NDE Aware Study Published!!!

Well the long awaited study done by Dr. Sam Parnia and his colleagues has finally been published. Skeptics are already over all of course. One of the skeptic websites, neurologica blog, runned by Dr. Steven Novella claims that no evidence for an afterlife was found in the study. He is wrong as one case of a man was verified by using a physical marker (audio stimuli, he was able to hear the beeps, the beeping machine made three beeps in three minute intervals. This patient's near death experience happened exactly when the patient was unconsciousness, with no brain activity and no heart beat. This case shows clearly that near death experiences are not hallucinations. Most of the patients were interviewed more than once.


The study concludes numerous points:


• The themes relating to the experience of death appear far broader than what has been understood so far, or what has been described as so called near-death experiences.

• In some cases of cardiac arrest, memories of visual awareness compatible with so called out-of-body experiences may correspond with actual events.

• A higher proportion of people may have vivid death experiences, but do not recall them due to the effects of brain injury or sedative drugs on memory circuits.

• Widely used yet scientifically imprecise terms such as near-death and out-of-body experiences may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.

• The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.


You can find the full details of the study in the journal of resuscitation

http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext

Superpoints is back

I just recently join Superpoints it helps you get points by simply clicking the superlucky button daily up to 25 times. It's an awesome site where you can also do free offers, watch videos as well for superpoints in exchange for awesome rewards such as amazon gift cards.

You can sign up here:

https://www.superpoints.com/join/uKw7uPFtmP9qzmm4Tad1ovRKGno

Quantum Mechanics shown in Photosynthesis as well as ORCH theory is gaining a lot of ground

For those materialists who claim that quantum mechanics only operates at the micro level and not the macro level are clearly dead wrong. As has been shown just recently for example quantum mechanics shows efficiency of photosynthesis. This is a published study in Nature Communications.


http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html

There is more also recently Stuart Hameroff's and Roger Penrose theory of ORCH theory has been gaining a lot of ground lately.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html

Here is a brief summary of the research link copied above.

"A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions".


Also, there is an interview with both scientist's discovering how thrilled they are that quantum vibrations have been found in the microtubules inside the brain. It is awesome that this theory is gaining support.

Recent finding appears to deliver powerful evidence that mind is probably produced by the brain?

There is a recent finding that has been published that appears to suggest that mind is produced by the brain. I will link to the article at the bottle of this post. However, I think there is another explanation that is just as credible than assuming that the brain has a on and off switch for consciousness. That is that when you stimulate the brain and in this case it was the claustrum, that the brain blocks out consciousness, memories until the blocker's electrical stimuli is turned off then consciousness returns. In this view the on and off switch is just a metaphor. This finding then appears to be consistent with the view that the brain is a blocker/reducing value/receiver/filter of consciousness rather than the producer of consciousness.

Read more here:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/elusive-on-off-switch-found-for-human-consciousness-140707.htm

User named Midnightrunner silly argument

He says this "If I get a video camera and place it in a room and turn it on and lock the door, then come back the next day there will be footage on the tape of the room yet no human observer was present. You seem to be saying that nothing exists outside of subjective experience (consciousness). So how do you explain this? It’s clear that an objective material world exists outside of consciousness. The videotape experiment easily demonstrates this".

A clear refutation is found here as I quote from physicist Andre Linde

"A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead".

A full rebuttal to the Mrs. Piper criticisms

The first part will be from me the second part all credit goes to user named Ben Steigmann. First the argument that muscle reading can explain Mrs. Piper's readings and thought transference.

I don’t think telepathy had nothing to do with it. This link I will have down before clearly points out that muscle reading has been shown to be inadequate to explain Piper’s readings. Here is a small sample of what Ben Steigmann had to say:

The following shows intellectual dishonesty on the part of McCabe and Rational Wiki (and also the wikipedia article on Myers, which was obviously edited by the same person who put in the info on Rational Wiki):
Part of the Rational Wiki article on Frederic Myers is an attempt to attack him on his sexual activities, including vague allegations of sexual relations with mediums biasing his arguments. Then we come upon this misrepresentative assault (this version is from the Rational Wiki article on Myers as of November 14, 2013, 1:03 PST):
"The skeptic Joseph McCabe discovered false information in Myers book Phantasms of the Living (1886) a book which documented anecdotal experiences of apparitions and phantasms. Myers included an alleged "personal experience" by a retired Judge Edmund Hornby involving a visitation from a spirit, however the whole thing was a hoax and Hornby admitted there was no truth in it. Myers did not do proper research on the subject."
The reality is quite different, and when we conduct a full investigation into this, we gain extreme doubt that the RW coverage of spiritualism or any other subject they don't like is in any way reliable or, in the cases where they may accurately cite sources, if it is in any way objective. As follows:
First, McCabe did repeat such insinuations, but not in the manner alleging that Myers made things up, as RW editors defamatorily insinuate. He states of Edmund Hornby that he "could only mutter that he did not understand his own mistake": https://archive.org/stream/isspiritualismba00mccarich#page/98/mode/2up
Doing relevant primary source research we find, when we come upon commentary concerning this and the argument of Balfour that McCabe cites against this anecdote (The Nineteenth Century, Volume 16, p. 851: http://books.google.com/books?id=K9YaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA75&dq=Visible+apparitions.+Nineteenth+century+1884&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6huFUpefBOOrjAL4g4GIBw&sqi=2&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=courtesy%20in%20sending%20me%20Mr.%20Balfour%27s%20letter&f=false) - you may have to scroll down to the correct page, that Hornby's defense against the assertions of Balfour, showing that even if the story can be disputed, Myers did not fabricate information - and also that McCabe gave a MARKEDLY BIASED presentation that did not represent the substance of the argument - Hornby did not state "that he did not understand his own mistake", but instead, Hornby directly challenges Balfour. He may be wrong, but the fact is that tone of the RW towards Myers on this is over the top (allegations of false information - implying he fabricated it, rather than contentious information - the assertion is that Hornby stated that there was no truth in it, such an assertion ignores his statement "If I had not believed, as I still believe, that every word of it [the story] was accurate, and that my memory was to be relied on, I should not have ever told it as a personal experience.")
Regarding Myers and his sexual activities - possibly he did have an affair with Freer. Possibly he didn't. In McLuhan's mental mediums document he provides the following citation regarding other allegations r.e. Myers: Gauld, Alan & Salter, W.H. FREDERIC MYERS AND ‘PHYLLIS’, Journal 42, 1963-64, pp. 316-24. Defences of Myers against an attack on his integrity regarding his relationship with Annie Marshall.
See also Journal 43, pp. 277-81. CC/MM/s-test
The point is that no proof is given that he faked evidence. What has just been proven is that debunkers faked evidence against him.



All credit to Ben Steigmann in his excellent rebuttals on skeptic arguments against mediums. You can read all the other comments in made here at the link below. Midnightrunner a user on the Neurologica blog mentioned that, Ben is into conspiracy theories. Well I ain't into conspiracy theories at all but, Midnightrunner is using that as a way to counter all the arguments he made refuting skeptical arguments against medium Leonora Piper.

The source of the comments can be found here. http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2013/12/there-probably-is-an-afterlife.html.

Chatabout is the next big thing!!!

I have come across this wonderful site called Chatabout it offers it members points for simply posting messages on your most favorite topics. You get 1 point for every 20 word plus comment you make. It also has radioloyalty on it where you can earn 2 points every 10 minutes all you have to do is enter in the captcha. They also have a bonus area where there is offer walls such as peanut labs and supersonic ads. Also, on top of that you get 5 points every day just by doing the daily poll. There is a huge variety of gift cards on there ranging from amazon gift cards to paypal. Amazon is only 500 points for a 5 dollar card the same with paypal. I have earned 45 dollars so far using there site. You can do did it also.

If you are interested sign up here

http://chatabout.com/referral/u/58402

I am sure you will enjoy the site as much as I am.

The Afterlife debate: Is Death is Final?

Recently there was a debate about if death is the end of existence or a continuation into life after bodily death. Well on the pro side you had Dr. Raymond Moody a near death experience researcher as well as Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander who had a near death experience. On the con side you had Neurologist at Yale University Dr. Steven Novella and physicist Sean Carroll. At the beginning Sean Carroll mentioned why he thinks physics shows that its very unlikely that there can be any sort of an afterlife. Dr. Raymond Moody when on a spree about philosophy and Dr. Eben Alexander went on about his near death experiences also mentioning Dr. Carl Sagan. Before I even watched it which was hard to watch to put it mildly I already knew who was going to win. Because the pro side instead of mentioning the overwhelming evidence for survival instead just went on about his near death experience and didn't present himself well the same with Raymond Moody.


Dr. Steven Novella mentions that Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation can probably be explain by contamination, where does he get the source of information that contamination was probably a factor well from skeptic dictionary. Obviously Steven has actually done any real research on Ian Stevenson's work if he did he would have known that Ian Stevenson went out of his way to do everything possible to make sure contamination wasn't a factor. He mentions another source that being the late Barry Beyerstein conjecture that the cases that Ian Stevenson brings out show internal inconsistencies. Then, says "Along the way, we are treated to some hilarious examples of gullibility among those seized by the will to believe". My response to that is true sometimes people can show gullibility but does it apply here? I don't think it does. Steven, also said that its a scientific fact that the mind is produced by the brain. Of course, ignoring the fact that other scientists that are naturalist's like him such as John Searle mentions its a preassumption that the mind is produced by the brain but if you accept that then you can at least make some headway. We know how that progress is going and its not so good.


The failure of behaviorism for example assumed that mind can be explained by the behavior of the brain. Then, besides the overwhelming evidence for psi and survival. We have cases such as terminal lucidity where patients with advanced dementia are able to get their memories back shortly before their deaths. Sean Carroll as intelligent as he is seems to be aware of parallel universes but obviously doesn't bring it up when he is trying to argue against an afterlife. Because, he knows that if their is parallel universes and there is a lot of mounting evidence supporting it now. That, it would weaken his case strongly because it also entails quantum immortality that our consciousness continues on after death and cannot be extinguish by death.


Dr. Steven Novella also mentions that the evidence for mind is produced by the brain is mounting more and more everyday. That couldn't be further from the truth the nature of causation is not known. Sure scientists can make assumptions by assuming that the causation runs from mind to brain as Dr. Steven Novella clearly does but assuming so doesn't make it so

A little update on this post I was recently discussing how the mind is probably not produced by the brain on Steven Novella's blog called Neurologica. The whole thing was a waste of time I knew it would it be but I though maybe just maybe one of the skeptics on there was open minded to at least admit that there is strong evidence for an afterlife and psi phenomena and say I don't know if there is or isn't an afterlife.