Physician Turned Podcaster Skeptical of NDE (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Dr. Ginger Campbell, host of The Brain Science Podcast, explores why a lack of science education hinders researchers from exploring the limits of consciousness research: ?Before we?re going to make progress on some of these more

Click here to read more ...

[ktb973]

This is another podcast that just leaves me confused. I just can't figure out what you actually do believe. Is it that we really don't know anything? I just don't understand what your proof is of your claims. Also, I just don't hear the things that you say the the skeptics are saying. You say that they just dismiss things out of hand, but while that may be true of some, I certainly don't hear that kind of things from the last podcast, the skeptics guide or skepticality. I just have a hard time figuring out where you are coming from. One more thing. The episode that you was titled no evidence of life after death was hard to listen to. Why did you feel compelled to break in and voice over the parts you didn't agree with? That episode seemed a little disingenuous and slimy. In closing, I will say that you do well in letting your guests state their point of view for the most part but I think that you come off a little dishonest about your intentions. I will keep listening though. I do find it fascinating in a weird sort of way.

[alextsakiris]

What I believe… I believe there is sufficient empirical evidence to overthrow the commonly held belief that our conscious experience is only the result of the physical processes of our brain.

What do you believe?

[ktb973]

Thank you for answering my message Alex. You want to know what I believe? Not much of anything. I do trust certain data when it can be uniformly and transparently verified. But I'm also willing to throw out all of that when it can be uniformly and transparently proven false. You talk of this sufficient empirical evidence to overthrow the commonly held belief that our conscious experience is only the result of the physical processes of our brain. I just find so many things wrong with that statement. First of all, you never really outline the empirical evidence that is out there. You just kind of make that statement and move on. No references, links, anything. Second, your use of the word overthrow. I don't think that science really works that way. Now if you said "add to" or even "rethink", then I might not pick on you about this tiny detail. When you say overthrow, it seems to say that all of the data that we have to this point is invalid. It also seems to say that one swift shift in the data is going to completely change the way that we think about the world. There is nothing wrong with changing a paradigm. I'm all for it. But to use the word overthrow, seems to indicate that science can be changed overnight. That can't, and shouldn't happen. All data up to this point should never be thrown out because of a single confirmed study. Science takes time. And the good science, just like the cream and everything else, will always rise to the top.

I still must say, I do enjoy the show. I think that you have alot of guts bringing the people that you do on the show. It is definitely a lesson in good and bad arguing. And yes, sometimes you come out looking better than the other guy.

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

What I believe… I believe there is sufficient empirical evidence to overthrow the commonly held belief that our conscious experience is only the result of the physical processes of our brain.

What do you believe?

It's not a "commonly-held belief". It's a scientific consensus based on the ideas that, first, there's no evidence for consciousness external to the physical brain (yes, I know you say there's evidence; so where is it?) and second, that there's no physical mechanism in any case - one suggestion is that the brain is a "receiver", but if that's the case where are the signals that it receives? If the brain is receiving, then the signals must be able to interact with physical matter; we know of three forces that interact with matter (electroweak, gravity, strong nuclear) and none of these would fit the bill (we know all about the electromagnetic spectrum, the strong and weak forces only operate at atomic or subatomic distances, signaling using gravity would require moving large masses around). So are you suggesting another force? One that can interact with brain tissue, and yet has never been detected?

Let's say that some real, solid evidence that anyone can see, actually showed up. Would it "overthrow" anything? Don't be daft, of course it wouldn't. It'd be like 1905 when Einstein "overthrew" Newtonian physics, or when Hubble discovered the expansion of the Universe, or just about ANY major scientific discovery. If it proved to be true, it would become part of our understanding, new science, new truth.

You talk about "overthrowing" science like it's a despotic government. It shows that you have no clue what science really is, or what skepticism really is.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Originally Posted by Yafi

It's not a "commonly-held belief". It's a scientific consensus based on the ideas that, first, there's no evidence for consciousness external to the physical brain (yes, I know you say there's evidence; so where is it?) and second, that there's no physical mechanism in any case - one suggestion is that the brain is a "receiver", but if that's the case where are the signals that it receives? If the brain is receiving, then the signals must be able to interact with physical matter; we know of three forces that interact with matter (electroweak, gravity, strong nuclear) and none of these would fit the bill (we know all about the electromagnetic spectrum, the strong and weak forces only operate at atomic or subatomic distances, signaling using gravity would require moving large masses around). So are you suggesting another force? One that can interact with brain tissue, and yet has never been detected?

Let's say that some real, solid evidence that anyone can see, actually showed up. Would it "overthrow" anything? Don't be daft, of course it wouldn't. It'd be like 1905 when Einstein "overthrew" Newtonian physics, or when Hubble discovered the expansion of the Universe, or just about ANY major scientific discovery. If it proved to be true, it would become part of our understanding, new science, new truth.

You talk about "overthrowing" science like it's a despotic government. It shows that you have no clue what science really is, or what skepticism really is.

Maybe there is evidence for consciousness being more then physical mechanism's in the brain, if you actually listened to the show. Notice how alex said <i believe>, in which he was suggesting this different view of consciousness is a completely valid one which needs to be thoroughly investigated without jumping to conclusions based on illusions or ignorance. The rationale behind this is we obviously have no idea how consciousness works, and further investigating this phenomena we can further comprehend the nature of our consciousness, which is one the most important subjects to be studied in science.

[Troy]

Originally Posted by Yafi

It's not a "commonly-held belief". It's a scientific consensus based on the ideas that, first, there's no evidence for consciousness external to the physical brain (yes, I know you say there's evidence; so where is it?).

In the book Irreducible Mind for one. Why don't you check it out...
http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/Reviews.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0742547922

[GaSS PaNiCC]

^^^^^^^agreed , or even just the podcast. They demonstrate a thorough understanding of the problems in psychology, and a possible alternative view of consciousness based on the empirical evidence gathered by numerous scientists over the years.

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by Troy

In the book Irreducible Mind for one. Why don't you check it out...
http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/Reviews.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0742547922

No, I mean the *real* evidence - the controlled studies, the replicable experiments, the articles in Nature, BMJ, Scientific American, New Scientist, etc. Anyone can say anything they like in a book or a podcast; that doesn't make it true.

As for "alternative view" being valid just because Alex said so - what a crock! The validity of a claim is determined by experiment and observation, not guesswork and wishful thinking.

I'd love to know that Psi is real - but I can't do anything like that and I've never seen anyone else do that kind of thing either. I'm not going to instantly believe in it just because someone wrote in a book that they saw it happen. *I* want to see it happen, I want to be able to do these things. Show me proof, *real* proof that it's real.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Why is this not real evidence? Please read the literature before making such absurd accusations. This book clearly demonstrates empirically and scientifically the problems with mainstream materialistic consciousness. Or better yet, just listen to the podcast presented on skeptiko. It is possibly one the best episodes of the show in which these scientists present their viewpoint in a comprehensive and respectable fashion.