Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_marg]

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?

Really Ray what you are arguing, just like that article you presented is that one should be open minded and not reject the claims to the paranormal. You wouldn't have to keep arguing this position, nor that article argue if there actually was good objective quality evidence.

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".

Ray I've not tried to hide my position at all. You are the one hedging, pretending you have no position yet one way or the other.

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.

Okay so what we need here is better communication and an understanding of the skeptical position. That article was wrong Ray. One can hold a skeptical position, reject a claim due to lack of warrants to support it, and still remain open minded to new evidence or a new appreciation of evidence. You haven't rejected the paranormal claims, that doesn't make you more open minded in a scientific skeptical sense. It makes you more open minded in an irrational sense. I know a lot of people don't like being accused of being irrational, but when one holds a position for which there is unwarranted support for that claim made, it's irrational. It just means there is lack of sufficient evidence and reasoning to warrant acceptance of the claim.

Edit,..it's also irrational to not reject extraordinary claims which lack sufficient warrants. Anecdotal stories are generally not sufficient for acceptance of any extraordinary claim.

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.

Read the last paragraph, the one I quoted previously, the writer blatantly exposes it the piece as a critical piece on any skeptic who rejecst the claims due to lack of evidence.

[_marg]

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?

Sure he comes from a biased perspective, that doesn't mean his opinion should be rejected. It means that when reading his medical explanations one should to be wary of what he has to say, keeping in mind is perpspective. If what he has to say lacks substance, is unwarranted and essentially tainted by his bias that should be able to be exposed quite easily. Basically one has to read his explanation critically but one should do that anyway.

[_Ray A]

Really Ray what you are arguing, just like that article you presented is that one should be open minded and not reject the claims to the paranormal. You wouldn't have to keep arguing this position, nor that article argue if there actually was good objective quality evidence.

There is. But you either haven't read it, or are not interested in reading it, or you would immediately dismiss it as "fantasy". Blackmore recognised this, that even empirical observation cannot bring final conclusions, and some empirical observations are simply not possible. This is where you and I part, in your belief that all and every phenomenon can be explained in a laboratory.

Ray I've not tried to hide my position at all. You are the one hedging, pretending you have no position yet one way or the other.

When did I ever "pretend" that? My position has always been that I'm open to persuasion, either way. I've always said that "I think" human consciousness survives death, or I believe so. I still do! But if science conclusively proved otherwise, I literally wouldn't give a rat's arse. I might even take up Phillip Adams suggestion that death is an aphrodisiac for life, and live it up even more while I'm here. But I do not accept that anything is conclusive at this stage.

Okay so what we need here is better communication and an understanding of the skeptical position. That article was wrong Ray. One can hold a skeptical position, reject a claim due to lack of warrants to support it, and still remain open minded to new evidence or a new appreciation of evidence.

Which one must read and become acquainted with.

You haven't rejected the paranormal claims, that doesn't make you more open minded in a scientific skeptical sense. It makes you more open minded in an irrational sense. I know a lot of people don't like being accused of being irrational, but when one holds a position for which there is unwarranted support for that claim made, it's irrational. It just means there is lack of sufficient evidence and reasoning to warrant acceptance of the claim.

More dogma, dogma, dogma. All dogma. This is where you are totally irrational, and your mind totally closed. Let me once again remind you of how much you haven't read. You say "I want the truth, I want the proof, but only on 'these conditions'......

marg's circular argument, once again: "It's not true because it couldn't be true, therefore there's no point investigating something that couldn't be true."

marg, I suggest you write a book: The Universe Explained.

Read the last paragraph, the one I quoted previously, the writer blatantly exposes it the piece as a critical piece on any skeptic who rejecst the claims due to lack of evidence.

And the writer's opinion impresses you as "propaganda". You take no thought for the fact that Woerlee may also be engaged in propaganda, NONE whatsoever!

Choice reasoning, and no bias from Worlee, no bias nor ulterior motives from the Spalding witnesses possible, whatsoever, of course.

marg - pull the other leg.

[_Ray A]

Sure he comes from a biased perspective, that doesn't mean his opinion should be rejected.

Yet you reject Moody's opinion? Why? Have you read it, and how he became convinced of the need for further studies?

It means that when reading his medical explanations one should to be wary of what he has to say, keeping in mind is perpspective. If what he has to say lacks substance, is unwarranted and essentially tainted by his bias that should be able to be exposed quite easily. Basically one has to read his explanation critically but one should do that anyway.

And his theories have been challenged (even by customer reviews on Amazon. Have you read them?), but you haven't read them!

[_marg]

There is. But you either haven't read it, or are not interested in reading it, or you would immediately dismiss it as "fantasy". Blackmore recognised this, that even empirical observation cannot bring final conclusions, and some empirical observations are simply not possible. This is where you and I part, in your belief that all and every phenomenon can be explained in a laboratory.

Science attempts to explain phenomena with best fit explanation using data and reasoning. It's an evolving process as additional information and reasoning comes to light and adjustment and additional theories are added. Overtime some theories gain greater consensus acceptance than others. There is lots about the world either not understood, poorly understood and quite possibly erroneously understood, scientifically. But it's a good system which evolves generally to better and better explanations on how the world we perceive operates. Science does not say it offers "final conclusions" When I reject the paranormal I am not suggesting that scientifically the paranormal has been shown to not exist. Scientifically it will NEVER be shown to not exist, the only thing science will do is show naturalistic explanation using positive evidence. Once there is positive evidence for a theory which warrants acceptance of it, it won't be considered paranormal or supernatural. There will always be speculation of the supernatural & paranormal especially when they can't be disproved with positive evidence directly. All that can be done is naturalistic explanations can supplant them. What I argue Ray is that Woerlee provides excellent naturalistic explanations and I personally don't accept the speculations, and I'm not going to fence sit.

When did I ever "pretend" that? My position has always been that I'm open to persuasion, either way. I've always said that "I think" human consciousness survives death, or I believe so. I still do! But if science conclusively proved otherwise, I literally wouldn't give a rat's arse. I might even take up Phillip Adams suggestion that death is an aphrodisiac for life, and live it up even more while I'm here. But I do not accept that anything is conclusive at this stage.

Well you may consider yourself open minded but you hold the irrational position on this issue..you believe consciousness survives death. I also am open minded but I hold the skeptical position and reject consciousness survives death, because there is no evidence that it does. And it is not up to science to disprove it is up to science to offer theories which explain phenomenon. Frankly I think science does adequately explain NDEs & OBE's, but that won't stop individuals speculating there could be more to it, beyond physiological.

Which one must read and become acquainted with.

Well yes, I do take shortcuts, Blackmore has convinced me and so has Woerlee. And I've looked at the Lancet you offered and see nothing which warrants acceptance of the paranormal claims.

More dogma, dogma, dogma. All dogma. This is where you are totally irrational, and your mind totally closed. Let me once again remind you of how much you haven't read. You say "I want the truth, I want the proof, but only on 'these conditions'......

You've got nothing, there is insufficient evidence to warrant acceptance that consciousness exists after death, which is why you say you haven't made up your mind. If there was evidence you wouldn't be saying you haven't made up your mind.

marg's circular argument, once again: "It's not true because it couldn't be true, therefore there's no point investigating something that couldn't be true."

marg, I suggest you write a book: The Universe Explained.

May I suggest you don't use quotation marks around something I didn't actually say.

And the writer's opinion impresses you as "propaganda". You take no thought for the fact that Woerlee may also be engaged in propaganda, NONE whatsoever!

Well Ray the piece offered nothing of substance. And the writer misrepresented scientific skepticism, in an attempt to convince people they shouldn't reject paranormal claims. Woerlee didn't misrepresent anything.

Choice reasoning, and no bias from Worlee, no bias nor ulterior motives from the Spalding witnesses possible, whatsoever, of course.

marg - pull the other leg.

[/quote]

Ray don't argue with intellectual dishonesty, you know I said Woerlee comes from a non-religious bias perspective, so don't suggest otherwise, and that when one looks at what he has to say on the issue, they should keep that in mind. That doesn't mean one discredits his insights, it means one critically evaluates it. And do me a favor --quit dragging the Spalding witnesses into this or how I view them as you've established no correlation.

[_marg]

Sure he comes from a biased perspective, that doesn't mean his opinion should be rejected.

Yet you reject Moody's opinion? Why? Have you read it, and how he became convinced of the need for further studies?

All this reading that you did Ray, did you do it for research for your brother's book? Look Ray you've doing all this reading and yet you say you've formed no opinion, so don't try to tell me that if I read and read and read like you are arguing I should do I'd then be better equipped to form an opinion, apparently you are worse off and have no opinion and you want to read more. How much time have you spent on this. Perhaps you should follow Blackmore's lead and drop it.

It means that when reading his medical explanations one should to be wary of what he has to say, keeping in mind is perpspective. If what he has to say lacks substance, is unwarranted and essentially tainted by his bias that should be able to be exposed quite easily. Basically one has to read his explanation critically but one should do that anyway.

And his theories have been challenged (even by customer reviews on Amazon. Have you read them?), but you haven't read them!

Ray I doubt very much I'd rely on Amazon reviewers..especially when there are so many stupid people and fanatics some willing and/or wanting to accept extraordinary claims of an afterlife based on wishful thinking. I might read them taking into consideration my previous comment.

[_Ray A]

What I argue Ray is that Woerlee provides excellent naturalistic explanations and I personally don't accept the speculations, and I'm not going to fence sit.

That's because you haven't read criticisms of Woerlee. You grabbed this study because it fits with your worldview, and you haven't explored anything beyond your own paradigm, yet quantum mechanics shows quite the opposite, like "God does play dice". So in your case an old paradigm can never become obsolete. It is fixed and determined by certain "laws". So you missed the whole point of the quantum mechanics example.

Well you may consider yourself open minded but you hold the irrational position on this issue..you believe consciousness survives death.

And who has proved otherwise? Like, have you been following scientific debates on the brain and consciousness? This is a valid premise for scientific debate! What is "irrational" about that? Blackmore considered it so valid that she spent 30 years studying it. In other words, she took it seriously. You don't, and never will. If I'm "irrational", so is Blackmore, because this is what the debate is about, whether or not there is consciousness outside of brain death. In your stated premise, it's not worth debating, because they can be no consciousness outside of brain death. But this is precisely what the debates are about

I also am open minded but I hold the skeptical position and reject consciousness survives death, because there is no evidence that it does. And it is not up to science to disprove it is up to science to offer theories which explain phenomenon. Frankly I think science does adequately explain NDEs & OBE's, but that won't stop individuals speculating there could be more to it, beyond physiological.

See above. You are not open minded. Your position is that "A" can never happen, therefore all theories that try to explain "A" are a waste of time. You have arrived at a conclusion that can never be challenged or overturned by unexplained data. And all unexplained data are useless because it doesn't fit with what is explained. That's the way forward, isn't it? Instead of looking to develop newer models, all new and unexplained data must always be explained by previous data - or it could not be valid. No one should ever try to move beyond current models of understanding, because those models govern the whole universe. That's the argument in a nutshell. And that's an argument that even Einstein rejected!

Well yes, I do take shortcuts, Blackmore has convinced me and so has Woerlee. And I've looked at the Lancet you offered and see nothing which warrants acceptance of the paranormal claims.

And you are fully entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is to brand all alternative theories invalid, because they don't fit your paradigm. These debates about the origin and nature of consciousness are all valid! And they are on-going. And Blackmore has been involved in this very debate (see her website). And that's what the UK medical team is trying to test. But in your opinion this testing is a "waste of time" because the conclusion is already known. That's not very scientific.

You've got nothing, there is insufficient evidence to warrant acceptance that consciousness exists after death, which is why you say you haven't made up your mind. If there was evidence you wouldn't be saying you haven't made up your mind.

BULL. Pure BULL. If there was scientific proof that consciousness cannot survive death, none of these debates and tests would be occurring.

Well Ray the piece offered nothing of substance. And the writer misrepresented scientific skepticism, in an attempt to convince people they shouldn't reject paranormal claims. Woerlee didn't misrepresent anything.

Yeah, I've learned your method, marg - "Don't even consider it!! We already have ALL the answers." So let's all sit back and kick up our feet knowing that consciousness cannot possibly survive death!! And to think this is "irrational". I repeat, you do not have an open mind. You sit at the helm of the citadel of scientism that would reject any theory contrary to past theories, because all past theories are true, and they have become the standard for judging the truth of all new theories. Very well thought out, indeed, marg.

Ray don't argue with intellectual dishonesty, you know I said Woerlee comes from a non-religious bias perspective, so don't suggest otherwise, and that when one looks at what he has to say on the issue, they should keep that in mind. That doesn't mean one discredits his insights, it means one critically evaluates it.

I'm blown away. Marg admits that Woerlee may have a non-religious bias. And of course I don't reject his insights. But they are not an article of absolute scientific truth.

And do me a favor --quit dragging the Spalding witnesses into this or how I view them as you've established no correlation.

I have in fact established a correlation, and it's evident in your assessment that the Spalding witness would never have ulterior motives, could never lie, would never seek profit, and are all pure and unadulterated people of the highest integrity, while all of the Book of Mormon witnesses were corrupt to the core and lied through their teeth about how the Book of Mormon was "translated".

You're going to have to improve your biased standards of evaluation, marg.

[_marg]

No reputable scientific commentator, including Susan Blackmore, the chief skeptic of NDEs, has said there's a final answer - problem solved. To the contrary, Blackmore even admitted that "they might be true". Why? Because in spite of her skepticism, she's still more open-minded than marg.

She's no more open than I am Ray. You claim to be such an expert and well read yet you used Blackmore disingenuously to imply that she hasn't formed an opinion.

Here is her opinion: "All things considered, I see no reason to adopt the afterlife hypothesis. I am sure I shall remain in the minority for a long time to come, especially amongst NDErs, but for me the evidence and the arguments are overwhelming. The dying brain hypothesis, for all its shortcomings, does a better job of accounting for the experiences themselves. And it reveals not a false hope of the self surviving for ever but a genuine insight beyond the self. "

link

[_Ray A]

She's no more open than I am Ray. You claim to be such an expert and well read yet you used Blackmore disingenuously to imply that she hasn't formed an opinion.

Before we go any further - where did I say that???????

[_Ray A]

Here is her opinion: "All things considered, I see no reason to adopt the afterlife hypothesis. I am sure I shall remain in the minority for a long time to come, especially amongst NDErs, but for me the evidence and the arguments are overwhelming. The dying brain hypothesis, for all its shortcomings, does a better job of accounting for the experiences themselves. And it reveals not a false hope of the self surviving for ever but a genuine insight beyond the self. "

link

Good grief marg. Blackmore has held this opinion for most of the duration of her studies, not quite from the beginning, but close to the beginning.