89. “God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathic Link in Lab Exp

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

In other words, only someone who has made up his mind in the same way you have can possibly have an open mind about it. Thanks for the chuckle.

If they don't know that elan vital is nonphysical then necessarily they can't take an open look at life.

~~ Paul

It's just a fact that consciousness is qualitatively different from physical things like tables, chairs and trees. The physical is characterised by the quantitative or more precisely by structure and dynamics.

Consciousness isn't. In fact it is characterised by raw experiences. Whether or not consciousness is brought into being by the physical (presumably the brain) doesn't alter this fact.

That's the basic fact that scientists need to start from.

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by Breanainn

The problem is, we have quite a few anecdotes of people apparently seeing events in other places at a time of cardiac arrest (and not a few confirmed by medical staff themselves), but very few timestamped, EEG recorded, checklist verified, OBEs where we have corroborated verdical perception during a time of known EEG flatline where such information could not possibly have come to the OBEr (before or after the claimed OBE) by any other means. Without this set up (something the AWARE study is designed to provide), there is always wriggle room for a determined critic to claim that an NDE with OBE happened before/after flatline, was confabulated from overheard conversations etc etc etc. Hence the current situation, which is, all we have are anecdotes, and as we know to the sceptic, anecdotes (even anecdotes from medical professionals) are the Devil and should never be trusted by anyone ever.

I personally think, even if AWARE results in confirmed and verified OBE perception of unknown targets, (and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't) some people will still find a way to crap all over the results. It's just one of those issues that people are never going to agree on. A matter of life and death.

On Maria's Shoe, yeah the Inquirer "debunking" isn't one of their better pieces. While I think (vague memories of something along those lines being mentioned somewhere, if not in his original essay then on comments on Michael Prescott's blog) Kieth Augustine has raised a point that Pam's earplugs might not have actually been switched on for most of the operation. Without knowing the exact details of when they were actually switched on, and how much sound can travel through them when off, it's a reasonable question that, yet again, provides wriggle room for some sensory leakage which could (in theory) explain the overheard conversations.

Hi Breanainn
Yes, I agree that skeptics wont budge unless a case emerged with a patient who flatlined,went in to rigor mortis and partial decay, and THEN came back to tell about the enigmas of the universe.
But not even then I suppose...I guess they go on like the clerk in the Dead Parrot-sketch of Monty Python.

Even if AWARE finds a foolproof case then the jackal-skeptics would go after the characters involved.
The doctors nurses and the patients where all in on it, collaborating etc etc.
I almost dare anyone to come up with an ideal case of NDE that cant be bullshitted away using farfetch debunking methods.
It cant be done..in the end whatever you come up with they could just say "You were all in on it" and call it a day.


I tried to find that comment on Michael Prescott's blog made by Kieth Augustine.
But I could only find this one, where someone made the same case as I did, but Kieth Augustine didnt respond to it.
Maybe i missed it, its quite a load of text there : - Michael Prescott's Blog: Two 19th century NDEs
If you have a link I would appreciate it.
Anyway, the reason for having that clicking sound was to get indications from her brain stem that the procedure went on according to plan.
The surgeon had already opened her scull and the operation was on its way.
Is there any reason they don't wanna monitor her brain stem reactions at this point.
Does Kieth Augustine present any reasons for why the clicking sound would be turned off when they reached this far in to the procedure, and why they wouldnt be interested in the response and function of her brain stem at this point?
Maybe someone else has an idea.


The Maria's Shoe-case knee jerk debunk can be read here if anyone are interested - http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/NDE.pdf
Would love some comments on it.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Pollux

The Maria's Shoe-case knee jerk debunk can be read here if anyone are interested - http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/NDE.pdf
Would love some comments on it.

It really is a classic debunk, isn't it! The early part discusses the comfort that the NDE phenomenon may give to people who fear death (most of us, I suspect) - as though that instantly taints NDE's.

This brings the author on to a discussion of dualism, where, of course, the word 'belief' is used, as in "Many dualists also believe their spiritual selves are immortal.....". From the surrounding context, the word 'belief' is obviously meant to be understood in the religious sense, which is grossly unfair.

This leads on to an 'explanation' of the shoe observation, in which one of Maria's visitors tells her about the shoe, and she incorporates that in her NDE!

The real problem is that short of deliberately giving people cardiac arrests under controlled laboratory conditions - which might not pass the various ethics committees, or attract enough informed volunteers - no amount of evidence will prove sufficiently wriggle-proof to satisfy those who don't want to even doubt their well-established views.

I mean, personally, all I really want is for the skeptics to start to doubt their own well-entrenched positions! I don't claim to know, or 'believe' that NDA's are proof of a continuation of consciousness, I just think they are a damned interesting phenomenon, that is certainly not inconsistent with such a continuation. As to whether that is comforting ... well I am not really sure

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

I know so why don't they?

Because they aren't as closed-minded as you are.

It's just a fact that consciousness is qualitatively different from physical things like tables, chairs and trees. The physical is characterised by the quantitative or more precisely by structure and dynamics.

Consciousness isn't. In fact it is characterised by raw experiences. Whether or not consciousness is brought into being by the physical (presumably the brain) doesn't alter this fact.

That's the basic fact that scientists need to start from.

What exactly is the problem with the scientific approach to studying consciousness?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I mean, personally, all I really want is for the skeptics to start to doubt their own well-entrenched positions! I don't claim to know, or 'believe' that NDA's are proof of a continuation of consciousness, I just think they are a damned interesting phenomenon, that is certainly not inconsistent with such a continuation. As to whether that is comforting ... well I am not really sure

Do you know some skeptic who flat-out stated that he wasn't interested in NDEs?

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Do you know some skeptic who flat-out stated that he wasn't interested in NDEs?

~~ Paul

Miguel seems pretty convinced that NDE's are hallucinations that are generated after the period of cardiac arrest is over. I am less sure where you stand on this, but I don't think you consider they supply evidence of the survival of consciousness.

My real beef is that this subject, like most of what we discuss here, has become so polarised that no evidence of something non-material can be accepted as even suggestive if it is remotely possible to provide an alternative explanation. Conventional science would never have got off the ground if the evidence had been treated in this way.

David

[Danny_D]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What should scientists do to convince you that they are taking an open look at consciousness?

~~ Paul

The first thing that needs to change, before any real change can happen, is the prevailing materialistic attitude. It needs to be more acceptable to explore alternative explanations for consciousness. Materialism has a strong foot hold in all academic circles, so it's not a safe route for any scientist to propose consciousness being anything else than the brain.

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What exactly is the problem with the scientific approach to studying consciousness?

~~ Paul

What exactly is the scientific approach to study consciousness?
Study the brain? look for a mechanism that would explain consciousness?
Keeping the hope alive that one day we will prove:
consciousness is only sufficient amount of information processing

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Miguel seems pretty convinced that NDE's are hallucinations that are generated after the period of cardiac arrest is over. I am less sure where you stand on this, but I don't think you consider they supply evidence of the survival of consciousness.

No, but what does that have to do with skeptics saying they aren't interested in NDEs?

My real beef is that this subject, like most of what we discuss here, has become so polarised that no evidence of something non-material can be accepted as even suggestive if it is remotely possible to provide an alternative explanation. Conventional science would never have got off the ground if the evidence had been treated in this way.

That's because there is no way to study something that is immaterial. I've asked at least 50 times what science should do to open the door to the immaterial, but I've never once received an answer.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Danny

The first thing that needs to change, before any real change can happen, is the prevailing materialistic attitude. It needs to be more acceptable to explore alternative explanations for consciousness. Materialism has a strong foot hold in all academic circles, so it's not a safe route for any scientist to propose consciousness being anything else than the brain.

Give it up, Danny. Scientists are people and they accept what they accept. The immaterialists need to grow bigger balls.

What exactly is the scientific approach to study consciousness?
Study the brain? look for a mechanism that would explain consciousness?
Keeping the hope alive that one day we will prove:
consciousness is only sufficient amount of information processing

And your alternative would be what, exactly? Let's take the TV analogy. What should neuroscientists do to find the receiver(s)?

~~ Paul

[Godot]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Is anyone still claiming evidence for NDEs happening during EEG flatline?

Yes. If you read the relevant literature published by Fenwick and Lommel in their respective papers and follow-ups you'll find them talking not only about flatlined EEG but, crucially, the absence of any brain-stem (pupil dilation, oculocephalic, corneal and gag) reflexes, which is indicative of clinical death.

In other words, the question of cortical activity is irrelevant if the brain-stem is also found to be unresponsive, since the brain-stem (lower brain) dies last once it is gone you can be quite certain the patient's cortex (upper brain) is totally and completely and undoubtedly offline and thus quite incapable of rendering coherent, well-structured and incredibly vivid hallucinations (and committing them to memory).

Yet veridical perception in clinically-dead patients, while rare, has been documented, and that's the crux of the matter: how is this possible?