More blows to the view that the Mind is what the Brain does!

One of those now is the fact that dreamless sleep does not makes consciousness disappear. "When it comes to dreamlessness, conventional wisdom states that consciousness disappears when we fall into a deep, dreamless sleep". But researchers have come up with a new way to define the different ways that we experience dreamlessness, and say there’s no evidence to suggest that our consciousness 'switches off' when we stop dreaming. In fact, they say the state of dreamlessness is way more complicated than we’d even imagined. Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-switch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists?fbclid=IwAR1KALtkggRqhuV_LN6-B17EWbfJPTFh7t95LDLYv48ThpWmdftL7gEy52w Another blow is now scientific evidence showing that the Claustrum (region in the brain) is not the seat of Consciousness. It is not the so called elusive on and off switch of Consciousness. "Two studies published earlier this year suggest that the claustrum’s moment has passed. A study on five epileptic patients at Stanford University demonstrated that zapping the claustrum on both sides of the brain had no effect on their subjective experience.4 Corroborating this, a study on mice from investigators at the University of Maryland showed that deactivating the claustrum resulted in no apparent loss of consciousness.5 Based on these data, it seems that the claustrum may be yet another red herring in the hunt for the seat of consciousness". Source: http://nautil.us/issue/79/catalysts/where-is-my-mind?fbclid=IwAR1KALtkggRqhuV_LN6-B17EWbfJPTFh7t95LDLYv48ThpWmdftL7gEy52w

Is the mind dependent on the brain?

Many Neuroscientists think so however many are also interested in proving their pet theories. We know this for example in the Phineas Gage case, the same that can probably be said about other cases as well such as "The man who mistook his wife for a hat". I don't doubt these cases have happened just the interpretation of such cases. You have to be very careful not to leap to conclusions. For example, these cases are seen as scientific evidence that the mind is somehow produced by the brain.

Materialist's attack the Scientific Evidence for Psi

Just recently I have come across several attacks from Materialist's on Psi. One such attack states that Quantum Field Theory shows that Psi Phenomenon doesn't exist because physicist's have discovered all particles and forces in nature. That isn't true, that is why we have the Large Hardon Collider as we are still discovering new particles and forces. For example this particle.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lhc-physicists-unveil-a-charming-new-particle/


The standard model is incomplete, that of course doesn't lend any credence for Psi Phenomenon, however, it does refute the claim made by Physicist Sean Carroll that physicist's understand all the particles and forces in nature. On top of that, it is said that psi phenomenon should be reproducible on demand. No it doesn't, meteorites are not reproducible but we know they exist, it just goes to show something can exist without it always being reproducible. Another attacks comes from Neurologist Steven Novella who says that a good scientist always is looking to show that their theory is wrong. True and it's not like Parapsychologist's were out to prove that Psi is real, instead they actually looked at the opposing explanations first but soon found out they couldn't explain the data that they were getting. Of course, skeptics are also very upset by the fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Science strongly endorses the Parapsychological Association. The Parapsychological Association has been affiliated with the AAAS since 1969.

A devastating rebuttal to Physicist Sean Carroll's claim that the physics of underlying the "world of everyday experience" is completely understood. This is from another materialist who respects him.


https://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/why-sean-carroll-is-wrong/




Recently, in the Skeptical Inquirer a magazine where numerous materialist scientists right their own opinion on numerous topics such as the paranormal, alternative medicine etc. Psychologist Stuart Vyse accuses Psychologist and Parapsychologist Daryl Bem of P-Hacking.


https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/p-hacker_confessions_daryl_bem_and_me


Here is the definition of what P-Hacking is from Wikipedia


Data dredging (also data fishing, data snooping, and p-hacking) is the use of data mining to uncover patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant, without first devising a specific hypothesis as to the underlying causality.


- I am not sure if Daryl Bem was P-hacking or not however to accuse him of doing so is taking it too far. Unless, Stuart actually has evidence to confirm this or Daryl Bem comes out and says so we would have to apparently believe Stuart's word on this. I don't think we have too. Is this the best the materialist's can do?. They obviously were not happy when Jessica Utts refuted the Wagermaker's who argued that psychologist's should replace their familiar “frequentist” statistical analyses of their data with Bayesian analyses.


http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21254-001


Psychologist Susan Blackmore had to get involved in this matter as well as she apart of the skeptic community too.

Here is an interesting piece on her where you can find here


http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-16035-001

Reasons why Materialist scientist's don't accept the evidence for Psi and the Afterlife

Here are some of the reasons I can think of

1. The assumption that the Universe is closed so Psi Phenomenon and the possibility of an afterlife are completely ruled out.
2. Because as children they found out that Santa Claus wasn't real that must mean that anything that seems to good to be true must be false even if the evidence is very good.
3. Guerilla Skepticism a group of people who's agenda is to try to overshadow evidence they don't agree with

Materialist's all wound up for sound

In a recent article posted by many multiple sources an experiment seems to show something that has been shown before however this time it looks like it's been proven. The materialist neurologist Steven Novella says that the general public shouldn't be hoodwinked into such views that reality doesn't exist if observers don't measure. Here is the article here. What this experiment shows is that ALL of living beings bring existence into being. If a person dies reality will still exist but if the whole of all living things were to be destroyed then reality would not exist not just in the micro level but also at the macro level too as quantum weirdness does scale up to the macro level of reality. This would not show materialism is false but it would show that the realist approach itself is in serious trouble. Paul Parnell a user on the blog is trying to help educate Dr. Steven Novella in the comment section about why observation is important in quantum mechanics. Of course, he says consciousness has nothing to do with observation. Others would disagree with that such as physicist Andrei Linde among others.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/measurement-rules-quantum-universe

Here is Dr. Steven Novella attack on the article because it goes against realism/materialism.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-quantum-weirdness/

Full rebuttal to post titled "Dead as a Doornail: Souls, Brains, and Survival"

I am doing to go through piece by piece of his post only what i think that is important to address. My responses will be below each statement. Here is the link that I took certain points from the post at.


http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/dead-as-doornail-souls-brains-and.html

He mentions first, "Decades of evidence from stroke victims, motorcycle accidents, car wrecks, construction site accidents, fMRI scans, PET scans, brain imaging, and other medical studies have given us a detailed picture of which portions of the brain are active in conjunction with specific cognitive abilities and mental states. What that research has shown is that minds depend upon brains. Damaging a part of the brain destroys a part of our thoughts, eliminates a cognitive ability, or alters some personal or emotional capacity. Restoring the electrical, chemical functions of the brain renews the mental function".


True mind is dependent upon the brain what the issue at stake isn't the tight correlation between mind and brain but if the function as William James stated before is permissive/transmissive or productive. Too to get to the truth of the matter we have to look at both sides of the evidence with an open mind and then decide which model fits better.

"While most of us would acknowledge some connection between mental function and the brain, we may have failed to see just how deep the connection runs. Even the most abstract mental faculties and the most specific features and contents of our private, mental states can be mapped directly onto brain functions".

And no substance dualism denies that their is a strong connection.

"In a remarkable study in 2005, neuroscientists reported the discovery of what they deemed the Halle Berry neuron. In order to isolate the location of the electrical chaos that induced their epilepsy, patients brains were implanted with electrodes. Then the patient was shown a variety of pictures while the activity of the neurons in the vicinity of the probes was recorded. In several instances, single neurons could be singled out whose activity spiked in response to specific images such as Halle Berry, Bill Clinton, or the Eiffel Tower. One neuron fired when the subject looked at a picture of Halle Berry in an evening gown, in a cat woman suit, as a cartoon, and even the words “Halle Berry,” suggesting that the neuron played an integral role in a large web of neurons who were responsible for a variety of abstract and high level representations of Halle Berry rather than some simpler function such as edge discrimination. This neuron did not respond comparably to the hundreds of other images used in the study (Quiroga, et al., 2005). Again, the evidence is against the survival hypothesis; every aspect of a person’s mental function is produced by brain function".

Of course their is an different interpretation to this case and that is it shows very strong correlation but not cause.

"If there was empirical evidence for survival, that is, if consciousness persists without the brain, then we would expect to find some exceptions to the close, direct correlations between the electro-chemical events in the brain and mental states, cognitive capacities, and conscious experience. If there were cases where we could establish that some or all of the mind functions that we attribute to the soul occur in the absence of brain processes altogether, or in the absence of the particular brain processes that have been most closely correlated with those functions in other cases, then we would have some striking evidence for survival and against the first premise in our argument. Suppose that we found cognitive abilities and consciousness to be present or absent with no apparent relation to the state of the human brain. If brain damage of various sorts left cognitive functions unscathed, or if consciousness persisted despite alterations in brain chemistry and structure, then we might have some evidence to doubt the correlation and the causal connection. Likewise, if some mental function lapsed while the brain was completely intact and functioning, we might have an empirical indicator of mind/brain autonomy. But we find no such violations in either direction".

And we do have such violations as he would call them. Those violations are widely discussed in the Irreducible Mind book a Psychology for the 21st century.

Steven Novella Once Again on Skeptiko Discussing Why in his opinion Nde/Obe is Neurophysiology and Psychological

I like to respond to some of Novella's Remarks on NDE's

He seems to ignore the fact that at least 92 percent of people who have ndes report seeing deceased love ones, where only a small percentage see living people this set of evidence weighs against a view that ndes are hallucinatory [Psychological, Neurophysiology].

Also he mentions how newer studies on magnetic stimulation on the brain show that nde's, are just a part of the brain [temporal lobe] that creates the out of body experience etc]. I think he is referring to this study here.

Out of body experience recreated

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6960612.stm

This study doesn't explain how people with flat lined EEG's lying on an operating table with no pulse can have this same experience without video cameras or virtual reality goggles while at the same time seeing and hearing things that could only have been percieved from a different location. Even miles away!!!. Neither doesn't it explain the complex lucidity either.

Also doesn't explain how blind people at birth can see perfectly unconsciousness.

http://atwaterndenews.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-i...

Here is the link to the recent Skeptiko podcast where Dr. Steven Novella discussed why in his opinion nde/obe don't point to an afterlife.

http://www.skeptiko.com/near-death-experience-research-debate-with-steven-novella/

Here are the compelling empirical reasons why Nde/Obe get lots of support to the
Survival Hypothesis

1.) Over 90 percent of nde see deceased loved ones but only a small percentage see living people.

2.) A Very large database of ndes show that patients who have obe can see things and hear conversations inside and outside and even well outside the emergency room well having a flat EEG. This as well as interviewing patients immediately after being flat lined shows that these out of body experiences are probably having when the brain goes completely flat-lined. These experiences have also been verified that they actually occurred they are well documented.

3.] EEG expert and Neurologist Dr. John Greenfield points out clearly that human studies as well as animal studies have typically shown very little brain perfusion [blood flow] or glucose utilization when the EEG is flat. Their are deep brain areas involved in generating memories that might still operate at some very reduced level during cardiac arrest, but of course any subcortically generated activity can’t be brought to consciousness without at least one functioning cerebral hemisphere. So even if there were some way that NDEs were generated during the hypoxic state [while the brain is shut off from oxygen], you would not experience them until reperfusion [blood flow] allowed you to dream them or wake up and talk about them”,

4.) All neurophysiological and psychological models fail to explain any of the evidence above. As much as it hurts materialist's like "Dr. Steven Novella" to admit it the evidence is very straightforward and precise to ignore and avoid the evidence above, for nde/obe is only avoiding the facts that are clearly there.

Questions Of Consciousness

Examples Say The Materialists That Show Mind Is Produced By The Brain And My Response

We only know of cognition when there is a functioning brain present, we have seen no cognition where a brain was not present. That is, we have never observed mind without brain.

Leo- I disagree experiments in the cross correspondences for example clearly show mediums can obtain information from the otherside. Also other survival evidence clearly show that the mind can exist independent from the physical brain.


- Animals with more evolved, more complex brains always exhibit more intelligence and emotions than those with less evolved, less complex brains.

Leo- Yes a more advanced tv will take in the channels better too.


- Interventions in very specific parts of the brain result in very specific changes in cognitive function.

Leo- Ok yes just like changes in my tv will cause changes in my reception

- Mental illness has a strong genetic component.

Leo- Yes but this doesn't show that mind is produced by the brain

- We are learning to read brain activity and make sense of it in terms of emotions and thoughts.

Leo- Yes we are but that doesn't tell us if the brain is a producer of consciousness or the receiver of consciousness.

What Are Psi Believers Which We Are Called Mean By Materialists?

Well we don't mean a materialist in the way of material goods such as money. What we mean is the view that all of reality is material and that their is nothing beyond the material reality we are in. A lot of materialists lately use the new scientist article " Creationists declare war on the brain", as a factual report on how dualists are similiar to creationists in the way they devise arguments. This of course is completely false, that is like saying an orange is similiar to an apple. The difference is that their is overwhelming evidence that supports dualism where creationism relies on the bible, a book that is based on faith. Typically materialists say we the mind is separate from the brain along with consciousness then whatever scientist proved that would get a nobel prize. How ironic is that but when a dualist points out the fact that a appeal of authority for example the majority of neuroscientists believe mind is a process of the brain doesn't mean it's true.


This of course, strikes a nerve at the materialist. But it doesn't end there no the materialist claims their is verifiable repeatable evidence that mind is a process of the brain that we had this evidence for over 50 years. Of course if we really did have this evidence then the case would be closed. There would be no hard problem of consciousness.

The End Of Materialism Book Written By Parapsychologist Charles Tart

On Michael Prescott's blog he also talks about Charles Tart's new book called the " the end of materialism". Here i like to discuss why i agree on his view that materialism is indeed a dead end when it comes to consciousness. By the way before i tell you why i agree with his viewpoint. I like to show you where you can purchase his new book at.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/ASIN/1572246456?tag=psychologicalpro


Now that is out of the way, here is why i agree with his opinion on this matter. One reason is based on the strong supportable replicated data for psi phenomena, this here conflicts heavily with materialism, because in a materialistic worldview these phenomena are impossible. Second reason is the evidence for survival of bodily death, this evidence comes from many sources as i have outlined many times on this blog. But for the first time lookers on this blog, the evidence would be the cross correspondences, drop in communicators, the scole experiment, the pye record experiment, cases of patients in cardiac arrest and clinical death seeing things while being flatlined. That later are verified by health professionals. Other evidence would be particular cases of apparitions, xenoglossy and some poltergeist phenomena.


Also the work done by Dr. Jim Tucker and Dr. Ian Stevenson on past life experiences, birthmarks that match the deceased person. Other evidence would proxy sittings, afterdeath communications and induced after death communications, instrumental transcommunication, electronic voice phenomena, direct voice communication, automatic writing, book tests and newspaper tests. A third reason is the failure of materialism to reduce subjective experience down to the brain.

Also by the way Charles Tart has his own blog now up and running.

http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/

Hopefully sometime in the future i will be able to pick up this book at my local library, because i look forward to reading it.

Here is Michael Prescott's post on this topic as well.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2009/07/a-new-book-from-charles-tart-a-blog-and-more.html

The Biggest Discovery Ever We All Appear To Survive Physical Death

You probably wonder like I do why the overwhelming evidence for survival, doesn't rock mainstream science out of it's materialistic presumptions about the nature of reality. Is it an conspirary? I shall argue it isn't an conspiracy, it is a fear but science being plunge and the world into an dark age. Even some psychical researchers couldn't accept the evidence for survival, because they didn't want to accept the implications. This is the same with mainstream science the implications are far too reality shattering, it would also replace materialism. Now mainstream scientists would fire back and say materialism has had great success and that we can understand the natural world this way perfectly. I got no problem with that, but is it the whole answer?, when a road block such as the nature of consciousness comes across materialism.

Some of the materialists say well consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, others say it supervenes over the brain, while others say consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. All three of these materialist options all fall in the same assumption. That the brain somehow produces all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, personality and memory. The thing is if the production model fails then we must look for an alternative. The alternative is that the brain is an receiver or filter of consciousness.


The filter or receiver theory had many advantages over the production theory, such as it can account for positive experimental results for large pk and other psi phenomena. Also it can account for all the evidence for survival and for other phenomena in psychology such as stigmata, the strong correlation between mind and brain, maternal impressions etc.

Of course i am not here to convince any hardcore materialist that simply will not happen. But perhaps materialist's are aren't so sure of their position can make up their own mind. That is all we survivalist's ask for.

Which Worldview Is Correct?

Is new age and eastern religions compatible with psi?, where evidence for survival is compatible with dualism over idealism?. This is where my thinking gets me in trouble, because how do we know which view of reality is correct?. Or perhaps idealism and dualism are both wrong ways to look at reality. That perhaps neutral monism is the answer which can support psi and survival of bodily death.

Then their is materialism which isn't compatible with either survival of bodily of death and psi. Also what about the view of an infinite number of parellel universes, could we be interacting with these universe, without no decoherence. We know that these universes could have completely different laws of physics. Also what about poltergeist phenomena?, could it be just quantum fluctuations being taped by our minds to create effects of poltergeist phenomena?.


But does that really hold?, it appears it may not their are cases of furniture being moved etc. These large objects couldn't be possibility moved by small quantum fluctuation effects from the vacuum.


According to the researchers Brovetto and Maxia believe that the extra fluctuations triggered by the pubescent brain would substantially enhance the presence of the virtual particles surrounding the person. This could slowly increase the pressure of air around them, moving objects and even sending them hurtling across the room.

Here is an new scientist on this

" They're here: the mechanism for poltergeist activity.

However Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate physicist who is on the editorial board of Neuroquantology.

"This looks distinctly flaky to me," Josephson commented.

That would explain it seems cases of apparitions where people claim to see their people with past wounds. Such as a entity with a hole through his head but show that physical impression tide with his soul.

Why Materialism Is An Complete Dead End When It Comes To Consciousness

First i like to put the mind and body in three categories

1] The physical brain and body
2] The mind [mental] information
3] Consciousness[subjective] immaterial soul

Some materialists believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The problem with this is, consciousness is subjective it is the only thing we know that is "subjective". All emergent things are physical, in nature where consciousness is nonphysical. The only way we can solve the mind body problem is to take both the objective evidence we have and the subjective evidence as well.

The Trouble Of Talking With Materialists

The big problems i have with talking with materialists is that

1] They are certain they are right[ note: not all are like this but many are]
2] Namecalling such as crackpot idea, pseudoscience etc
3] Using double standards when it comes to evidence


These are common tactics for materialists to use. I mentioned to a materialist that he is ignoring over 150 years of psychical research on the survival hypothesis. What does he say in response, he uses a laughing smiling rolling around. Of course cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing and in this case, he surely is using it. If he took the time to let his preassumptions go to a side. Then look at this evidence i talk about among over survivalists, then concluded his honest assessment. Then I would say he is being an open skeptic.

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.

Rebuttal To An Post Made By Pz Myers

First, before I get to the rebuttal their was a comment on his blog that i need to address.

Posted by: Kel

Interesting side note to all this:

It's interesting that people who believe in some sort of afterlife fear death the most. While those content with effectively ceasing to exist, aren't as scared of it.

My response

Not true i for one feared death a lot when i believe in materialism.


Now to the post

We never personally experience the extinction of our consciousness, of course, except for the limited loss of sleep — and we always wake up from that (at least, until the last time), so we at least have personal evidence that would inductively imply immortality.

Response: True agree.

It's also a set of beliefs that are remarkably pervasive. Our language and culture and habits of thought make the idea of survival after death continually crop up.

Even when we want to believe that our minds end at death, it is a real struggle to think in this way. A study I published in the Journal of Cognition and Culture in 2002 reveals the illusion of immortality operating in full swing in the minds of undergraduate students who were asked a series of questions about the psychological faculties of a dead man.

Richard, I told the students, had been killed instantaneously when his vehicle plunged into a utility pole. After the participants read a narrative about Richard's state of mind just prior to the accident, I queried them as to whether the man, now that he was dead, retained the capacity to experience mental states. "Is Richard still thinking about his wife?" I asked them. "Can he still taste the flavor of the breath mint he ate just before he died? Does he want to be alive?"

You can imagine the looks I got, because apparently not many people pause to consider whether souls have taste buds, become randy or get headaches. Yet most gave answers indicative of "psychological continuity reasoning," in which they envisioned Richard's mind to continue functioning despite his death. This finding came as no surprise given that, on a separate scale, most respondents classified themselves as having a belief in some form of an afterlife.

What was surprising, however, was that many participants who had identified themselves as having "extinctivist" beliefs (they had ticked off the box that read: "What we think of as the 'soul,' or conscious personality of a person, ceases permanently when the body dies") occasionally gave psychological-continuity responses, too. Thirty-two percent of the extinctivists' answers betrayed their hidden reasoning that emotions and desires survive death; another 36 percent of their responses suggested the extinctivists reasoned this way for mental states related to knowledge (such as remembering, believing or knowing). One particularly vehement extinctivist thought the whole line of questioning silly and seemed to regard me as a numbskull for even asking. But just as well--he proceeded to point out that of course Richard knows he is dead, because there's no afterlife and Richard sees that now.

Response: True, a lot of people believe in an afterlife, so what? the evidence is what we are after. Attacking people for believing in an afterlife doesn't make any apparent evidence for it go away.

Bering also does not discuss (in this piece, at least) another important factor: we rapidly learn that death is not a game of peek-a-boo, it has significant differences from ordinary departures. We learn from our experience that death is permanent. As we get older, we experience this more and more often, and we learn fairly rapidly that there is something about the nature of death that makes it more tragic, since we feel grief and loss. We build psychological coping mechanisms there, as well, and once again, fraudulent religion is ready to leap in and take advantage of another normal human reaction: denial. Promoting denial is a short-term tool for deepening a dependency on superstition, but it is again no virtue to foster irrationality by using personal fears and heartbreak.

Response: The same can be said of materialists, especially if the evidence for survival is true, the psychological fear of persisting forever is also terrifying to many materialists and even some non materialists. Why? because of it getting repetitive, boring over time. This would be true, however it appears that many souls get reincarnated which means that not every soul spends eternity in a afterlife realm.

Update: I have posted a comment on PZ Myers post. Yuu can find it here.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/where_will_you_be_after_youre.php

Do Materialist's Misuse The Use Of Critical Thinking

I think so that set it to a very new level. That any experience must CANNOT be paranormal in origin. Don't get me wrong their's nothing wrong with critical thinking but when it's push to the extreme to make someone closed minded. For example, let's take taps ghost hunters they say that 90 percent of reported apparitions they have investigated and turned about physical things. But when they say that 10 percent of it could be attributed to a paranormal origin. Well that's when someone like Phil Plait comes in and says no critical thinking is not used here. Basically all alleged paranormal happenings must be fraud, or physical in origin. Of course though I should point out taps wasn't completely sure that the 10 percent figure was correct. Because they say it's possible that the percentage might be higher. But nonetheless, as I said before I am much into ghost hunters I am more for researching to see what scientists have to say such as psychical researchers.

Their are many areas of evidence that support the survival hypothesis. Which has been I have mentioned numerous times.

Materialists Say Ghosts, Esp And Other Paranormal Phenomena Are Impossible

This is a typical response from a materialist. I was once a strong atheist myself until i started to have paranormal experiences that defy conventional explanations. I tried fitting them into possibilities such as fraud, seeing patterns but none are there etc.] But those explanations couldn't fit the facts of what I was experiencing. Another ridiculous response from materialists is that mostly it's religious people would experience ghosts etc. Completely untrue, that is if you research this topic you would find out that isn't true.

One materialist which his screename is Hyndis did make one good point. He said that a lot of ghost pictures are blurry out of focus photography. I agree to a certain extent that pictures of supposed ghosts won't work. Because, anyone can doctored up a picture or we could be seeing patterns. I saw some pictures that do look like ghosts, however you could say they were doctored up or i was seeing patterns where nothing exists at all. However how about the evidence collected by psychical research on apparitions? Like the work done on apparitions by FWH Myers, among other phenomena.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk...pparitions.htm

I didn't get any response from him. He probably never even went to the article on apparitions. No surprise there.

The Paranormal

Being a materialist myself before I use to find this paranormal stuff was all bunk. It took a long while to realize this materialist view of reality is wrong. Near death death studies challenge greatly materialist theories of mind/brain relationship. They will continue too do for for years to come. If the evidence points towards a soul surviving death we must accept it. Bringing up the same old tired arguments like mind can't survive death because neuroscience proves mind dies when the brain dies. These arguments have been refuted over and over again.