174. Dr. Raymond Moody On Understanding Near-Death Experiences as Nonsense (Podcast)

[Scott]

Originally Posted by happyknownothing

The Buddha (like other mystics) managed to awaken to something that answered all his questions in life. He was not an inventor but instead a discoverer. When he became enlightened his initial reaction was to want to just keep his discoveries to himself. He realized that it would be impossible to describe what he had seen to other people. He later had a change of heart and deciding that his job wasn't to tell other people, but to show them how they could make the same discoveries themselves. He provided a process that has been successfully replicated by millions of people over the last 2,500 years. The story of the historical Buddha may be a myth, but it doesn't matter. These teachings have provided a path that can end human suffering, and that does matter.

The point the Buddha was making by saying that his followers should not mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon was that they should not treat his teachings as something sacred and unquestionable. In order words – they point at the truth and should not be taken as the truth. If people want to understand ultimate reality they need to go discover this for themselves. He warned people not to accept things on faith, dogma, or specious reasoning.

I don’t consider myself to be a Buddhist, but I have benefited greatly from the discoveries made by this mystic along with other mystics. They inspired me to go look for myself and they provided a framework for how to do it. The only element of faith that I’ve needed was in the beginning of the journey when I had to assume that it is possible for humans to discover satisfactory answers through inner contemplation. This has now been proven as fact to me many times so I no longer need faith for this. These teachers have benefited the world by inspiring people to go look and giving them a rough idea of where to look – it means that spiritual seekers can get to their destination faster.

The spiritual seeker does not need to put their faith in the thinking of anyone else. I don’t have to trust anyone else to do my experiments for me – I do them all myself. The most amazing thing about mysticisms is that people who had absolutely no contact with each other were able to make the exact same discoveries. Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Shamanistic, and Pagan mystics all describe a similar experience as the Buddha. The only difference is how these were reinterpreted to fit their religious traditions. The truth never changes but how we interpret it to fit in with our worldview does. This ability to discover the spiritual truth for ourselves is far superior to putting faith in scientists and their theories. The truth never changes but scientific truths are always changing so they cannot be the truth. The follower of scientism has to put their faith in the idea that the current crop of theories are near the truth – even though history has shown that every other generation of science worshipers were wrong about this.

So Buddha might be a myth - but his teachings ... The teachings of a possible mythological individual that were then created by some person or persons - Sounds a lot like other holey texts to me.

We should look within ourselves - self reflect, listen to our inner voice. Add treat others as you would wish to be treated - See no reason to need any mythological person or religion to give this kind of advice.

I will still put my confidence that Science is much more likely to answer questions and be closer to the truth than any ancient texts or beliefs. They might not be correct - though you can examine the development of the position. You can challenge the position. And the positions can be falsified and even changed.

[David Bailey]

Scott,

Go back 20 years or so, and I would agree with you totally. Since then, I have obviously grown older, so maybe you will say I deceive myself because I am 20 years closer to my end! However the fact is that I don't think materialists have a coherent story to offer.

Consciousness is a very tough nut to crack, and there is a philosophical puzzle at its core. Physical forces and equations explain physical changes, but it is damn hard to explain the final step which should explain how some physics explains a mental phenomenon. It is only the assumption that consciousness arises from pure physical interactions in the brain, that makes the whole zoo of psi phenomena seem so implausible.

Hard sceptics tend to exaggerate their case, and rely far too much on rhetoric. Take for example:

I find the lack of evidence that psi exists as reason to have no reason to think it exists.

I find when controlled for other 'mundane' explanations the effect goes away. The simple, straight forward examples are lacking.

You know as well as I do, that there are number of experimental psi phenomena that don't fit that description, but saying "the lack of evidence" sounds so much more definite and impersonal than, "I don't believe the experiments that show positive results".

NDE's are a stunning phenomenon, that has to cast doubt on physicalism.

Hence I am now fairly sure that physicalism will ultimately die the death - rather like behaviourism - and that there is something amazing still to discover once everyone stops ignoring the data!

David

[gabriel]

Further to my post above, the capitalised use of His/Holy/Name and Science/Truth/Fact is remarkable. There's definitely something psychological going on there.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Scott

I agree that Science works equally well, regardless of which world view is 'correct'.

Good, I'm pleased I've changed your mind.

Using a god explanation for anything is just, weak. We could substitute FSM or unicorns or any other non falsifiable claim and it would be just as valid.

We can say that about any metaphysical position. Using the notion of a mind-independent reality (i.e matter) is weak. We could substitute FSM or unicorns or any other non falsifiable claim and it would be just as valid.

Metaphysics is metaphysics is metaphysics, and it isn't science. We're implicitly compelled to hold some metaphysical view of reality whether we can ever discover whether it's true or not.

I love the thought and concept of the Matrix (one of my favorite movies, despite the flaw in using humans as an energy source for generations - better to just use what is fed to the humans).

Yes the first one, not the sequels though.

I don't see how you think the physical laws are the same though, it would have been a boring movie if they could do nothing in the matrix they could not do in real life.

This is kinda missing the point. I was trying to illustrate that science doesn't remotely imply the world is wholly material!

The ancient Greeks deserve some awe for their achievements. I don't agree that the common thought was their achievements would never be matched. And I don't see religion offering anything that would have thought away from your claim though. And I think it is kind of silly to suggest that religious thinking moved to a more mechanistic philosophy (granted I am thinking naturalistic and materialistic sense here - it might a difference of what the terms are meaning that makes the difference).

I'm only going (obviously) from what I've read. But what I've read sounds very plausible to me.

As for Berkeley - Starting with the idea that no material things exist makes for a cool premise of a story. I could start with the idea that we are in the matrix. Or that a god created everything 30 seconds ago and it all just was made to look like it had a longer past. It does not really matter how well the story is developed - I don't see how either fit reality. All can be really cool thought experiments. The question to answer is do either allow any 'real' experiments to be done to validate the idea. If not all they do is stay cool stories and thought experiments. I admit that I did just a superficial look at Berkeley, maybe there is more there.

The Berkeley metaphysic is an explanation for reality. It has its strengths and weaknesses. But materialism has a fatal flaw -- namely the existence of consciousness.

[happyknownothing]

Originally Posted by Scott

So Buddha might be a myth - but his teachings ... The teachings of a possible mythological individual that were then created by some person or persons - Sounds a lot like other holey texts to me.

We should look within ourselves - self reflect, listen to our inner voice. Add treat others as you would wish to be treated - See no reason to need any mythological person or religion to give this kind of advice.

I will still put my confidence that Science is much more likely to answer questions and be closer to the truth than any ancient texts or beliefs. They might not be correct - though you can examine the development of the position. You can challenge the position. And the positions can be falsified and even changed.

Scott, the only value the mystic teachings have is their ability to get us going on the path. The Buddha developed a process that works - it does exactly what it says on the tin. The mystics have provided maps of the territory, but unless we actually visit the territory a map is not going to be much good to us. Once we get our bearings in this new territory we can throw the map away because it has served its purpose. It is just a raft that got us from A to B - that is all.

If you want to put your faith in science that is up to you - I don't believe that this makes you stupid or any less valuable as a human. The same goes for people who want to put their faith in religion. Both of these groups have far more in common than you might like to admit. Just don’t expect me to take your attempts to belittle the spiritual seeker seriously. It takes real courage to face our demons and win the fruits of the spiritual path. It is not easy but the potential rewards are beyond our wildest dreams.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Arouet keeps bringing up the point that Persinger doesn't address the "is PK real" issue in the paper he co-authored on my case. The reason is that it becomes kind of a moot point after a while. There is no convincing the skeptics. No amount of data will do that. So why not try to understand the phenomenon and leave the skeptics stuck where they are by themselves. There is no point in everyone staying behind with them.

I only bring that up when that paper is mentioned as evidence for PK. Whatever Persinger's personal thoughts on the matter, he specifically avoids making any conclusions about PK in that paper. Neither does the paper seek to understand the phenomenon (at least not that I could tell). The paper doesn't seem to focus on that issue at all. It's not really, from what I can tell, a parapsychology paper at all.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

It considers the brain correlates to anomalous events (the wheel moving). In that sense it is a parapsychology paper. I was told from the start that Bill Roll intended to have my case published in a mainstream journal rather than a parapsychological one. That required writing in it in a way suitable for the journal Neurocase, which would be different than if it were submitted to SSE or the Journal of Parapsychology.

But he doesn't consider it from a parapsychological perspective. I agree that he could have gone that route, but he didn't.

From one perspective (Persinger, Saroka, Koren,
& St-Pierre, 2010) there is no requirement to verify
or argue the merits of the veridicality of the phenomena,
even the movement of the pin wheel which
was seen by members of our group.

At best it is tangentially - teasingly so - parapsychological.

[Arouet]

Sure. Like I said - the paper could have taken a parapsychological slant - but it didn't. That's not a pro or con - it just means that this paper shouldn't be used as evidence of PK.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

I'm not sure what you consider a "parapsychological slant". The brain correlates of anomalous experiences are well within the scope of parapsychological literature. If you read journals like SSE, you'll see a wide range of approaches to parapsychology.

I simply mean that it doesn't approach your wheel spinning from a perspective of whether you are using PK or not. It's not a paper about PK. It raises the issue, but then specifically declines to evaluate it from that perspective. Nothing wrong with that - as you say, that wasn't the primary focus.

I agree that it raises interesting questions for a parapsychological paper and paves the way for more research (or perhaps they'll write a separate paper using the same data that deals specifically with the parapsychological aspects). But the way I read it, the focus is on the neuroscience and treatment options.

[Hjortron]

*Phew*

I recently listened through the last 10 or so episodes, I had a bit of catching up to do

Anyway, I echo the sentiments of a few others in this thread who argue that Moody is a bit confused and/or confusing to listen to. It is my opinion that a good thinker will express his thoughts clearly so that they will be easy to understand for everyone. Moody, at best, seem to be an impulsive day dreamer gone professional, who can neither stick to one issue at a time, nor articulate clearly what he wants to communicate. His contribution to the field with Life After Life and Glimpses of Eternity cannot be understated, but beyond that I agree with paqart that he's not someone I enjoy reading or listening to.

Originally Posted by happyknownothing

I'm sorry Anonymous, but I'm not so enthusiastic about modern progress. It is like the materialists literally want us to exchange our souls for a few gadgets. I'm not trying to glorify poverty, but there are plenty of people who function happily without the toys of materialism.

I agree entirely. Anyone else ever seen the semi-starving children on the streets of the big cities in India? They are among the happiest people in the world.

It is nice in a way to have material comfort (and I would know, living in Sweden with every luxury taken care of), but true happiness comes from within irregardless of actual circumstance.

I think it was Scott you were arguing with who made the point that it's not nice if your children are dying, etc. But I disagree. Only when you have this attachment to things is this a concern to you. A truly spiritual person will not judge experiences, but love them and let them happen as they come. The most enlightened of us will cry of joy when they're starving or being tortured, for the mere joy of being loving despite hardships. I'm serious.