Buddhist Scholar and Meditation Researcher Says Skeptics Misinformed (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Dr. B. Alan Wallace, Tibetan Buddhism scholar, explores his research into human consciousness, and how some skeptical critics are mistaken about Buddhism and its implications for understanding how our brain works: "?this is what bothers

Click here to read more ...

[Opcnup]

Its too bad that Skeptics do not defend the status quo in areas like politics, or new scientific discoveries, or make money and get fame for what they do like Billy Graham, life is simply more fun when the facts line up with your assaults.

[Yafi]

What this guy is saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He seems to be inferring that because we don't know what consciousness is, what conditions are necessary for it, when it starts, when it ends, etc., that it's reasonable to think that it may go on after death.

But wait a moment... I think it's fair to assume that there's *something* in the brain that gives rise to consciousness. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that when the brain stops functioning, there's nothing to support consciousness. To suggest otherwise is to posit a supernatural origin for consciousness - a suggestion that has zero evidence in its favor and, further, requires no explanation (there's no point trying to explain a phenomenon that has never been observed, in this case the survival of consciousness past death).

There seems to be the assumption that consciousness is a "thing", that has an independent existence; where does that idea come from? It's like saying that the magnetic field around a wire is still somehow "there" after the current is switched off.

I have to say that asking the opinions of a Buddhist scholar about the workings of the brain and mind, is about as sensible and meaningful as asking the Archbishop of Canterbury his professional opinion of how a computer works.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Or since we do not know how the brain produces consciousness (if it does),it might be safe to consider how it possibly interacts with it. Then we can draw inquiries and ideas of the nature of consciousness based on ALL evidence presented and interpreted. This includes the study of PSI, reincarnation, NDE's and all other phenomena which cannot find a definition in the classical materialistic view of consciousness.

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by GaSS PaNiCC

Or since we do not know how the brain produces consciousness (if it does),it might be safe to consider how it possibly interacts with it. Then we can draw inquiries and ideas of the nature of consciousness based on ALL evidence presented and interpreted. This includes the study of PSI, reincarnation, NDE's and all other phenomena which cannot find a definition in the classical materialistic view of consciousness.

PSI - Zero hard evidence for its existence.
Reincarnation - Zero hard evidence for its existence.
NDEs - Zero hard evidence for these experiences being produced outside the brain; known mechanisms exist to explain them throughly.

So what are you talking about? Psi/reincarnation don't have a "definition" (if that's the right word) in science because there's nothing to explain, and NDEs and similar phenomena can be explained without recourse to phantoms.

[mcromer]

Yafi,

Since you know there is no hard evidence for any of these phenomena through your extensive and thorough investigation such as reading books like Irreducible Mind, the Afterlife Experiments, Is There an Afterlife, etc., why are you even here?

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by mcromer

Yafi,

Since you know there is no hard evidence for any of these phenomena through your extensive and thorough investigation such as reading books like Irreducible Mind, the Afterlife Experiments, Is There an Afterlife, etc., why are you even here?

No, I don't know for certain that there's no hard evidence - my research involves reading scientific papers written by real scientists performing well-designed experiments, and so far the solid evidence for Psi claims is Zero. If you want to accept every half-baked claim written in a book by someone with an agenda, knock yourself out.

As for why I'm here, it's to discuss what's being said on the Skepiko podcast. Since you've already set your mind that you believe without requiring any evidence and ignoring counter-evidence and alternative, more plausible explanations, well then... why are *you* here?

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Originally Posted by Yafi

No, I don't know for certain that there's no hard evidence - my research involves reading scientific papers written by real scientists performing well-designed experiments, and so far the solid evidence for Psi claims is Zero. If you want to accept every half-baked claim written in a book by someone with an agenda, knock yourself out.

As for why I'm here, it's to discuss what's being said on the Skepiko podcast. Since you've already set your mind that you believe without requiring any evidence and ignoring counter-evidence and alternative, more plausible explanations, well then... why are *you* here?

Since you don't know for certain there's no hard evidence, then what is the problem in investigating these phenomena so we can deduce a conclusion which is scientific and not made on blind assumptions? If para psychologist's research had been completely dismissed then i can assure they would not be wasting their time with this area of science. By assuming their area of inquiry is not based on real science, i can assume your viewpoint is based on confident ignorance. I do admit it is a very controversial science but to conclude their evidence is completely faulty is absurd when you have not thoroughly investigated the facts. There have been experiments conducted in which the conclusion was highly in favor of the hypothesis, and if you are skeptical please by all means buy the book Entangled Minds.

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by GaSS PaNiCC

Since you don't know for certain there's no hard evidence, then what is the problem in investigating these phenomena so we can deduce a conclusion which is scientific and not made on blind assumptions? If para psychologist's research had been completely dismissed then i can assure they would not be wasting their time with this area of science. By assuming their area of inquiry is not based on real science, i can assume your viewpoint is based on confident ignorance. I do admit it is a very controversial science but to conclude their evidence is completely faulty is absurd when you have not thoroughly investigated the facts. There have been experiments conducted in which the conclusion was highly in favor of the hypothesis, and if you are skeptical please by all means buy the book Entangled Minds.

I don't have a problem with anyone investigating Psi. But it has to be done properly - controlled conditions, double blind tests, replication of results, expert review. That's what's lacking in these studies. Do it right and find positive results, and people will listen. So far whenever the tests have been done properly, the effects go away.

For the third time, Radin's book doesn't prove anything, so stop pushing me to read it - it ain't gonna happen. Radin performing proper experiments in a lab and coming up with good, solid results that can be replicated by independent workers - that's what I want to see.

Before you mention that Radin's work was duplicated by three other labs - yes, I know. I also know that Radin worked at all three of those labs (doesn't this raise *any* red flags?) - that's why I said 'independent'.

[mcromer]

Yafi,

There are other kinds of evidence than scientific studies.

For example, we know that Nazi Germany killed six million jews without conducting scientific studies.

You seem to want for psi phenomena to be easily reproducible by all researchers before you accept them, and if they cannot be, then there is "no evidence" for them.

That's a position that would rule out the majority of the disciplines of history, forensics, archeology, etc.