Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_marg]

Besides Woerlee an anesthesiologist, Mark Crislop, a "practicing physician who spends all his time in an acute care hospital and has been involved with many cardiac arrests over the years" there is also Sebastian Dieguez added to those scientists who have written arguments against Lommel's conclusion that NDE's have occurred/occur when the patient's brain lacked all activity.

Here is Sebastian Dieguez bio, his speciality is the brain. "Sebastian Dieguez worked for a time as a clinical neuropsychologist and is currently a graduate student at the Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience of the Brain Mind Institute, at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. He investigates the neural correlates of bodily awareness and self-knowledge, as well as a number of obscure neuropsychiatric syndromes. He has written on varied topics such as disorders of the body schema, cursing in aphasia, the neuropsychology of empathy, near-death and out-of-body experiences, and is a regular contributor to Cerveau & Psycho, the French edition of Scientific American Mind. "

In his article NDEs Redux
Skeptics need to reclaim, redefine
& embrace Near Death Experiences here

He says: "I agree one hundred percent with everything Dr. Crislip wrote in his recent article published in eSkeptic. In fact, I have co-authored a forthcoming book chapter that makes similar points (Blanke & Dieguez, 2009). It is perfectly true that loss of consciousness and brain status were not satisfactorily assessed in the NDE Dutch study (van Lommel et al., 2001) and that all claims of cerebral inactivity, or even dysfunction, were largely unwarranted by the methods used. It is also an understatement to say, as Crislip rightly does, that NDE research crucially depends on how NDEs are defined. "

So he is another good read to use in critically evaluating the issue. The thing is Ray, while these 3 scientists I point out, have noted that Lommel has not established via rigorous science that there was no brain activity when NDE's occurred, even a layman with no medical knowledge can determine that as well from critically reading Lommels' study. What Lommel gives as his reasoning to assume NDE's occurred at the same time as no brain activity is the patient's recount of events or facts they remembered at the time. But Lommel relies upon anecdotes. He doesn't use rigorous objective science, such as any test to determine objectively if in fact patients are able to be consciously be aware of surroundings when unconscious.

[_Ray A]

Your Internet research is stunning, marg. I think you've just about covered every possible angle.

[_marg]

Your Internet research is stunning, marg. I think you've just about covered every possible angle.

Are you reading any of it Ray? If so I'd like to eventually hear/see your critical evaluation of what those 2 scientists, Crislip and Diequez have to say.

[_Ray A]

Your Internet research is stunning, marg. I think you've just about covered every possible angle.

Are you reading any of it Ray? If so I'd like to eventually hear/see your critical evaluation of what those 2 scientists, Crislip and Diequez have to say.

Not only have I read all the angles of criticism, for years, but tried unsuccessfully to persuade my brother to include them in his books for balance. (Once again, you're really a novice at this.)

Have you read even one book on the NDE phenomenon yet?


There are many different viewpoints, criticisms and counter-criticisms, and it's not nearly so easily "debunkable" as you believe.

There has still been no rebuttal reply to the Lancet article (as far as I'm aware), but lots of skeptics commenting and blogging about it. Even though it's standard procedure in academic/scientific journals for rebuttals to be published.

Susan Blackmore, who has studied psi phenomena for three decades, is considered one of the leading authorities in the field. However, her direct experience is reportedly limited to a single, drug-induced OBE, having reported no lucid, intentional OBE’s. At the closing talks in Tucson, four days after the aforementioned comment, Blackmore revealed her frustration with people who still did not consider this a dead issue; but when challenged by the audience, she concede that further tests need to be done to test her speculative rebuttals. Invoking cases of anomalous perception resulting from electrical stimulation of the brain, Blackmore argued, with questionable logic, that OBE’s were clearly illusory perceptions triggered by physical processes alone.

Link.

I know you feel similarly frustrated, marg, and it shows. But be patient, the tests are underway.

[_marg]

Are you reading any of it Ray? If so I'd like to eventually hear/see your critical evaluation of what those 2 scientists, Crislip and Diequez have to say.

Not only have I read all the angles of criticism, for years, but tried unsuccessfully to persuade my brother to include them in his books for balance. (Once again, you're really a novice at this.)

Ray you are avoiding answering my question. Did you read those articles by Crislop and Diequez and what criticism do you have of what they have to say. Please stop this ad nauseum ad hominal line of argument you've been employing, that because I haven't read for the number of years you have I'm not able to offer a critical argument. You are using the fallacy of appeal to authority snd are not engaging critically in the discussion. And you've been doing that from the beginning of this discussion. When I asked for your critical perspective on Lommel you refused to give and called me lazy. I wasn't being lazy I was asking you to give me your critical evaluation of Lommel. If you aren't going to do this in discussion then don't pretend to being open minded.

Have you read even one book on the NDE phenomenon yet?

Ray I don't care how many books you've read, you need to engage in the discussion and quit using this tactic of appeal to authority. If you don't agree with those 2 scientists then in your own words, explain why.

There are many different viewpoints, criticisms and counter-criticisms, and it's not nearly so easily "debunkable" as you believe.

Please read Sebastian Dieguez's article. It's very debunkable. Yes people experiences the phenomenon of NDE's with similar core experiences, but as Dieguez explains..it can all be accounted for naturalistically.

First, it is indubitable that most, if not all aspects of the NDE fit entirely into neuroscientific knowledge: observations from reduced cerebral oxygenation, drug intake, sleep-wake cycle disturbances, awareness during anaesthesia, brain damage, epilepsy and direct brain stimulation all clearly point to neural correlates of NDE-related phenomena. Then, there is the embarrassing failure to find even one irrefutable case of “veridical perceptions” during brain inactivity (or simply unconsciousness), whereas such cases should be all over the place according to any transcendental or non-reductionist account.

There has still been no rebuttal reply to the Lancet article (as far as I'm aware), but lots of skeptics commenting and blogging about it. Even though it's standard procedure in academic/scientific journals for rebuttals to be published.

I've pointed out 3 scientists who have offered rebuttals/critical evaluation, Ray. I personally have explained holes in Lommel's paper. I've noted and commented that Lommel doesn't offer much substance. This is what Crislip had to say with regards to this.

Upon close reading I think the only thing this paper is qualified to determine is a description of who get NDEs and what patients report. As to etiology of NDEs, much less mind-brain relations, it can say nothing. The authors’ reach exceeds their grasp.

Susan Blackmore, who has studied psi phenomena for three decades, is considered one of the leading authorities in the field. However, her direct experience is reportedly limited to a single, drug-induced OBE, having reported no lucid, intentional OBE’s. At the closing talks in Tucson, four days after the aforementioned comment, Blackmore revealed her frustration with people who still did not consider this a dead issue; but when challenged by the audience, she concede that further tests need to be done to test her speculative rebuttals. Invoking cases of anomalous perception resulting from electrical stimulation of the brain, Blackmore argued, with questionable logic, that OBE’s were clearly illusory perceptions triggered by physical processes alone.

Link.

I know you feel similarly frustrated, marg, and it shows. But be patient, the tests are underway.

Note RAy...Blackmore argued "OBE’s were clearly illusory perceptions triggered by physical processes alone.'

So even she is not impressed by Lommel's study/article. You say she's open minded, so why should she have a problem with it?

I'm not frustrated at all Ray with regards to the actual issue. It is frustrating though talking to someone who argues fallaciously using ad hominems frequently, appeals to authority and who doesn't apply their own critical thinking to the discussion.

I would say you are the one frustrated. You appear to be closed minded to reading and giving your critical analysis of respectable scientists who have offered their critical analysis of Lommel's published study. Why is that Ray?

[_Ray A]

Ray you are avoiding answering my question. Did you read those articles by Crislop and Diequez and what criticism do you have of what they have to say.

I read them, and I've read similar criticisms for a long time. They are entitled to have an opinion.

Please stop this ad nauseum ad hominal line of argument you've been employing, that because I haven't read for the number of years you have I'm not able to offer a critical argument.

You can, but you could offer better criticisms if you had more background knowledge, rather than reinventing the wheel.

You are using the fallacy of appeal to authority snd are not engaging critically in the discussion. And you've been doing that from the beginning of this discussion.

You're the one quoting all the "authorities" too. But I know your reasoning very well - I "appeal to authority", you don't.

When I asked for your critical perspective on Lommel you refused to give and called me lazy. I wasn't being lazy I was asking I was asking you to give me your critical evaluation of Lommel. If you aren't going to do this in discussion then don't pretend to being open minded.

I think some areas do need to be looked at more closely, and more precise evaluations made. That's why it's an on-going study. And the strangest thing of all is that - van Lommel also believes this.

Ray I don't care how many books you've written, you need to engage in the discussion and quit using this tactic of appeal to authority. If you don't agree with those 2 scientists then in your own words, explain why.

I haven't written a single book.

If you really want me to reply to the two writers, I may do so a bit later. It really depends on how I feel.

I've pointed out 3 Ray. I personally have explained holes in Lommel's paper. I've noted and commented that Lommel's doesn't offer much substance. This is what Crislip had to say with regards to this.

Upon close reading I think the only thing this paper is qualified to determine is a description of who get NDEs and what patients report. As to etiology of NDEs, much less mind-brain relations, it can say nothing. The authors’ reach exceeds their grasp.

And what's startling about that? Is that a conclusion, or an observation? "Saying nothing" doesn't mean "saying something", and the research to date "says nothing" about final conclusions. That's why studies are continuing - with Blackmore's approval.

Note RAy...Blackmore argued "OBE’s were clearly illusory perceptions triggered by physical processes alone.'

And that's one of the most serious and continuing criticisms levelled against her - that she's never had an NDE.

So even she is not impressed by Lommel's study/article. You say she's open minded, so why should she have a problem with it?

Because she's open minded, and is encouraging further study. I believe she also now recognises (after much criticism) that hers are only opinions. You still seem to think it's a "dead issue". "Science has explained it all".

I'm not frustrated at all Ray with regards to the actual issue. It is frustrating though talking to someone who argues fallaciously using ad hominems frequently, appeals to authority and who doesn't apply their own critical thinking to the discussion.

That's because, perhaps, like Susan, I'm kind of tired. Tired of having to have repetitive discussions with people who don't know very much about the subject, and who's "expertise" is mainly derived from the Internet and reading perhaps less than a dozen articles.

I would say you are the one frustrated. You appear to be closed minded to reading and giving your critical analysis of respectable scientists who have offered their critical analysis of Lommel's published study. Why is that Ray?

Note that "respectable scientists" are the ones who have concluded it's all a "grand illusion", in marg's book.

[_marg]

Ray you are avoiding answering my question. Did you read those articles by Crislop and Diequez and what criticism do you have of what they have to say.

I read them, and I've read similar criticisms for a long time. They are entitled to have an opinion.

You are still avoiding answer the question. So what you've read them. What have you got to say about what they say? Give your critical evaluation of what they say. Show that it's more than bias and closed minded thinking, supporting your perspective.

Please stop this ad nauseum ad hominal line of argument you've been employing, that because I haven't read for the number of years you have I'm not able to offer a critical argument.

You can, but you could offer better criticisms if you had more background knowledge, rather than reinventing the wheel.

Ray who are you to talk about offering substance? You've offered nothing. You keep supplying links and throwing out ad homs. You don't critically evaluate the information presented into the discussion. You havne't discussed anything so far.

You are using the fallacy of appeal to authority snd are not engaging critically in the discussion. And you've been doing that from the beginning of this discussion.

You're the one quoting all the "authorities" too. But I know your reasoning very well - I "appeal to authority", you don't.

Ray, my complaint with regards to fallacy of appeal to authority is based on your immediate dismissal of whatever I have to say for the reason you give that you have been reading about NDE's for so many years and I haven't. I'm not dismissing you on that sort of reasoning when I offer up what an authority has to say about this issue.

When I asked for your critical perspective on Lommel you refused to give and called me lazy. I wasn't being lazy I was asking I was asking you to give me your critical evaluation of Lommel. If you aren't going to do this in discussion then don't pretend to being open minded.

I think some areas do need to be looked at more closely, and more precise evaluations made. That's why it's an on-going study. And the strangest thing of all is that - van Lommel also believes this.

That's not saying much that Lommel believes more research is needed. First of all his study didn't do much research, they made some observations and established that people experience NDE's. But that's about all they offered. Lommel speculates that consciousness exists outside the body, so of course he thinks more research is needed.

The study Ray is on going because it is of interest beyond the paranormal.

Here is what S. Dieguez says on this:

Instead of obsessively focusing on specific features like out-of-body experiences, tunnels, lights, life-reviews, spiritual encounters, personality changes, and so forth, this definition aptly shifts the focus away and opens on the wider and more interesting questions of the nature of subjective experience, personal belief and collective mythology, all in the same framework of analysis. And of course, the question of whether these experiences are “true” or not becomes completely irrelevant by this definition. Rather, it entirely frees the hands of interested scientists from the boring job of debunking the same claims over and over again, and allows them to turn to the really interesting things (exactly like memory researchers have studied “alien abductees”, focusing on the really relevant issues instead of looking for answers into the skies; e.g. Clancy, 2005). Studying NDEs thus defined could yield fascinating insights to better understand belief formation, folk psychology, feelings of “realness”, bodily awareness, mental imagery, memory processes, myth formation, thanatology, neuropsychiatric conditions such as hallucinations, depersonalization, dissociation and other peculiar syndromes, and maybe even to approach rationally that old conundrum of whether it is cognitively possible or not to imagine oneself dead (Nichols, 2007).

Ray I don't care how many books you've written, you need to engage in the discussion and quit using this tactic of appeal to authority. If you don't agree with those 2 scientists then in your own words, explain why.

I haven't written a single book.

I corrected my post not long after I posted it. I have a habit of not editing until after I post.

If you really want me to reply to the two writers, I may do so a bit later. It really depends on how I feel.

This is an issue you claim to be interested in and open minded about. It's up to you.

I've pointed out 3 Ray. I personally have explained holes in Lommel's paper. I've noted and commented that Lommel's doesn't offer much substance. This is what Crislip had to say with regards to this. "Upon close reading I think the only thing this paper is qualified to determine is a description of who get NDEs and what patients report. As to etiology of NDEs, much less mind-brain relations, it can say nothing. The authors’ reach exceeds their grasp."

And what's startling about that? Is that a conclusion, or an observation? "Saying nothing" doesn't mean "saying something", and the research to date "says nothing" about final conclusions. That's why studies are continuing - with Blackmore's approval.

Ray what Crislop was saying is that the Lommel study was not backed by rigorous science when it came to their conclusion that NDE's were more than physiological. The only thing the Lommel study accomplished was descriptive, there was no scientific theory involved..it was descriptive on who gets NDE's. That study by Parnia by the way, I suspect is to shut up New Agers and others who claim people have real out of body experiences. Trust me, no scientist is really taking the paranormal claims of this seriously enough to invest time in it...there is better things to put their time to. This is what Dieguez has to say:

But I think it is time to move one step further from this type of discussion. NDE researchers have frequently observed that on this topic, skeptics have merely indulged in debunking other’s claims and speculating about plausible biological frameworks to “explain away” the NDE, mostly out of the armchair. This is perfectly true. The reason is, in my view, that the pioneers of NDE research, and most of their successors, have largely contributed to discredit the whole field. They did more than they were asked for to turn it into a shameful religious war involving syrupy new age “support groups”, amateur quantum enthusiasts, Mormon propagandists, and Christian fundamentalists (for an embarrassing “discussion”, see Ring, 2000 and Sabom, 2000). Really, it is no wonder that so few scientists were ever attracted to this area of research.

Note RAy...Blackmore argued "OBE’s were clearly illusory perceptions triggered by physical processes alone.'

And that's one of the most serious and continuing criticisms levelled against her - that she's never had an NDE.

Ray, NDE's are no big deal, they can be induced. So whether she's experienced one or not, is irrelevant and just a cheap fallacious shot of the type you've been using against me.

So even she is not impressed by Lommel's study/article. You say she's open minded, so why should she have a problem with it?

Because she's open minded, and is encouraging further study. I believe she also now recognises (after much criticism) that hers are only opinions. You still seem to think it's a "dead issue". "Science has explained it all".

Ray burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claims. I'm sure S. Blackmore appreciates this well. Opinions on this issue are not logically equal. Yes she has an opinion, but her opinion enjoys the presumption. The burden is on those making the extraordinary claim of out of body consciousness to overturn her presumption that "OBE’s were clearly illusory perceptions triggered by physical processes alone" Her opinion is backed by current science theories and does not need to employ anything extraordinary beyond naturalistic explanation. These are concepts Ray to think about.

I'm not frustrated at all Ray with regards to the actual issue. It is frustrating though talking to someone who argues fallaciously using ad hominems frequently, appeals to authority and who doesn't apply their own critical thinking to the discussion.

That's because, perhaps, like Susan, I'm kind of tired. Tired of having to have repetitive discussions with people who don't know very much about the subject, and who's "expertise" is mainly derived from the Internet and reading perhaps less than a dozen articles.

Once again you fall back on appeal to authority. I can understand someone being tired of this issue, of having little interest. But I didn't start the discussion you did. While you may think you come from a position of strength and knowledge, I believe you come from a position of "faith in a belief that consciousness exists separate to the body and lives on, in emotional investment, in taking a position over the years that you are reluctant to reexamine and/or give up. If you aren't interested in the discussion fine. But you shouldn't throw out unwarranted cheap shots for your responses, in lieu of serious discussion.

I would say you are the one frustrated. You appear to be closed minded to reading and giving your critical analysis of respectable scientists who have offered their critical analysis of Lommel's published study. Why is that Ray?

Note that "respectable scientists" are the ones who have concluded it's all a "grand illusion", in marg's book.

Ray..I used the word "respectable", because the people I brought to the discussion, work in fields closely associated with NDE's. That is they observe, people who experience NDE's, or they study them in the line of work. You are just constantly attacking, throwing out cheap shots. That is really what is frustrating in this discussion.

[_Ray A]

You are still avoiding answer the question. So what you've read them. What have you got to say about what they say? Give your critical evaluation of what they say. Show that it's more than bias and closed minded thinking, supporting your perspective.

As I said, if I feel inclined. As I said, I've read the criticisms for years. Some criticisms are valid, but opining that we "know" the final answer/s isn't. (Why do I feel like I'm on a merry-go round?)

Ray who are you to talk about offering substance? You've offered nothing. You keep supplying links and throwing out ad homs. You don't critically evaluate the information presented into the discussion. You havne't discussed anything so far.

No I haven't. All of my posts on this thread is just your imagination.

Ray, my complaint with regards to fallacy of appeal to authority is based on your immediate dismissal of whatever I have to say for the reason you give that you have been reading about NDE's for so many years and I haven't. I'm not dismissing you on that sort of reasoning when I offer up what an authority has to say about this issue.

There's one reason why this whole debate is redundant, and that's because you are unprepared to wait for the results of the Parnia UK study. You insist that you already "know" the outcome. It's a waste of time. Can you wait??? No, you can't wait because you're frustrated at people who don't think it's a "dead issue". I can wait. I'm not frustrated. If they establish that the NDE phenomenon is probably all brain-related, I can live with that. Promise I won't slit my wrists.

That's not saying much that Lommel believes more research is needed. First of all his study didn't do much research, they made some observations and established that people experience NDE's. But that's about all they offered. Lommel speculates that consciousness exists outside the body, so of course he thinks more research is needed.

I'm amazed if you think that's all the study established. But I suppose I shouldn't be.

The study Ray is on going because it is of interest beyond the paranormal.

And this is one of the main reasons I feel debating you is a waste of time. Of course it is of interest beyond the paranormal. This is what van Lommel stated. Keep coming with those straw men, marg.

I corrected my post not long after I posted it. I have a habit of not editing until after I post.

It still doesn't say much for your powers of observation.

This is an issue you claim to be interested in and open minded about. It's up to you.

I'm open minded enough to wait for the results of the UK study. Are you? No, I don't believe that for one minute. Because you're frustrated that not everyone considers this a "dead issue", which you do! Very scientific.

That study by Parnia by the way, I suspect is to shut up New Agers and others who claim people have real out of body experiences. Trust me, no scientist is really taking the paranormal claims of this seriously enough to invest time in it...there is better things to put their time to.

LOL. And here is a classic example of why I won't be wasting any more time on this thread, marg.

Do you even know who Sam Parnia is?

You just showed that you don't know him from a bar of soap.

You see, this is why I've said, time and again on this thread, that you're nothing but a novice on this subject. And I'll be a bit unkind - almost illiterate on this subject.

Ray, NDE's are no big deal, they can be induced. So whether she's experienced one or not, is irrelevant and just a cheap fallacious shot of the type you've been using against me.

And, once again, marg demonstrates her complete ignorance of the crucial difference between an NDE, especially a "deep NDE", and an OBE.

Once again you fall back on appeal to authority. I can understand someone being tired of this issue, of having little interest. But I didn't start the discussion you did.

I did not start this thread. I very, very rarely do threads on NDEs, but often comment on those started by others. Check my posting history if you like, and check the area of your moderation the CK, where I did comment on NDE threads, NOT started by me.

While you may think you come from a position of strength and knowledge, I believe you come from a position of "faith in a belief that consciousness exists separate to the body and lives on, in emotional investment, in taking a position over the years that you are reluctant to reexamine and/or give up. If you aren't interested in the discussion fine. But you shouldn't throw out unwarranted cheap shots for your responses, in lieu of serious discussion.

As I said, I think that consciousness may survive death. I don't hold this dogmatically, and I'm prepared to wait for the outocme of the research. You aren't. You insist on foisting your "death is the end" dogma on me to the point that you won't rest until the whole world agrees with marg. How this can't be obvious to anyone reading your comments I wouldn't know.

Ray..I used the word "respectable", because the people I brought to the discussion, work in fields closely associated with NDE's. That is they observe, people who experience NDE's, or they study them in the line of work. You are just constantly attacking, throwing out cheap shots. That is really what is frustrating in this discussion.

What is really frustrating about this discussion is your ignorance of a subject you know precious little about.

And I'm no longer going to indulge you.
>
>
>

[_marg]

What is really frustrating about this discussion is your ignorance of a subject you know precious little about.

And I'm no longer going to indulge you.
>
>
>

Ray it's not that complicated.

Reading more and more anecdotal stories does not bring you to a better understanding of the issues. Reading uncritically does not bring you to a better understanding either. It's not how much you read, nor how long you've been reading that is important to an understanding...it is what you chose to read and how you critically evaluate the information which is.

It's quite obvious that you are not willing perhaps unable to discuss this issue rationally and respectfully.