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.
Showing posts with label Life After Death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Life After Death. Show all posts
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
University Professor to study life after death
Well well A university professor John Martin Fischer wants to study life after death and get scientists involved in it with a 5 million dollar fund. The problem is there is already an vastly abundant amount of scientific evidence for life after death. Why reinvent the wheel?. Is mainstream science going to be open minded about this research like that were before?. Which history clearly shows they weren't they shoved it off as pure nonsense. Sure adding more evidence to an mountain of evidence doesn't hurt however giving the impression that no hardcore research has been done on this topic is laughable.
Also, knowing this philosopher is a christian don't mean he's closed minded no. It means though we very well could skew the data to fit his christian worldview. He can ignore the overwhelming evidence for the existence of an afterlife that doesn't fit into a christian worldview all he wants but it comes with a price. A price in the truth.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Rebuttal to Life After Death: Examining the Evidence
There's a blog post out there where the blogger says that the evidence for an afterlife probably doesn't exist based on what the scientific evidence has shown. He couldn't be any more wrong.
He says
We can think of a simple test setup. Place a target, such as a card with a secret message, on a high shelf in the operating room, facing the ceiling so that it is unreadable not only by the patient on the table but by the hospital staff in the room. Then if a patient has a near-death experience that involves the commonly reported sensation of moving outside her body and floating above the operating table, she should be able to read that message.
Yes, but there is one big factor that would play a major role here that is not being accounted for and that is if you were outside your own body would your attention be on seeing a sign. Your main attention would be on seeing our own body laying there on the operating table. That doesn't mean controlled experiments can't be done. They can but they need to rule out this factor.
Then says
Furthermore, none of these people returned from the dead. A flat EEG us not brain death because it only measures activity on the surface of the brain. And there is no way of determining that the experience actually happened during a flat EEG. Most likely the experience happened before or after, when the brain was highly active
I guess this guy never heard what an EEG expert has to say on this skeptic argument.
Then he says that no replicable scientific evidence has ever been found for an immaterial mind. Which is wrong and I have mentioned many of the evidence's that supports the view that consciousness probably does survive the death of the brain.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Rebuttal to physicist Sean Carroll article "We don't have immortal souls"
I like to rebut the most important points in the article. Here is the link to the article http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/#more-6819
He mentions Sean- "Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter"?
Leo- The laws of physics don't cover the whole of reality. Consciousness has an objective and subjective nature too it I think so its made of a different type of matter that is dual with the ordinary matter we have.
Sean- "Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese.
Leo- QFT opens the door that there can be souls.
Sean- Even if you don’t believe that human beings are “simply” collections of atoms evolving and interacting according to rules laid down in the Standard Model of particle physics, most people would grudgingly admit that atoms are part of who we are. If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model. Most importantly, we need some way for that “new physics” to interact with the atoms that we do have.
Leo- The standard model of physics is known to be wrong. This is why physicists are looking for a unified theory of physics. Atoms (matter) are dual with the soul. No one who thinks a soul maybe true says that the soul is nothing but atoms and the known forces.
Sean- How is the spirit energy supposed to interact with us? Here is the equation that tells us how electrons behave in the everyday world:
[it's the Dirac equation.] . . . As far as every experiment ever done is concerned, this equation is the correct description of how electrons behave at everyday energies. It’s not a complete description; we haven’t included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. But that’s okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain. If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. . .
Leo- This is assuming that because we cannot find a soul in a laboratory that it must mean it doesn't exist.
Sean- . . Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It’s not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes.
Indeed! Those who specify the existence of souls and afterlives in this scientific era must do more than issue fuzzy-minded gobbledygook. They must specify more precisely what they’re talking about, and how it’s supposed to work. If we’re supposed to survive after death, what part of us survives, and how? And what is this soul, exactly? We’re no longer in the Middle Ages, so theologians who make empirical claims must be empirically specific. There are biological questions as well. The first ones that occurs to me are these: where, exactly, in the human lineage did the soul emerge? (Or do other species have souls?) Was it put into that lineage by God, or did it evolve? If instilled by God, when? And where in our body does it reside? If we retain our memories and personalities in the afterlife, how do they exist without neurons?
Leo- Nowhere does he mention parallel universes and how they can shed some lights on these questions, nor does he mention how the observer our consciousness seems to be able to collapse the wave function in quantum mechanics. Neither does he mention the fact that atoms are made of mostly empty space. Also neither does he mention that particle appear to be in supposition two places at once. Also that particles can be entangled at large distances across space (Quantum Entanglement). If he did mention these his argument would be far more weaker. The soul is a duplicate of the physical body it vibrates that a higher frequency at death. The soul uses ESP and Telepathy as some of its spiritual senses (opposite of the physical senses).
Sean- Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of “spirit particles” and “spirit forces” that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham’s razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.
- Yes and quantum physics strongly indicate a hidden reality that can have very different rules than the ones we know.
He mentions Sean- "Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter"?
Leo- The laws of physics don't cover the whole of reality. Consciousness has an objective and subjective nature too it I think so its made of a different type of matter that is dual with the ordinary matter we have.
Sean- "Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese.
Leo- QFT opens the door that there can be souls.
Sean- Even if you don’t believe that human beings are “simply” collections of atoms evolving and interacting according to rules laid down in the Standard Model of particle physics, most people would grudgingly admit that atoms are part of who we are. If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model. Most importantly, we need some way for that “new physics” to interact with the atoms that we do have.
Leo- The standard model of physics is known to be wrong. This is why physicists are looking for a unified theory of physics. Atoms (matter) are dual with the soul. No one who thinks a soul maybe true says that the soul is nothing but atoms and the known forces.
Sean- How is the spirit energy supposed to interact with us? Here is the equation that tells us how electrons behave in the everyday world:
[it's the Dirac equation.] . . . As far as every experiment ever done is concerned, this equation is the correct description of how electrons behave at everyday energies. It’s not a complete description; we haven’t included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. But that’s okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain. If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. . .
Leo- This is assuming that because we cannot find a soul in a laboratory that it must mean it doesn't exist.
Sean- . . Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It’s not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes.
Indeed! Those who specify the existence of souls and afterlives in this scientific era must do more than issue fuzzy-minded gobbledygook. They must specify more precisely what they’re talking about, and how it’s supposed to work. If we’re supposed to survive after death, what part of us survives, and how? And what is this soul, exactly? We’re no longer in the Middle Ages, so theologians who make empirical claims must be empirically specific. There are biological questions as well. The first ones that occurs to me are these: where, exactly, in the human lineage did the soul emerge? (Or do other species have souls?) Was it put into that lineage by God, or did it evolve? If instilled by God, when? And where in our body does it reside? If we retain our memories and personalities in the afterlife, how do they exist without neurons?
Leo- Nowhere does he mention parallel universes and how they can shed some lights on these questions, nor does he mention how the observer our consciousness seems to be able to collapse the wave function in quantum mechanics. Neither does he mention the fact that atoms are made of mostly empty space. Also neither does he mention that particle appear to be in supposition two places at once. Also that particles can be entangled at large distances across space (Quantum Entanglement). If he did mention these his argument would be far more weaker. The soul is a duplicate of the physical body it vibrates that a higher frequency at death. The soul uses ESP and Telepathy as some of its spiritual senses (opposite of the physical senses).
Sean- Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of “spirit particles” and “spirit forces” that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham’s razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.
- Yes and quantum physics strongly indicate a hidden reality that can have very different rules than the ones we know.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Big Three
The Big Three
1. Psi Phenomena
- Thousands of experiments with strong replications of weak positive psi effects.
2. Life after death
- Cross Correspondences
- Newspaper and book tests
- Accurate Verdical out of body accounts with strong corroboration
- Apparitions and crisis apparitions
etc..........
3. Cosmic Consciousness(GOD)
- Fine tuning evidence
-Order in the universe
After research into all three of these i have to say that all three are all very strongly likely to exist.
1. Psi Phenomena
- Thousands of experiments with strong replications of weak positive psi effects.
2. Life after death
- Cross Correspondences
- Newspaper and book tests
- Accurate Verdical out of body accounts with strong corroboration
- Apparitions and crisis apparitions
etc..........
3. Cosmic Consciousness(GOD)
- Fine tuning evidence
-Order in the universe
After research into all three of these i have to say that all three are all very strongly likely to exist.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Helene Reeder Memorial Fund for Research into Life after Death
I just like to pass this along about a research project that is underway.
Announcement for grant 2010
The Helene Reeder Fund is pleased to announce the availability of grants for small and medium sized scientific research projects concerning the issue of Life after Death.
Grants will be awarded in the range of EUR 500 – 5000 maximum. ( Max $6844.64 in canadian dollars}
The topic Research into Life after Death should constitute the main objective of the project.
Applications in English to be submitted by email to the HRF c/o edgar.muller@comhem.se should include:
- detailed description of the project, including the objectives of the project,
- methodology,
- cost budget,
- timetable,
- plans to publish the results in some scientific journals,
- CV of the applicant,
- how the applicant plans to report back to the HRF about progress and result,
- any other financing than from HRF.
Please note: Applications should be received not later than 30th of October 2010. It is the intention of the HRF to evaluate the applications and to make decision regarding the grants before the end of December. Applicants will be notified by email after the decision and the grants will be payable during December.
Note: I like to wish everyone a Happy Easter it will be a long weekend for me as I have Friday off as well as Easter Monday off.
Announcement for grant 2010
The Helene Reeder Fund is pleased to announce the availability of grants for small and medium sized scientific research projects concerning the issue of Life after Death.
Grants will be awarded in the range of EUR 500 – 5000 maximum. ( Max $6844.64 in canadian dollars}
The topic Research into Life after Death should constitute the main objective of the project.
Applications in English to be submitted by email to the HRF c/o edgar.muller@comhem.se should include:
- detailed description of the project, including the objectives of the project,
- methodology,
- cost budget,
- timetable,
- plans to publish the results in some scientific journals,
- CV of the applicant,
- how the applicant plans to report back to the HRF about progress and result,
- any other financing than from HRF.
Please note: Applications should be received not later than 30th of October 2010. It is the intention of the HRF to evaluate the applications and to make decision regarding the grants before the end of December. Applicants will be notified by email after the decision and the grants will be payable during December.
Note: I like to wish everyone a Happy Easter it will be a long weekend for me as I have Friday off as well as Easter Monday off.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Fear Of Death Is It Really Necessary?
Why are we humans so afraid of death?. There are numerous reasons why we are some of them that come to mind are:
1.] The fear of torture in hell
2.] Ceasing to be nothing after death
3.] Fear of leaving all living loved ones alone
4.] It being painful
Those seem to be the obvious ones, i for one no longer fear death as much as i used too. However i do still fear it to an extent based on the fact that nothing is certain. I for one am leading to two possible scenarios that seem more probable now then they did before. That is when i used to think death was the end of my consciousness. Those two scenarios are
1. Super ESP- an infinite amount of information in the universe that mediums just tap into and then becomes no evidence that mediums are communicating with souls from the otherside.
2. Some kind of an afterlife- This one seems more probable based on all of the available evidence we have. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of choice will you be someone who believes that death is the end of personality, memories etc?. Or someone who believes all of the evidence for life after death can be explained by a super ESP theory?. Last but not least believe that the evidence that is opposed to the current view of science point towards life after death. If we all knew for certain that their is an afterlife tommorrow i am sure it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Because people would want to commit suicide just to be with their loved ones on the otherside.
1.] The fear of torture in hell
2.] Ceasing to be nothing after death
3.] Fear of leaving all living loved ones alone
4.] It being painful
Those seem to be the obvious ones, i for one no longer fear death as much as i used too. However i do still fear it to an extent based on the fact that nothing is certain. I for one am leading to two possible scenarios that seem more probable now then they did before. That is when i used to think death was the end of my consciousness. Those two scenarios are
1. Super ESP- an infinite amount of information in the universe that mediums just tap into and then becomes no evidence that mediums are communicating with souls from the otherside.
2. Some kind of an afterlife- This one seems more probable based on all of the available evidence we have. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of choice will you be someone who believes that death is the end of personality, memories etc?. Or someone who believes all of the evidence for life after death can be explained by a super ESP theory?. Last but not least believe that the evidence that is opposed to the current view of science point towards life after death. If we all knew for certain that their is an afterlife tommorrow i am sure it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Because people would want to commit suicide just to be with their loved ones on the otherside.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Transition We Call Death
Their is an enormous wealth of evidence showing that we transition from death, our soul leaves our body. So it appears their is nothing to fear about death we will not it appears go into a state of oblivion for eternity. Of course psychical researchers could be wrong and that all of the evidence gathered from psychical research supporting survival could all be just self deception and fraud etc. But that appears to be unlikely but of course we can never ever completely rule out fraud and self deception and delusion. Even if super psi was real this would not imply that death is the end either this would show that information survives death and it gathered into some medium in space. Of course that wouldn't be personal survival but it would be survival nonetheless.
I quote from Raynor C. Johnson
"To sum up: we have enough trustworthy evidence to anticipate our survival of the change called death. If our conception of the Self as a hierarchy is true in broad outline - as I believe it is - we have enough to anticipate a great deal more. For myself, Birth and Death seem to be respectively the great Exile and the great Returning Home. I expect, when the immediate shock of change is over, to find myself with a body familiar to me (because it has always been a possession without my realising it), in a country from which come thronging back to me welcoming echoes of old familiarity. It will still be a world of Appearance; but since one veil at least will then have fallen from the face of Truth, I shall expect to find myself more responsive to her Eternal Beauty as I set out again - a pilgrim on the endless Way".
I agree 100 percent, this was his view back in 1953, now their is even more evidence that continues to accumulate more and more.
I quote from Raynor C. Johnson
"To sum up: we have enough trustworthy evidence to anticipate our survival of the change called death. If our conception of the Self as a hierarchy is true in broad outline - as I believe it is - we have enough to anticipate a great deal more. For myself, Birth and Death seem to be respectively the great Exile and the great Returning Home. I expect, when the immediate shock of change is over, to find myself with a body familiar to me (because it has always been a possession without my realising it), in a country from which come thronging back to me welcoming echoes of old familiarity. It will still be a world of Appearance; but since one veil at least will then have fallen from the face of Truth, I shall expect to find myself more responsive to her Eternal Beauty as I set out again - a pilgrim on the endless Way".
I agree 100 percent, this was his view back in 1953, now their is even more evidence that continues to accumulate more and more.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Why Being A Survivalist Doesn't Indicate That You Are A Substance Dualist
The reason why i say this is to make clear that you can be a neutral monist or a idealist and still believe in survival of bodily death. Their are more than just dualist models for survival. Some naturalists and materialists believe it's only dualist's that uphold survival after death. Which isn't true. For example Dr. Eric Weiss believes in neutral monism and has a model for survival after death. This follows from Whitehead's view of matter and mind which is a neutral monism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
Survival in a Multi-World Cosmology of Subtle Realms
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=19&pageid=148&pgtype=1
Other neutral monists who support the evidence for survival and have come up with models for survival after bodily death are
Psychologist William James
Dr. Ed Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
Survival in a Multi-World Cosmology of Subtle Realms
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=19&pageid=148&pgtype=1
Other neutral monists who support the evidence for survival and have come up with models for survival after bodily death are
Psychologist William James
Dr. Ed Kelly
Friday, May 29, 2009
Irrefutable Evidence For Life After Death
I have come across these youtube videos discussing some of the evidence for life after death.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Life Afterlife Videos On Youtube
Here is part 4 of the series of videos. Watch as the 5 test mediums perform brilliantly with a subject whom they cannot see and who only answers yes and no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVBIOXqsPmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVBIOXqsPmA
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Very Interesting Recent Skeptiko Podcast
It features an expert in near death experiences who is an neuropsychiatrist. It is an hour long and well worth listening too.
Dr. Peter Fenwick, neuropsychiatrist, world renown expert on end of life phenomena, including near-death experiences and deathbed visions. His most recent book is, The Art of Dying.
You can watch this excellent one hour interview here.
http://skeptiko.com/index.php?id=75
Dr. Peter Fenwick, neuropsychiatrist, world renown expert on end of life phenomena, including near-death experiences and deathbed visions. His most recent book is, The Art of Dying.
You can watch this excellent one hour interview here.
http://skeptiko.com/index.php?id=75
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Worst Argument I Have Ever Heard
This come from a materialist he says, their is no evidence for an afterlife. This is obviously false, unless you assume all the evidence is deception, fraud. This to me is false why? because if a materialist really researched the topic they would find a lot of evidence for an afterlife. I think psychical researchers were definitely on to something, a breakthrough that was ignored. That breakthrough is their is strong empirical evidence that supports the survival hypothesis. This evidence has been ignored by the scientific community.
I am not one for conspiracy theories which by the way i am not advocating. More than anything is the current paradigm mainstream science sees things. For example this paradigm is materialism with it's assumptions that reality is all physical.
I am not one for conspiracy theories which by the way i am not advocating. More than anything is the current paradigm mainstream science sees things. For example this paradigm is materialism with it's assumptions that reality is all physical.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Common Objections To The Survival Hypothesis
1. "Their is no such thing as life after death"
Reply: First, you have to demonstrate that their isn't. If you don't demonstrate that their isn't then it's your opinion".
2. " Life after death can't be tested scientifically"
This is not true, many psychical researchers have investigated cases that are supportive of the survival hypothesis. Also their has been experiments done to test the survival hypothesis. For example the cross corrspondences, the book tests, the newspaper tests, the proxy sittings, etc.]
3. "Mind is so dependent on the brain that mind cannot exist without the brain"
This is not true, it only seems true if you take the production theory that mind is produced by the brain. The alternative to that would be the transmission theory or filter theory. This view is compataible with psi phenomena and survival of consciousness after death.
4. " Psychics and mediums are out to make money of gullible people, they don't communicate with the dead, they are using cold reading, hot reading and warm reading".
True in many cases but not in all cases.
5. "Psi phenomena and life after death are the same thing"
This one is a common misconception among many materialists. Psi phenomena is about the retrival of information, telepathy for example is the view that you can read someone else's mind.
6. " Life after death is a religious idea"
Not true, their are many people who believe in the possibility of survival and they are not religious.
Reply: First, you have to demonstrate that their isn't. If you don't demonstrate that their isn't then it's your opinion".
2. " Life after death can't be tested scientifically"
This is not true, many psychical researchers have investigated cases that are supportive of the survival hypothesis. Also their has been experiments done to test the survival hypothesis. For example the cross corrspondences, the book tests, the newspaper tests, the proxy sittings, etc.]
3. "Mind is so dependent on the brain that mind cannot exist without the brain"
This is not true, it only seems true if you take the production theory that mind is produced by the brain. The alternative to that would be the transmission theory or filter theory. This view is compataible with psi phenomena and survival of consciousness after death.
4. " Psychics and mediums are out to make money of gullible people, they don't communicate with the dead, they are using cold reading, hot reading and warm reading".
True in many cases but not in all cases.
5. "Psi phenomena and life after death are the same thing"
This one is a common misconception among many materialists. Psi phenomena is about the retrival of information, telepathy for example is the view that you can read someone else's mind.
6. " Life after death is a religious idea"
Not true, their are many people who believe in the possibility of survival and they are not religious.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Keith Augustine's Response To Neil Grossman's Article In The Journal Of Near Death Studies
Here's some citations from Neil Grossman's article. Unforunately as Michael Prescott says his article is not online.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2008/11/four-errors.html
Let me go though some of Keith Augustine's responses in the comment section he made in Michael Prescott blog.
Keith Augustine says, "being unconvinced of the reality of the supernatural, paranormal, or survival doesn't make one a dogmatic, close-minded, or "hard-core" skeptic; it simply makes one a skeptic."
Really a lot of scientists were skeptical of survival, paranormal and the supernatural until they could no longer ignore the massive amounts of evidence. Also, Keith is trying to protect an outdated worldview. We know now that reality is much bigger than we ever imagined.
Keith calls people a pundit because they disagree with him. No one likes to be called names.
I have always considered that materialism could be true. Of course you can say I don't consider materialism which is downright false.
Also I think we know the evidence Keith, it was summarized in the article the case against immortality. Their is ways to falisfy the transmission theory one would be to demonstrate that the brain is a generator. Now you can say that has already happened. But what most of us argue is that the brain is a complex receiver of consciousness.For example some of the evidence Keith uses is from the brain split experiments and Wilder Penfield's experimental findings. Benjamin Libet's finding that brain activity precedes a conscious decision, which is routinely presented by sceptics, in their dull way, as 'another nail in the coffin for dualism' (Blackmore, Dying to Live, p. 237), and which of course is open to contrary interpretations, as Libet himself pointed out. Wilder Penfield's experimental findings on the neurological basis of memory is also used by sceptics in an anti-dualist sense which Penfield himself did not endorse.
“Edwards puts the last nail in the coffin for a version of astral body theories when he observes that:”
“If the astral body is an exact duplicate of the regular body it must die along with the regular body ... If the secular body died as the result of a brain tumor or as the result of being shot through the heart, the astral brain and astral heart must have been similarly injured (22).”
Wait a second, what dualist says the astral body is made of ordinary matter?. None that I know of. This is a straw man. I see the astral body as a different type of matter but isn't affected by death. But this different type of matter can mimic the physical body.
I found an interesting comment down in the footnotes that read: "[1] We have no more reason to believe that human consciousness continues to exist after death than we have to believe that water buffalo or other animals continue to have experiences after they have died."
Umm no reason to believe?. How about our inner life?, experiences, empirical evidence that support psi and survival after death. Now if that isn't reason to believe that what is?. Also, the multiverse theory doesn't fit well with materialism. I mean the mystics have been saying for a long long time now that their are other realities/universes/dimensions.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2008/11/four-errors.html
Let me go though some of Keith Augustine's responses in the comment section he made in Michael Prescott blog.
Keith Augustine says, "being unconvinced of the reality of the supernatural, paranormal, or survival doesn't make one a dogmatic, close-minded, or "hard-core" skeptic; it simply makes one a skeptic."
Really a lot of scientists were skeptical of survival, paranormal and the supernatural until they could no longer ignore the massive amounts of evidence. Also, Keith is trying to protect an outdated worldview. We know now that reality is much bigger than we ever imagined.
Keith calls people a pundit because they disagree with him. No one likes to be called names.
I have always considered that materialism could be true. Of course you can say I don't consider materialism which is downright false.
Also I think we know the evidence Keith, it was summarized in the article the case against immortality. Their is ways to falisfy the transmission theory one would be to demonstrate that the brain is a generator. Now you can say that has already happened. But what most of us argue is that the brain is a complex receiver of consciousness.For example some of the evidence Keith uses is from the brain split experiments and Wilder Penfield's experimental findings. Benjamin Libet's finding that brain activity precedes a conscious decision, which is routinely presented by sceptics, in their dull way, as 'another nail in the coffin for dualism' (Blackmore, Dying to Live, p. 237), and which of course is open to contrary interpretations, as Libet himself pointed out. Wilder Penfield's experimental findings on the neurological basis of memory is also used by sceptics in an anti-dualist sense which Penfield himself did not endorse.
“Edwards puts the last nail in the coffin for a version of astral body theories when he observes that:”
“If the astral body is an exact duplicate of the regular body it must die along with the regular body ... If the secular body died as the result of a brain tumor or as the result of being shot through the heart, the astral brain and astral heart must have been similarly injured (22).”
Wait a second, what dualist says the astral body is made of ordinary matter?. None that I know of. This is a straw man. I see the astral body as a different type of matter but isn't affected by death. But this different type of matter can mimic the physical body.
I found an interesting comment down in the footnotes that read: "[1] We have no more reason to believe that human consciousness continues to exist after death than we have to believe that water buffalo or other animals continue to have experiences after they have died."
Umm no reason to believe?. How about our inner life?, experiences, empirical evidence that support psi and survival after death. Now if that isn't reason to believe that what is?. Also, the multiverse theory doesn't fit well with materialism. I mean the mystics have been saying for a long long time now that their are other realities/universes/dimensions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)