments on the S/R Theory should bear all of this in mind.

[/quote]

Ray..the writer of that article illustrates an unbalanced erroneous point of view and an intellectually disingenuous attempt to use science "quantum theory" to bolster the position they are putting forward that people should wait before forming an opinion. Well let's see Susan Blackmore spent 30 years I believe, just how long should we all wait, 30, 50 100, 1000 or more years?

They write: "However, in the present state of our knowledge, this is crude and premature. We should not only wait for the results of Parnia’s experiment, we should also consider the deep weirdness of the world revealed by Stapp and quantum theory. Hard materialism is just one more philosophical position, and the authentic sceptical reaction is not a derisive snort but a humble acceptance that there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in any of our philosophies."


This person is wrong. The skeptical rational position of an extraordinary claim is to reject it not be agnostic about it, but reject it, until and unless evidence warrants otherwise. This person is critical of those who take that position, the rational skeptical position and wants to making a correlation or connection of NDE & OBE claims of the paranormal with quantum mechanics when none has been established, in order to get people to accept that the paranormal claims are likely true. And apparently Ray now you are attempting to use quantum mechanics as well as if there is some connection.

[_Ray A]

Here we go again. You sure you don't want to use science. Just because the person in the article mentions quantum mechanics doesn't mean there is any connection.

And just because the person in the article mentions quantum mechanics doesn't mean there isn't a connection. But that's not what the UK experiment is about. It's about trying to test the validity of these claimed/reported experiences.

Ray..the writer of that article illustrates an unbalanced erroneous point of view and an intellectually disingenuous attempt to use science "quantum theory" to bolster the position they are putting forward that people should wait before forming an opinion.

And perhaps your own position is also disingenuous in that it excludes this possibility altogether in order to bolster your position that death is final, something you already know, apparently. Considering the amount of scientific research you haven't read, this has to be intuitive.

Well let's see Susan Blackmore spent 30 years I believe, just how long should we all wait, 30, 50 100, 1000 or more years?

Can you live with uncertainty? No, marg, you can't. You must have answers, or you're unsettled. This is the corollary of the True Believer in religion, who also can't live with uncertainty.

This person is wrong. The skeptical rational position of an extraordinary claim is to reject it not be agnostic about it, until and unless evidence warrants it. This person is critical of those who take that position and wants to making a correlation of NDE & OBE claims of the paranormal with quantum mechanics when none has been established.

And none has been dis-established. It's only a pointer to the fact that there's still much we don't comprehend about the universe, with the exception of yourself, who apparently believes that no new and startling discoveries will be made, or even can be made.

And apparently Ray now you are attempting to use quantum mechanics as well as if there is some connection.

See above.

[_marg]

Even Woerlee is gracious enough to acknowledge that these are his thoughts, not conclusive scientific truth.

Ray, ...Woerlee, skeptics, scientists can all rationally reject NBE & OBE claims of the paranormal, just as I have done. That isn't proclaiming scientific truth. No skeptical position need remain open to the claim that NBE & OBE are anything more than physiological. They can reject those claims. And yet doing so, still remain open minded to new evidence, should any ever come which would overturn their position. You seem to think it's being closed minded rejecting a claim unsupported by evidence..no ..it's called being rational.

[_Ray A]

They can reject those claims and yet still remain open minded to new evidence (the skeptical), should any ever come which would overturn their position. You seem to think it's being closed minded rejecting a claim unsupported by evidence..no ..it's called being rational.

How can someone remain open-minded to evidence they haven't read? You're saying "produce the evidence", yet your knowledge of the subject only comes from this board.

I've taken no interest in OBE's & NDE's until you brought it up on this board. Absolutely no interest.

I'm far from persuaded your mind is open.

[_Ray A]

More for marg to contemplate:

Of course, this only scratches the surface of all the possible explanations for an NDE. NDEs seem to offer some hope that death is not necessarily something to be feared, nor is it the end of consciousness. Even science has a difficult time grasping death -- the medical community has struggled with specific definitions for clinical death, organ death and brain death for decades. For every aspect of an NDE, there is at least one scientific explanation for it. And for every scientific explanation, there seem to be five NDE cases that defy it.

How Stuff Works.


But reading marg, you'd think working all of this out is really just child's play.

[_marg]

They can reject those claims and yet still remain open minded to new evidence (the skeptical), should any ever come which would overturn their position. You seem to think it's being closed minded rejecting a claim unsupported by evidence..no ..it's called being rational.

How can someone remain open-minded to evidence they haven't read? You're saying "produce the evidence", yet your knowledge of the subject only comes from this board.

Because I read Woerlee and assessed what he had to say. The guy deals with people in NDE situations all the time as he's an anesthetist. He explained in detail what happens when someone's brain and eye, lungs, muscles aren 't functioning properly and lack oxygen. It was quite a scientific explanation which I could follow and understand. There is a web site Woerlee put up with quite a bit of information. It's possible you may not have seen it. I came across it sort of accidentally, because I wanted to find out what he had to say about the Pam Reynold's case and it was mentioned on a site that Woerlee had addressed it. The link that was given didn't work but I eventually found it. At this point in time I don't have it, but if you are interested I could search, though might not find it tonight, I'm going out, movie night.

I've taken no interest in OBE's & NDE's until you brought it up on this board. Absolutely no interest.

I'm far from persuaded your mind is open.

I know this is confusing. I'm not open minded in the sense that I think there is anything more to NDE & OBE than physiological. I have formed an opinion on that. I am open minded in the sense that sure, if there is good evidence I'd willingly look at it. I'm not emotional tied to the issue one way or another. And you can see that because I don't invest much time in it. But for those who want to invest the time, if they find out anything I'd be willing to look. But I'll tell ou, that article you just posted previously was absolute garbage. It was fluff, and intellectually dishonest. Basically it was a propaganda piece to encourage people to not be skeptical in the sense that I am with regards to paranormal claims of NDE & OBE's.

[_marg]

Ok found the site Woerlee's medical explanations etc

[_Ray A]

Because I read Woerlee and assessed what he had to say. The guy deals with people in NDE situations all the time as he's an anesthetist.

As are many who have drawn different conclusions to Worelee. Many of those associated with IANDS are doctors, surgeons and anesthetists. What do you think Raymond Moody was - a sanitary engineer?

I know this is confusing. I'm not open minded in the sense that I think there is anything more to NDE & OBE than physiological.

Thank you for that admission, finally. And I'm glad you clarified with "I think".

I am open minded in the sense that sure, if there is good evidence I'd willingly look at it. I'm not emotional tied to the issue one way or another.

Neither am I. So for your benefit once again - I don't give a rat's arse if it's all shown to be in the brain. I told you this by email. And I posted Steven Pinker's link on my Facebook when it was active, which you found "interesting". Why? Because I seriously consider that Pinker may be right. And you may remember that I told you by email that I find the idea of "continuing relationships" a bit bizzare.

And you can see that because I don't invest much time in it. But for those who want to invest the time, if they find out anything I'd be willing to look. But I'll tell ou, that article you just posted previously was absolute garbage. It was fluff, and intellectually dishonest. Basically it was a propaganda piece to encourage people to not be skeptical in the sense that I am with regards to paranormal claims of NDE & OBE's.

I beg to differ. You only saw the "propaganda pieces", I saw the skeptical pieces, and I thought it was balanced.

[_Ray A]

Ok found the site Woerlee's medical explanations etc

He has a very strong anti-religion agenda, and I'm wondering how this affects his views of an afterlife?