Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_Ray A]

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.

marg, I'll probably have to reply to this epistle a bit later. I'm coming towards the end of a very enjoyable Saturday evening, and face an 18 hour shift tomorrow (Australia Day, you see?) But have no fear, I will eventually address your insecurities, and your determination to believe that human consciousness cannot survive death. I'm not saying that it does, but I'm open to the possibility. You clearly are not. And I consider your position not only unscientific, but dogmatic. You're not even prepared to await further studies, but like the true dogmatist you are, declare that you comprehend all there is to know about the universe, and that without even having read a single book on near death experiences. Your cocksure arrogance is something to behold.

The real irony is that in the end I may even agree with you. But not until all avenues have been explored. Your scientism does not impress me. And, once again, marg, I reiterate that you are the expert on everything who's read nothing. The shallowness of your thought, in this regard, should be obvious Donald Duck.

So I think atheist Phillip Adams words apply totally to you:

From: Phillip Adams
To: Kevin Solway

10 August 1993

Dear Kevin,

Given your growing concern about my credentials as an atheist, I hereby resign as a patron of your Atheist Society. God forbid that I should hang around when I'm not wanted.

I've spent a life-time attacking religious beliefs and have not wavered from a view of the universe that many would regard as bleak. Namely, that it is a meaningless place devoid of deity.

However I'm unwilling simply to repeat the old arguments of the past when, in fact, God is a moving target and is taking all sorts of new shapes and forms. The arguments used against the long bow are not particularly useful when debating nuclear weapons, and the simple arguments against the old model gods are not sufficient when dealing with the likes of Davies et al.

For example, the notion that God didn't exist, doesn't exist but may come into existence through the spread of consciousness throughout the universe is too clever to be pooh-poohed along Bertrand Russel lines. And if I had the time I could give you half a dozen other scientific theologies that will need snappier footwork from the atheist of the future.

Birch is, in my view, a pretentious fart whose philosophies are opportunistic and unconvincing. If people can't see that, that's their problem. In the context of a hydra-headed SBS interview, one hopes that he hoists himself on his own petard.

Incidentally, if there's one thing more infuriating than a silly theologian it's an arid, doctrinaire atheist. I've had dealings with plenty of them over the years, including a famous monster from the US. To profess atheism is not to prove anything, let alone intellectual merit. Some of the narrowest, most dogmatic and silly people I've known have been atheists - or have loudly professed themselves Humanists or Rationalists.

Let the last contribution of your erstwhile patron be to warn you against intellectual arrogance. I've never believed, for a moment, that atheists have all the answers. Just that they pose better questions.

Cheers,

Phillip Adams

The emphasis is mine, marg, and it applies to you, and your utterly repulsive dogmatism. You are the atheist equivalent of the Mormon fanatic. True blue, through and through.

[_marg]

marg, I'll probably have to reply to this epistle a bit later. I'm coming towards the end of a very enjoyable Saturday evening, and face an 18 hour shift tomorrow (Australia Day, you see?) But have no fear, I will eventually address your insecurities, and your determination to believe that human consciousness cannot survive death.

I don't believe consciousness survives death. There is no evidence it does.

I'm not saying that it does, but I'm open to the possibility.

You are not merely open to the possibility, you believe consciousness does survive death, despite lack of evidence and that NDE & OBE's can be adequately explained physiologically.

You clearly are not.

Sure I am open to possibilities, except I don't concern myself with it, nor say I'm agnostic, nor hold a belief/make a leap of faith and believe in such a possibility that consciousness survives death.

And I consider your position not only unscientific, but dogmatic.

Sure you do Ray.

You're not even prepared to await further studies,

keep waiting

but like the true dogmatist you are, declare that you comprehend all there is to know about the universe,

Once again your words show a misconception of mine.

and that without even having read a single book on near death experiences. Your cocksure arrogance is something to behold.

Keep believing if you wish...and throw out ad hominems in discussion, because you've got nothing else to offer.

The real irony is that in the end I may even agree with you. But not until all avenues have been explored.

It's more than that. You believe consciousness survives death even though there is no evidence to support this belief, only poor science and anedotes.

Your scientism does not impress me. And, once again, marg, I reiterate that you are the expert on everything who's read nothing.

Just keep throwing out ad homs, because you have nothing else.

The shallowness of your thought, in this regard, should be obvious Donald Duck.

And another.

So I think atheist Phillip Adams words apply totally to you:

From: Phillip Adams
To: Kevin Solway

10 August 1993

Dear Kevin,

Given your growing concern about my credentials as an atheist, I hereby resign as a patron of your Atheist Society. God forbid that I should hang around when I'm not wanted.

I've spent a life-time attacking religious beliefs and have not wavered from a view of the universe that many would regard as bleak. Namely, that it is a meaningless place devoid of deity.

However I'm unwilling simply to repeat the old arguments of the past when, in fact, God is a moving target and is taking all sorts of new shapes and forms. The arguments used against the long bow are not particularly useful when debating nuclear weapons, and the simple arguments against the old model gods are not sufficient when dealing with the likes of Davies et al.

For example, the notion that God didn't exist, doesn't exist but may come into existence through the spread of consciousness throughout the universe is too clever to be pooh-poohed along Bertrand Russel lines. And if I had the time I could give you half a dozen other scientific theologies that will need snappier footwork from the atheist of the future.

Birch is, in my view, a pretentious fart whose philosophies are opportunistic and unconvincing. If people can't see that, that's their problem. In the context of a hydra-headed SBS interview, one hopes that he hoists himself on his own petard.

Incidentally, if there's one thing more infuriating than a silly theologian it's an arid, doctrinaire atheist. I've had dealings with plenty of them over the years, including a famous monster from the US. To profess atheism is not to prove anything, let alone intellectual merit. Some of the narrowest, most dogmatic and silly people I've known have been atheists - or have loudly professed themselves Humanists or Rationalists.

Let the last contribution of your erstwhile patron be to warn you against intellectual arrogance. I've never believed, for a moment, that atheists have all the answers. Just that they pose better questions.

Cheers,

Phillip Adams

The emphasis is mine, marg, and it applies to you, and your utterly repulsive dogmatism.

It's obvious Ray you don't read my posts critically well.

You are the atheist equivalent of the Mormon fanatic. True blue, through and through.

Whatever you say.

[_marg]

by the way I want to address your comment in the spalding thread here and not go off on what should be obvious and waste people's time in that thread.

You wrote: I get your point loud and clear, Dale, though I do have a minor quibble, which is that Joseph Smith hasn't been factored in to the study. The general assumption is that he couldn't have written it, and the S/R Theory rests upon that belief. His general ignorance of what he was "translating" is also factored in ("does Jerusalem have walls?" Duh).

The Spalding Rigdon theory does not rest on the assumption that Smith couldn't write the Book of Mormon, chances (probabilities) are he couldn't but it is the positive data such as the Spalding witnesses which make the theory strong.

So he [smith] was eliminated from the study because of, basically, his lack of education, and therefore a "naturalistic" account can't consider him a viable candidate.

No Ray that's not why Smith's words weren't used. You do have the study and so you should have read the researcher's explanation. Smith used people who helped him write and so knowing for certain what were his words is the problem. Obviously if the words were someone else's that would taint the findings significantly

So in other words the authors of the study left Joseph out because, from the start, they didn't see him as a realistic (i.e, educated enough) author. Why else would they leave him out, unless they believed that there is no way he could have created this from his education-level?

They explained ...but you fail to comprehend.

As a hypothetical, if Smith had written the Book of Mormon, then the studies should not have found high signals for Rigdon and Smith and low for the other individual's writings used in the study.

[_Chap]

marg, I'll probably have to reply to this epistle a bit later. I'm coming towards the end of a very enjoyable Saturday evening, and face an 18 hour shift tomorrow (Australia Day, you see?) But have no fear, I will eventually address your insecurities, and your determination to believe that human consciousness cannot survive death.

I don't believe consciousness survives death. There is no evidence it does.

I'm not saying that it does, but I'm open to the possibility.

[...]

Well, most meaningful but improbable propositions that are not logically contradictory are possible, in the sense that one could imagine experiences (however unlikely) that one might have that might make one conclude that such propositions were after all true.

But in terms of making decisions within a finite time and on limited evidence as to what one is to base the pattern of one's finite lifetime on ... there are quite a few propositions that seem so little supported by direct or indirect evidence, and so greatly counter-indicated by common experience, that one can treat then for all practical purposes as having a likelihood that is zero.

An example of such an improbable but not logically impossible proposition would be that we are all protected by invisible but very powerful and caring entities called angels, who are easily able to rescue us from all physical and moral harm. It is not impossible for that proposition to be true, but in practice the number of people who take serious decisions in life differently because they believe the proposition to be true is very small, and for good reason. There are no reliable indications that the proposition is true, and many indications (such as the suffering of the innocent and powerless at the hands of the wicked and strong) that it is not true. So we are wise to act on the assumption that it is false, and to neglect the alternative possibility for all practical purposes.

The idea that consciousness survives the physical destruction of the human body has a similar status. There is a huge amount of evidence that full functioning of consciousness is dependent on the proper functioning of the whole brain. There is a huge amount of evidence that damage to certain specific parts of the brain can prevent quite specific parts of our consciousness from functioning. All of us regularly experience what it is like for our consciousness to cease functioning: we call it 'falling asleep', and there is no evidence that the experience of death is radically different in kind, except that it is permanent. So we are wise to act on the assumption that human consciousness ceases permanently on death, and to neglect the alternative possibility for all practical purposes.

(Edited for typo)

[_JAK]

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?

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.

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.

Ray, you have not addressed the point of analysis. A failure to produce evidence in support of an implied or a stated contention results in that claim being lost.

No evidence has been established that “consciousness,” as we might medically understand that, survives death. With all the evidences we have in medical science to pursue, claims of consciousness after death is of little or no interest to genuine medical science or genuine science of any area.

[_Ray A]

Ray, you have not addressed the point of analysis. A failure to produce evidence in support of an implied or a stated contention results in that claim being lost.

No evidence has been established that “consciousness,” as we might medically understand that, survives death. With all the evidences we have in medical science to pursue, claims of consciousness after death is of little or no interest to genuine medical science or genuine science of any area.

Some people on this thread just don't get it.

From Dr. Susan Blackmore, writing in the UK Guardian (Friday 19 September 2008). (Emphasis added)

I was surprised to hear on the news that Sam Parnia has been awarded a big grant to find out whether the human spirit leaves the body at death – whether consciousness can survive when the brain is no longer working. He, and colleagues around the world, will place an image on a platform suspended from the ceiling of hospital wards and resuscitation areas, so that the image cannot be seen from below but could be seen if – during a near-death experience – the patient's consciousness left his body.

I was surprised, not that he has been awarded the grant, but that this made the news. But I assumed that this topic is of sufficient popular interest that, of all the thousands of research grants awarded, this one was worth reporting. Then I heard people saying it was a total waste of time and money. Surely we should be spending scarce research resources on improving patient care or developing new drugs shouldn't we? Well should we? Is this a good use of research money?

I long ago became fascinated with near-death experiences (NDE). In 1970, before the term was even invented, I had an extraordinary drug-induced experience (this was the time of hippy enthusiasm for old-fashioned mild cannabis). This life-changing experience included the tunnels, lights, out-of-body experience and meeting other beings that occur in the classic NDE. I was convinced that my spirit had left my body, and that is why I went on to become a parapsychologist, trying to prove this was true. I found it was not.

If there is any survival, I now think it's more likely to be through technological advances – you can hear me discussing this with musician Peter Gabriel, who is building the first "social networking site for the dead"!

I learned a lot about the experience though. In 1975, physician Raymond Moody coined the term NDE in his book Life After Life. Since then, research has shown that something like 10% of people who come close to death and survive report some kind of memory.

Most seem to rush down dark tunnels towards a bright light, many seem to fly out of their body to watch events as though from above, some go on into "other worlds" where they meet dead loved ones or angels or gods, and a very few reach a barrier from which they decide to return to life. Many are changed by their experiences, often becoming less fearful of death and less materialistic. All of this is well explained by what we know about how brain function changes as it approaches death, or even when in shock or severe stress. This "dying brain hypothesis" tells us a lot about what we can expect of our own deaths.

What could not be explained – if indeed it were true – is people actually seeing things that were happening at the time when they could not possibly have seen them with their physical eyes (or heard them described, or inferred them from what they already knew).

There are many claims of this kind, but in my long decades of research into out-of-body and near-death experiences I never met any convincing evidence that this is true. There is the famous case of the woman in Seattle who apparently saw a shoe on a high ledge and her social worker later found it there. This story, like so many others, relies on the testimony of just one person, in this case the social worker. The woman herself never told anyone else and is now dead, and there is no one else who reported seeing it. The testimony of one person, however sincere, is not sufficient to overturn much of science. And this is what would be entailed.

If human consciousness can really leave the body and operate without a brain then everything we know in neuroscience has to be questioned. If people could really gain paranormal knowledge then much of physics needs to be rewritten. This is what is at stake. Add to that the fact that most people in the population believe in some kind of life after death, and many desperately want it to be true, then you have a strong case for this research – even if the chances of success are vanishingly small.

If Parnia does the experiments properly, and his patients really can see those images, then I will change my mind about the paranormal. I don't think it's going to happen but I do think it's worth him making the attempt.

It's quite appropriate to remain skeptical, as Blackmore does. It isn't very insightful to ask, "where is the evidence". As I said, the claims have been made, and numerous people have made these claims, all throughout history.

I also think it's worth making the attempt, and to reply to Blackmore, if these experiments conclusively show that it's all in the brain, I will accept the verdict.

What have I got to lose - except a peaceful eternal sleep? (Yet I predict the mind-reading will continue)

I won't be posting much today, as the real world calls.

[_JAK]

Ray, you have not addressed the point of analysis. A failure to produce evidence in support of an implied or a stated contention results in that claim being lost.

No evidence has been established that “consciousness,” as we might medically understand that, survives death. With all the evidences we have in medical science to pursue, claims of consciousness after death is of little or no interest to genuine medical science or genuine science of any area.

It's quite appropriate to remain skeptical, as Blackmore does. It isn't very insightful to ask, "where is the evidence". As I said, the claims have been made, and numerous people have made these claims, all throughout history.

I also think it's worth making the attempt, and to reply to Blackmore, if these experiments conclusively show that it's all in the brain, I will accept the verdict.

What have I got to lose - except a peaceful eternal sleep? (Yet I predict the mind-reading will continue)

I won't be posting much today, as the real world calls.

How are the “skeptical” persuaded? Ray argues “It’s quite appropriate to remain skeptical…” Yes. How are questions of skepticism resolved? If the skepticism is academic, a resolution is tentatively established from evidence. Asking that evidence be presented for a claim IS insightful. That “claims have been made…” is not insightful. Treating “claims” as if they had credibility when such claims lack evidence is wishful imagination. While it may be appealing, it’s unreliable. It is “insightful” to ask probing questions regarding claim. The burden of proof (for a claim or multiple claims) lies with those who make claim(s).

Merely asserting that “claims have been made” does nothing to support implied or stated claims. Predictions may or may not be well informed. Absent evidence, they are not reliable. Superstition can be documented throughout many centuries of human history. That fact does not give credibility to superstition as a reliable way to access information or understanding.

A near death experience is not death. Any recall of a living person after a close call with death is not the recall of a dead person. No credible evidence has been established for “consciousness” of dead people.

Wishful thinking is generally regarded as logical fallacy.

[_marg]

I was surprised to hear on the news that Sam Parnia has been awarded a big grant to find out whether the human spirit leaves the body at death – whether consciousness can survive when the brain is no longer working. He, and colleagues around the world, will place an image on a platform suspended from the ceiling of hospital wards and resuscitation areas, so that the image cannot be seen from below but could be seen if – during a near-death experience – the patient's consciousness left his body.

This really says a lot about how rigorous the scientific studies have been to this point. Only now is an objective study being done , a very simple test at that, a no-brainer to do, which is that an image is placed above the operating table, that others in the room can not see, so that if a patient claiming NDE and OBE's can truly leave their body to observe from above that the image would be apparent to them. Did Lommel et al the "real scientists" as Ray called them, try such a simple test, if not why not? Any yet they related a story of a woman with an OBE...They write "The EEG of her cortix and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out of body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.

Unfortunately Lommel et al. rely on anecdotal stories, not objectively verified, which are notoriously unreliable. Another example which illustrates the poor science exemplified by that Lancet study.

[_Ray A]

This really says a lot about how rigorous the scientific studies have been to this point. Only now is an objective study being done , a very simple test at that, a no-brainer to do, which is that an image is placed above the operating table, that others in the room can not see, so that if a patient claiming NDE and OBE's can truly leave their body to observe from above that the image would be apparent to them. Did Lommel et al the "real scientists" as Ray called them, try such a simple test, if not why not? Any yet they related a story of a woman with an OBE...They write "The EEG of her cortix and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out of body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.

Unfortunately Lommel et al. rely on anecdotal stories, not objectively verified, which are notoriously unreliable. Another example which illustrates the poor science exemplified by that Lancet study.

When you come up with a post and my brain goes "click", "now she's got it", then I'll reply in detail.

Your comments above, once again, only show how unfamiliar you are with the NDE literature, and how these studies developed to the point that they did. And your mind-reading of the motives of all the researchers only shows your own bias, not theirs.

I've debated this with many people over the years, including Tarski on FAIR, and while we did not agree on everything, at least he knew what he was talking about.

[_marg]

This really says a lot about how rigorous the scientific studies have been to this point. Only now is an objective study being done , a very simple test at that, a no-brainer to do, which is that an image is placed above the operating table, that others in the room can not see, so that if a patient claiming NDE and OBE's can truly leave their body to observe from above that the image would be apparent to them. Did Lommel et al the "real scientists" as Ray called them, try such a simple test, if not why not? Any yet they related a story of a woman with an OBE...They write "The EEG of her cortix and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out of body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.

Unfortunately Lommel et al. rely on anecdotal stories, not objectively verified, which are notoriously unreliable. Another example which illustrates the poor science exemplified by that Lancet study.

When you come up with a post and my brain goes "click", "now she's got it", then I'll reply in detail.

Ray that addresses nothing of the issue. The only thing you offer in this discussion time and time again, is ad homs. I suppose if you had anything to offer you wouldn't need to keep resorting to them.

Your comments above, once again, only show how unfamiliar you are with the NDE literature, and how these studies developed to the point that they did. And your mind-reading of the motives of all the researchers only shows your own bias, not theirs.

There's no mind reading involved, I think it's great that the new study is going beyond anecdotal and subjective memory recall, and doing a basic simple yet objective test.

I've debated this with many people over the years, including Tarski on FAIR, and while we did not agree on everything, at least he knew what he was talking about.

For crying out loud, now you are even bringing Tarski into this. What a lot of hot air you spew Ray. Tell me your argument against Tarski, tell me Tarski's argument but don't tell me you debated with Tarski as if that means anything with regards to how well you think on the issue of NDE's.

No rigorous science supports the phenomenon of NDE's & OBE's being anything more than physiological. You don't share similar views as Susan Blackmore despite your attempt to argue you do. And as far as the Lancet study you brought up in discussion in order to argue that "real scientists" speculate more than physiological explanation and bolster your paranormal belief...I commented on that here, this post re: Lancet article in my opinion you are misreading their report, but I won't expect you to address that post with an argument..I'll expect another ad hominem.