Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_marg]

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.

As I pointed out to you previously which she admitted much of her continued involvement with NDE's was due to emtional reasons, such as she liked being the so-called expert. But as my previous post illustrates with a quote from her book, she no longer is fence sitting and has indeed formed an opinion rejected an "afterlife hypothesis". so you should not be using her to support your argument, as she supports my argument.

Blackmore: "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."

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

The research is not about that, the research is attempting to explain the phenomenon of core near death and out of body experiences. That doesn't mean the research is looking into or assuming anything more than physiological.

As far as debates go, to some extent yes they are a waste of time. Science as I mentioned before will never disprove the supernatural, it will only offer naturalistic theories to explain. So science can supplant for some people who hold supernatural beliefs with a naturalistic explanation. But there will with high probabality as long as the human race survives be people who believe in what we term the supernatural, typically it involves explanations which defy natural physical laws we observe and entities we can't see. What can be argued with such position is whatever naturalistic explanations there are, and perhaps explain the concept of skepticism. But that won't prevent them from claiming they are open minded and willing to speculate on the paranormal whereas those not willing are closed minded. And so the discussion will go in circles. And it will likely always be a good selling topic, because many do wish to believe death is not final.

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!

Actually Ray I hold a skeptical position generally as an attitude. Sure I express an opinion, I reject the supernatural, the paranormal but that doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It means I don't entertain those concepts unless there's evidence and I'm pretty certain there's none for any supernatural claims and life or consciousness after brain death.

And really you've done the homework for me, you've already said you aren't certain, you only hold beliefs. So that tells me for all the research you've done there is nothing substantial in favor of consciousness after death.

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!

There's a difference between debates and research. Debates can be sheer nonsense, and I think in many of these discussions involving the paranormal likely they are. Research into the origin and nature of consciousness of course is valid.

And they are on-going. And Blackmore has been involved in this very debate (see her website).

I have and as I said she does have an opinion and it suports mine but is against yours.

And that's what the UK medical team is trying to test.

What medical team. I'm glad there is a medical team trying to test for the paranormal good for them, just how long does it take Ray? Think about it, if these people with NDE could really know things when they are brain dead, that most certainly wouldn't be a difficult thing to find out and yet there is nothing. Nothing which is repeatable, good quality objective evidence.

But in your opinion this testing is a "waste of time" because the conclusion is already known. That's not very scientific.

I think understanding the physiology of the brain and body is very important. I doubt very much that anyone will find evidence of consciousness after death, but I've got no objections to anyone trying. But I won't be gullible and accept anecdotes and flimsy evidence, nor would any respected scientist in the biological field.

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.

Debates go on, don't necessarily mean a thing. What's important is good quality respectable research. But even so, don't assume researchers are trying to find consciousness after brain death. There might be some, but I think most researchers are trying to understand the brain and with NDE's why people have those experiences. But their focus is on naturalistic physiological explanation.

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!!

Well Ray as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and generally extraordinary claims of the supernatural or paranormal variety are based on faulty and/or wishful thinking. It's usually a pretty safe bet to ignore extraordinary claims or not spend much time investigating. Look at you, you've obviously put in hours and you've reached a point of belief that after-death consciousness might be true..based on a belief though, not objective scientific quality evidence.

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.

Having an open mind to extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence is irrational. In this case you believe, consciousness exists after death. Rejecting such claims but being open to evidence which commensurates with the claim is rational. I know I'm repeating.

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.

Ray no matter where the information comes from when one forms an opinion one should critically evaluate the source for potential bias. I read Woerlee's explanations which were medical or scientific. He really doesn't address the paranormal, he instead explains how what people perceive to be paranormal can be explained physiological. I found his explanations particulaly useful because my mom for the last 4 years of her life had diminished oxygen when she died some of her symptoms I understood because of his explanation of what happens to the body when it's oxygen deprived. For example muscles don't function well. This explained to me why she couldn't talk (it sounded sort of like she was drunk) yet she was lucid. Her body was failing before her brain. She was physically trying to say things but physically couldn't, and how she was talking I now understand.

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".

RAy for someone who claims to be open minded you over use the Never word in a way I wouldn't. I don't say never to the above. But the liklihood of collusion is low. And it's obvious, if Hurlbut paid the witnesses to collude with him, and it was all preplanned then why did he find a Spalding manuscript and offer it to critics when it didn't support a theory of Spalding's work being used to write the Book of Mormon. I mean think about it, Mormon apologists used the Oberlin/Hawaii manuscript to argue that Spalding's work was not used. So the chances of collusion with Spalding witnesses is virtually nil, just on that one fact alone.

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

I wouldn't say your problem is bias, but I will say you aren't being skeptical. You really don't appreciate the skeptical position.

[_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.

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

Your quote: "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."

I'll address your first sentence...no reputable scientist would say there is a final answer because that's not how science works, but if I explained I would be repeating myself, so it seems you aren't reading my posts well or you are ignoring what I'm writing. And I'm getting tired repeating concepts because I've repeated them a number of times.

To your second sentence, Blackmore is not saying they "might be true". Don't forget Ray you arguing because you admitted this that you believe consciousness exists after death. So that's really your argument here and then you say even Blackmore thinks they "might be true". so the context in which you are using her words is to support your argument consciousness exists after death. Well Ray she doesn't' think they might be true. Read her words she thinks they aren't true/paranormal experiences, she thinks physiological explanations sufficiently account for NDE & OBE's.

I have the same skeptical attitude as she does, my opinion is that NDE's and OBE can be adequately explained with physiology and that should evidence be provided to overturn that I'd consider it. And you've even admitted you hold your paranormal beliefs solely as beliefs not based on evidence.

So what it boils down to Ray is I hold the same position as her, but you are one of the New Ager's she was talking about, who accuse her of being closed minded, just as you do me.

[_marg]

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.

The you shouldn't have used her Ray, she doesn't support your opinion at all. You're basically one of New Agers she was complaining about..telling her she's closed minded because she believes physiology sufficient to explain NDE's.

[_Ray A]

As I pointed out to you previously which she admitted much of her continued involvement with NDE's was due to emtional reasons, such as she liked being the so-called expert. But as my previous post illustrates with a quote from her book, she no longer is fence sitting and has indeed formed an opinion rejected an "afterlife hypothesis". so you should not be using her to support your argument, as she supports my argument.

Blackmore: "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 she failed to convince the majority of her peers, and said she could no longer keep an open mind. If she didn't have an open mind in the first place she would not have spent 30 years studying paranormal phenomena. Of course she supports your argument, and I've never said otherwise. My point was that she was open to the possibility of them being true, and the fact that she has now closed her mind doesn't make all paranormal phenomena untrue.

The way I really think is more like this “I am a scientist. I think the way to the truth is by investigation. I suspect that telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and life after death do not exist because I have been looking in vain for them for 25 years. I have been wrong lots of times before and am not afraid of it”

That's very different to saying, as you do, that people who believe in these phenomena are "gullible". If they are gullible, then Blackmore is equally gullible for spending 30 years looking to see if Santa really lives at the North Pole, so to speak.

And it will likely always be a good selling topic, because many do wish to believe death is not final.

And many do wish to continue studying the phenomenon to get as close to the truth as possible, if not the truth itself. What one believes is irrelevant to what the truth is. So even if you believe death is final, the jury is still out. It makes no difference.

Actually Ray I hold a skeptical position generally as an attitude.

No you don't. You just kid yourself. Your devoted belief that the Spalding witnesses had no reason to lie and your general naïveté in this regard is a telling point of your extreme bias, which you may not even realise exists. Even Dale doesn't accept that, as far as I'm aware.

Sure I express an opinion, I reject the supernatural, the paranormal but that doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It means I don't entertain those concepts unless there's evidence and I'm pretty certain there's none for any supernatural claims and life or consciousness after brain death.

Evidence which you've studied only from these board discussions. That shows much depth.

And really you've done the homework for me, you've already said you aren't certain, you only hold beliefs. So that tells me for all the research you've done there is nothing substantial in favor of consciousness after death.

Don't let me do your homework, but I know you like nice soundbites from which you draw conclusions.

There's a difference between debates and research. Debates can be sheer nonsense, and I think in many of these discussions involving the paranormal likely they are.

So do I. And I've probably rejected most of it. You see, when researching for my brother I had this sort of "here comes Mormonism again" feeling. Three Nephite claims, claims of 2,000 year old men preaching the gospel. Adam living in America. Christians in 2,200 BC. He was also skeptical to most of it, but always insisted that he is a Storyteller. In other words, relating these stories for people to contemplate. Even privately he expressed doubts to me, but wanted others to see what was being claimed. My opinion, as I've again expressed to you previously, is that he is probably atheist. Or more likely an agnostic-atheist. One thing he and I are not is "New Agers". But we both recognise that the near death phenomenon is a more credible field than the paranormal, and worth taking seriously. There are many working in this field who have little time for ghost stories.

What medical team. I'm glad there is a medical team trying to test for the paranormal good for them, just how long does it take Ray?

That shows just how much you're paying attention. How long does it take for what? To prove that your predetermined belief is correct? It's obvious from this comment your mind is totally closed. That's no surprise to me. People who believe that NDE may be real are cranks, and people who research NDE are cranks and time-wasters. Again, this shows what an open mind you have. It's clear that your mind is only open to your preferred bias.

Think about it, if these people with NDE could really know things when they are brain dead, that most certainly wouldn't be a difficult thing to find out and yet there is nothing. Nothing which is repeatable, good quality objective evidence.

You've almost got me keeling over in my chair here, marg. How many NDE books have you read again? Have you ever talked to someone who has had an NDE?

I think understanding the physiology of the brain and body is very important. I doubt very much that anyone will find evidence of consciousness after death, but I've got no objections to anyone trying. But I won't be gullible and accept anecdotes and flimsy evidence, nor would any respected scientist in the biological field.

Once again, apart from what you've observed on this board, how much of the literature have you read? Not everything that is true can be laboratory tested. Go read what some of these people have actually said. There may very well be an explanation why someone who had an NDE could recognise a dead relative they've never seen, but only after seeing a photo of the person after coming back. That is flimsy evidence, and can't be tested, but it is circumstantial evidence, unless you can explain it away rationally. All of these anecdotes are relevant to overall study, which you dismiss as something "only the gullible" would consider. You wouldn't make a very good detective, because you'd reject any evidence you consider "gullible". But that's how good detectives solve crimes, by listening to any kind of anecdotal account then sorting out the ones that have credibility in the long term. It's putting all the pieces of the puzzle together.

Well Ray as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and generally extraordinary claims of the supernatural or paranormal variety are based on faulty and/or wishful thinking. It's usually a pretty safe bet to ignore extraordinary claims or not spend much time investigating. Look at you, you've obviously put in hours and you've reached a point of belief that after-death consciousness might be true..based on a belief though, not objective scientific quality evidence.

Which is precisely your method which I've described - ignore it, it's a waste of time. My approach is the scientific one - to investigate - yours is the pseudo-scientific one - we don't need to look at the evidence seriously, it's not possible anyway. Game, set, match.

Having an open mind to extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence is irrational.

So Blackmore was irrational for 30 years?

In this case you believe, consciousness exists after death. Rejecting such claims but being open to evidence which commensurates with the claim is rational. I know I'm repeating.

No, not rejecting them, being open to the possibility they might be true! That was Blackmore's position! Yours is to dismiss it all after a board discussion.

Ray no matter where the information comes from when one forms an opinion one should critically evaluate the source for potential bias.

And you suggest I don't do that?

I read Woerlee's explanations which were medical or scientific.

You have a habit of claiming anything that supports your belief as "scientific", but anything that doesn't support your belief as "gullible". Why is that? Is Woerlee any more of a scientist than Pim van Lommel? No.

I wouldn't say your problem is bias, but I will say you aren't being skeptical. You really don't appreciate the skeptical position.

I do. But I don't appreciate skeptical and dogmatic positions, like people who don't read enough yet draw conclusions on the little they've read. Even Shermer, the skeptic of skeptics admitted, "no one really knows" (at this stage).

And you've even admitted you hold your paranormal beliefs solely as beliefs not based on evidence.

As I've said before, I reject many paranormal claims, and "New Age" stuff doesn't interest me much. If there was clear and irrefutable evidence against what I believe, that it may be possible for consciousness to survive bodily death, then I would reject it. Your default position is that it's not possible for consciousness to survive death. It's not that I reject that, what I reject is your dogmatic approach to this, and you think studies examining this are "a waste of time".

So what it boils down to Ray is I hold the same position as her, but you are one of the New Ager's she was talking about, who accuse her of being closed minded, just as you do me.

I am not a New Ager. Don't buy New Age books, only read the scientific literature which examines the phenomena. When I worked for my brother one major difference we had was that I liked to document and present alternative views to paranormal claims, including those of skeptics. He often called me "the academic", and asked me to stop being "so academic, I'm a Storyteller, not a scientist". We had many arguments about this, by email. Eventually I got the message, that he was running the show and would wear responsibility for criticism or errors. So eventually the Storyteller and the academic parted.

The you shouldn't have used her Ray, she doesn't support your opinion at all. You're basically one of New Agers she was complaining about..telling her she's closed minded because she believes physiology sufficient to explain NDE's.

1. I am not a New Ager.

2. I never said she supported my opinion.

3. She was more open minded than marg, who finds all of this "a waste of time".

If Blackmore can be credited with anything, it is that she was willing to invest 30 years investigating. That she has arrived at these conclusions is not at all lost on me. I can respect her efforts. It is your curt dismissiveness that I find unsettling, and how you sometimes so tenaciously hang on to the opinions of others, including mine, with a little twist that favours your opinion. Like I said, little soundbites like "death is final" titilates you, especially when it comes from "real scientists".

[_marg]

Ray, I will not be able to respond to your post today.

[_JAK]

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

Ray, an important concept you appear to miss here is wherein the burden of proof lies. A claim that “consciousness” survives death is the assertion for which there must be evidence (proof). As it is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. No such evidence has been established.

It’s not up to anyone (scientist or other) to prove a negative claim. Absent evidence for an affirmative claim, we reject it.

[_Ray A]

A claim that “consciousness” survives death is the assertion for which there must be evidence (proof). As it is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. No such evidence has been established.

JAK, claims have been made, and that's precisely what the reseachers are pursuing - whether they have any substance.

[_JAK]

A claim that “consciousness” survives death is the assertion for which there must be evidence (proof). As it is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. No such evidence has been established.

JAK, claims have been made, and that's precisely what the reseachers are pursuing - whether they have any substance.

Your statement which I quoted appears to call for or impose a requirement for proof of a negative.

No one who is skeptical of a claim is obligated provide anything in the absence of evidence for a stated or implied proposition.

[_Ray A]

No one who is skeptical of a claim is obligated provide anything in the absence of evidence for a stated or implied proposition.

Well what do you think the UK medical team is looking for over this three year study? Do you think they organised this study just to kill time?

[_marg]

As I pointed out to you previously which she admitted much of her continued involvement with NDE's was due to emtional reasons, such as she liked being the so-called expert. But as my previous post illustrates with a quote from her book, she no longer is fence sitting and has indeed formed an opinion rejected an "afterlife hypothesis". so you should not be using her to support your argument, as she supports my argument.

Blackmore: "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 she failed to convince the majority of her peers, and said she could no longer keep an open mind. If she didn't have an open mind in the first place she would not have spent 30 years studying paranormal phenomena. Of course she supports your argument, and I've never said otherwise. My point was that she was open to the possibility of them being true, and the fact that she has now closed her mind doesn't make all paranormal phenomena untrue.

Ok we are in agreement she doesn't support your position. She currently holds the same position I do. After all her years studying NDE's & OBE's she has reached a decision that they are no more than physiological induced experiences most of which can be explained, however more research to better understand what happens when the brain loses consciousness and/or changes consciousness should be researched. She certainly doesn't promote a skepticism that one should have an agnostic open minded attitude that the paranormal is just as likely to explain people's experiences as physiological. Of course like me I'm sure her attitude is that if evidence were to show consciousness after death greater than physiological she'd open mindedly look at it.

Your comment at the end "the fact that she has now closed her mind doesn't make all paranormal phenomena untrue" is rather irrelevant. The fact that she is no longer agnostic in her attitude and has taken a position against a paranormal hypothesis...but rather accepts physiological explanations, tells me there is insufficient evidence for the paranormal and sufficient evidence for physiological and therefore all your going on about how I should read more..was bad advice to me. If I listened to you I would waste all sorts of time on this.

The way I really think is more like this “I am a scientist. I think the way to the truth is by investigation. I suspect that telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and life after death do not exist because I have been looking in vain for them for 25 years. I have been wrong lots of times before and am not afraid of it”

That's very different to saying, as you do, that people who believe in these phenomena are "gullible". If they are gullible, then Blackmore is equally gullible for spending 30 years looking to see if Santa really lives at the North Pole, so to speak.

I did not attribute the word gullible to S. Blackmore. As far as S. Blackmore goes it seems you brought her up to support your position, you criticized me for being closed minded, said I wasn't open minded like her, and then I found out her position is the same as mine. Whatever her position was in the past doesn't help you, people make mistakes, her current position is the same as mine, so we're either both closed minded or both open minded, depending on how you want to look at it Ray, albeit she I'm sure knows much more details regarding the physiological explanations, as I've only briefly look into it.

And it will likely always be a good selling topic, because many do wish to believe death is not final.

And many do wish to continue studying the phenomenon to get as close to the truth as possible, if not the truth itself. What one believes is irrelevant to what the truth is. So even if you believe death is final, the jury is still out. It makes no difference.

People who are skeptics, contrary to what you think, are open minded, and want the truth, in my opinion more so than wishful thinkers who base beliefs more on emotion than evidence. Typically skeptics don't make huge leaps of faith over extraordinary claims involving ideas which appear to defy natural physical laws and seem to be a function more from wishful thinking to appease emotional discomfort.

Actually Ray I hold a skeptical position generally as an attitude.

No you don't. You just kid yourself. Your devoted belief that the Spalding witnesses had no reason to lie and your general naïveté in this regard is a telling point of your extreme bias, which you may not even realise exists. Even Dale doesn't accept that, as far as I'm aware.

Whatever you wish to believe Ray, you don't have a good track record on being able to sort out evidence, when you are being conned and when you are not. I'll leave it at that.

Sure I express an opinion, I reject the supernatural, the paranormal but that doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It means I don't entertain those concepts unless there's evidence and I'm pretty certain there's none for any supernatural claims and life or consciousness after brain death.

Evidence which you've studied only from these board discussions. That shows much depth.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if there was good evidence for life after death, we'd all know about it. You really have no leg to stand on in this discussion, you've admitted there is no evidence and so all that's left for you in this discussion is to attempt to discredit me with ad homs. I'm very pleased that I haven't spend the time on this issue that you have. I quite frankly I never would have. You have to be able in life to sort through what is worthwhile and what isn't to spend one's time on.

And really you've done the homework for me, you've already said you aren't certain, you only hold beliefs. So that tells me for all the research you've done there is nothing substantial in favor of consciousness after death.

Don't let me do your homework, but I know you like nice soundbites from which you draw conclusions.

The point is Ray that you have no argument for NDE or OBE's and really other than the science or medical behind such experiences, all the rest ..including arguing about how open minded you are and how closed minded skeptics are, is a waste of time.

There's a difference between debates and research. Debates can be sheer nonsense, and I think in many of these discussions involving the paranormal likely they are.

So do I. And I've probably rejected most of it. You see, when researching for my brother I had this sort of "here comes Mormonism again" feeling. Three Nephite claims, claims of 2,000 year old men preaching the gospel. Adam living in America. Christians in 2,200 BC. He was also skeptical to most of it, but always insisted that he is a Storyteller. In other words, relating these stories for people to contemplate. Even privately he expressed doubts to me, but wanted others to see what was being claimed. My opinion, as I've again expressed to you previously, is that he is probably atheist. Or more likely an agnostic-atheist. One thing he and I are not is "New Agers". But we both recognise that the near death phenomenon is a more credible field than the paranormal, and worth taking seriously. There are many working in this field who have little time for ghost stories.

Essentially, the only thing of importance in this field is understanding the physiology behind these experiences.

What medical team. I'm glad there is a medical team trying to test for the paranormal good for them, just how long does it take Ray?

That shows just how much you're paying attention. How long does it take for what? To prove that your predetermined belief is correct? It's obvious from this comment your mind is totally closed. That's no surprise to me. People who believe that NDE may be real are cranks, and people who research NDE are cranks and time-wasters. Again, this shows what an open mind you have. It's clear that your mind is only open to your preferred bias.

I've got a skeptical rational attitude which is open minded, the person you mentioned S. Blackmore has a skeptical rational attitude which is open minded and you, well you have an irrational open mind, based on wishful thinking. And you also sound like you have a persecution complex.

Think about it, if these people with NDE could really know things when they are brain dead, that most certainly wouldn't be a difficult thing to find out and yet there is nothing. Nothing which is repeatable, good quality objective evidence.

You've almost got me keeling over in my chair here, marg. How many NDE books have you read again? Have you ever talked to someone who has had an NDE?

I think S. Blackmore has a good attitude on this..just walk away and

I think understanding the physiology of the brain and body is very important. I doubt very much that anyone will find evidence of consciousness after death, but I've got no objections to anyone trying. But I won't be gullible and accept anecdotes and flimsy evidence, nor would any respected scientist in the biological field.

Once again, apart from what you've observed on this board, how much of the literature have you read?

If you want to believe there's consciousness after death Ray, go ahead.

Not everything that is true can be laboratory tested. Go read what some of these people have actually said. There may very well be an explanation why someone who had an NDE could recognise a dead relative they've never seen, but only after seeing a photo of the person after coming back. That is flimsy evidence, and can't be tested, but it is circumstantial evidence, unless you can explain it away rationally. All of these anecdotes are relevant to overall study, which you dismiss as something "only the gullible" would consider. You wouldn't make a very good detective, because you'd reject any evidence you consider "gullible". But that's how good detectives solve crimes, by listening to any kind of anecdotal account then sorting out the ones that have credibility in the long term. It's putting all the pieces of the puzzle together.

You think I wouldn't make a good detection, but I guess you think you would? How long did it take for you to figure Mormonism out. I mean you weren't born into it Ray, and yet you actually bought into it. Need I say more?

Well Ray as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and generally extraordinary claims of the supernatural or paranormal variety are based on faulty and/or wishful thinking. It's usually a pretty safe bet to ignore extraordinary claims or not spend much time investigating. Look at you, you've obviously put in hours and you've reached a point of belief that after-death consciousness might be true..based on a belief though, not objective scientific quality evidence.

Which is precisely your method which I've described - ignore it, it's a waste of time. My approach is the scientific one - to investigate - yours is the pseudo-scientific one - we don't need to look at the evidence seriously, it's not possible anyway. Game, set, match.

Yes, Ray anything you say, you've got a scientific mind.

Having an open mind to extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence is irrational.

So Blackmore was irrational for 30 years?

Did she or did she not change her mind which indicates she thought she was previously wrong. Irrational is when one forms belief and decisions from insufficient evidence.

In this case you believe, consciousness exists after death. Rejecting such claims but being open to evidence which commensurates with the claim is rational. I know I'm repeating.

No, not rejecting them, being open to the possibility they might be true! That was Blackmore's position! Yours is to dismiss it all after a board discussion.

Is that Blackmore's position now, no it is not! So stop using her. She changed her mind Ray which makes it even worse that you continue to use her. Having studied these issues for many years she now believes physiology explains NDE's & OBE's.

Ray no matter where the information comes from when one forms an opinion one should critically evaluate the source for potential bias.

And you suggest I don't do that?

You know what I'm not going to answer that.

I read Woerlee's explanations which were medical or scientific.

You have a habit of claiming anything that supports your belief as "scientific", but anything that doesn't support your belief as "gullible". Why is that? Is Woerlee any more of a scientist than Pim van Lommel? No.

That Lommel study said virtually nothing of substance, it wasn't very scientific as far as what it presented.

I wouldn't say your problem is bias, but I will say you aren't being skeptical. You really don't appreciate the skeptical position.

I do. But I don't appreciate skeptical and dogmatic positions, like people who don't read enough yet draw conclusions on the little they've read. Even Shermer, the skeptic of skeptics admitted, "no one really knows" (at this stage).

Oi Vai , you aren't getting the concepts Ray.

And you've even admitted you hold your paranormal beliefs solely as beliefs not based on evidence.

As I've said before, I reject many paranormal claims, and "New Age" stuff doesn't interest me much. If there was clear and irrefutable evidence against what I believe, that it may be possible for consciousness to survive bodily death, then I would reject it. Your default position is that it's not possible for consciousness to survive death. It's not that I reject that, what I reject is your dogmatic approach to this, and you think studies examining this are "a waste of time".

You just don't get it Ray, and I've tried to explain, and obviously I've failed. You don't get burden of proof and what being rational skeptical is about.

So what it boils down to Ray is I hold the same position as her, but you are one of the New Ager's she was talking about, who accuse her of being closed minded, just as you do me.

I am not a New Ager. Don't buy New Age books, only read the scientific literature which examines the phenomena. When I worked for my brother one major difference we had was that I liked to document and present alternative views to paranormal claims, including those of skeptics. He often called me "the academic", and asked me to stop being "so academic, I'm a Storyteller, not a scientist". We had many arguments about this, by email. Eventually I got the message, that he was running the show and would wear responsibility for criticism or errors. So eventually the Storyteller and the academic parted.

N/C

The you shouldn't have used her Ray, she doesn't support your opinion at all. You're basically one of New Agers she was complaining about..telling her she's closed minded because she believes physiology sufficient to explain NDE's.

1. I am not a New Ager.

2. I never said she supported my opinion.

3. She was more open minded than marg, who finds all of this "a waste of time".

If Blackmore can be credited with anything, it is that she was willing to invest 30 years investigating. That she has arrived at these conclusions is not at all lost on me. I can respect her efforts. It is your curt dismissiveness that I find unsettling, and how you sometimes so tenaciously hang on to the opinions of others, including mine, with a little twist that favours your opinion. Like I said, little soundbites like "death is final" titilates you, especially when it comes from "real scientists".

And Ray I will let you end with yet another ad hominem...and walk away from this and just JAK has more patience than I do, maybe he can get concepts across that I obviously am not able to do.