Mod+ 237. DR. PATRICIA CHURCHLAND SANDBAGGED BY NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE QUESTIONS

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by alex.tsakiris, Mar 15, 2014.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,598
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2015
  2. johnbrowne

    johnbrowne New

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    5
    what a childish fake dr churchland was. i dont know how you did it. you are very professional alex. i probably would have snapped.
     
    Johnny likes this.
  3. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    I rather enjoyed dr churchland's childish behavior. It revealed how weak and contrived their position is.
     
    Johnny and Alex like this.
  4. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    I would absolutely love to see Alex, armed with all of the evidence of ghosts, ghostly attacks and ghostly activity caught on video) interview a skeptic neuroscientist.
     
    alex.tsakiris likes this.
  5. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Perhaps you'd like to start a separate thread linking to specific examples of the best evidence. Though I'm open-minded on the subject, I've come across a number of videos which aren't, to me, particularly persuasive.
     
    Steve likes this.
  6. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    Getting evdence of he paranormal is a question of how much risk you are comfortable with. I really found the TV series The Haunted, by Animal channel, to be very persuasive to me that disembodied spirits can attack, scratch, bite, shove people dow stairs, invade your thoughts, invade your dreams, harass your pets, etc.

    Anyway, I started a conversation. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/conversations/proof-of-ghosts-proves-the-afterlife.353/

    I'll invite you when I get home from work.
     
  7. Don DeGracia

    Don DeGracia New

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    204
    Oh man, sorry to hear the thread died. I'd have loved to have seen the comments. I read Dr. Churchland's "Neurophilosophy". I would not recommend it. Part 1 was a rehash of old philosophy found in any intro philosophy book, and part 2 was a rehash of 1980s neuroscience (what a neuron is, how action potentials work, etc). However, this "interview" was simply amazing. Talk about pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz and seeing the scared little man there (in this case a woman). Wow! Sad. Not much else to add to Alex's conclusion about what a joke academia can be. It can drive a bleeding heart liberal to want to be a neocon and gut this system.
     
  8. Marcus Morgan

    Marcus Morgan New

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Churchland was objecting to a black & white analysis of NDEs.
    We don't know if they exist, but Churchland suspects they don't, based on what she does know about neuroscience.
    You can't expect her to prove that is DOESN'T exist, your job is to disprove her objections.
    That requires getting into weight of evidence about other neural explanations, not black & white.
    If you wish to cut through the mess around this subject, you are welcome to this free resource http://1drv.ms/1tnKM6f
     
  9. Don DeGracia

    Don DeGracia New

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    204
    For other forum readers, Mr. Morgan's book begins: "I am a lawyer from Melbourne, Australia and I have been interested in human evolution since high school in the 1970’s, but only casually and not professionally."

    I skimmed the book. Didn't see one equation in it. Equations are important because they are the language of science. Regarding your ideas of neuroscience, you may want to check a couple of my recent blog posts:

    http://dondeg.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/burden-of-proof/
    http://dondeg.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/the-beginning-and-the-end-of-consciousness-in-the-brain/
    http://dondeg.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/believe-and-decide/

    Churchland didn't really explain herself in the interview. She was clearly put off and unprepared.

    NDEs certainly exist, just like dreams do. It is just that people debate as to the nature of such experiences.

    Thank you for sharing your writing. You may like my recent book. It provides a counter-point to yours, and it has no equations in it either.

    http://dondeg.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/experience-is-now-a-free-ebook/

    Best wishes,

    Don
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  10. Don DeGracia

    Don DeGracia New

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    204
    Opps, sorry, I mis-spoke. There is an Appendix that explains what a limit is in the Experience book.
     
  11. Marcus Morgan

    Marcus Morgan New

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Don, you have done me a disservice.

    You skimmed the book, you have not read it, and the mere absence of equations somehow proves it is not worth reading.

    I discuss the equations of science in plain language, and nothing at all is lost in doing so.

    Pity you didn't read it.

    You are being superficial, and you are mistaken.

    Perhaps if you actually read some of it instead of skimming, you might discover this for yourself.

    Others are certainly encouraged not to skim or make erroneous assumption, and to actually read it.

    No laziness, please.
     
  12. Marcus Morgan

    Marcus Morgan New

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Sorry Don,

    I forgot to ask, what is the point of my book to which you provide a counter-point (with no equations ans somehow avoiding derision for that)?

    I see no indication you have even read it, just skimmed, and certainly no summary of my "point".

    Again I find that superficial and lazy. What exactly is my point, and what is your counter-point?
     
  13. Her husband also engages in this kind of shoddy, deceptive materialist evangelism.
     
    Doppelgänger likes this.
  14. Marcus Morgan

    Marcus Morgan New

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Don, I read your Penfield thread.
    I'm familiar with Penfield and have no issue with his generalities, except for the obvious fact that a brain is not isolated from a body.
    Do you realize a brain is directly connected to every part of anatomy by inputs and outputs?
    And yet you say brain = mind?
    Clearly that is an error. Neurons constitute minds, not merely "the brain".
    Neurons represent the anatomy in which they are embedded!
    Seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, etc etc, including thoughts about those feelings, are represented in the neuronal experience.
    Its obvious the brain is not isolated.
    You getting "mind" mixed up with the finalization of neural signals in the brain for its occurrence, which does occur!
    But finalization of signals to and from anatomy does not locate mind "in the brain".
    It is located across an entire anatomy that is represented by finalization in the brain.
    Were you not aware of that?
    Your approach is far too simplistic and ignores general anatomy.
    You need to read my book to understand my "point", not skim the first paragraph of it.
     
  15. Marcus Morgan

    Marcus Morgan New

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Sciborg
    Not to worry, this thread is alive and well.
    I am counter to view expressed so far in this thread, which makes it a healthy thread.
    Nothing worse for progress than everyone just agreeing with each other over obviously disputable claims.
    Churchland is not the way you make her out to be, but that's an issue of your manners.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  16. What do you think Churchland is right about?

    And do you think she correctly represented the beliefs of Van Lommel?
     
    Doppelgänger, Ian Gordon and K9! like this.
  17. Arguably someone can present a philosophical argument for why nature is arranged a certain way based on existing evidence in combination with metaphysics.

    So I don't think a lack of equations necessarily invalidates a book? And there is something to be said for non-specialists being able to possibly provide fresh insight.

    All that said, I am a bit wary of Morgan's in-text assertions that the Laws of Nature are definite and need no explanations themselves.
     
    Stephen Wright likes this.
  18. Marcus Morgan

    Marcus Morgan New

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Sciborg

    I don't see what's shoddy or deceptive about the Churchlands here.
    The interviewer pushed a line that NED's exist, and Churchland said tthey may exist for the interviewer.
    That was a proper response.
    She does not know if NDE's exist, but if one says they experience them, then "perhaps" they exist for that person.
    I think the interview got off on the wrong foot by having a slightly antagonistic tone, which could be excuse as robust.
    But interviewer pushed a specific line that they exist, which got a proper response.
    The problem is this tendency these days to black & white pronouncements.
    If anyone says they know NDE's exist in the mystical sense of access to an afterlife, then they need to explain it.
    It's polarization.
    People like to polarize, its easy, it groups into "us" and "them", the usual stuff to feel secure and engaged.
    That's comforting for some, and very boring for others who prefer reasoning, not prejudice.
    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
  19. Marcus Morgan

    Marcus Morgan New

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Patel,

    You can be as prejudicial as you like, or suspicious by another name.
    I'm not fussy about such things, they are commonplace nowadays.
    The point is, do you understand what you are saying?
    Do you actually see the point of the book or any points in the book at all?
    You certainly haven't given any indication that you do, in what you have written.
    The problem is that you make a judgment with no stated basis, except "suspicion".
    If you explain your suspicion perhaps I can alleviate it.

    If your concern is that Metaphysics is not possible without a "creator", then read further.
    The book is extremely comprehensive, just start at pages 9 & 10 and dispute that error in biology, then proceed if it interests you.
    Basically, I leave no gaps for magic to inhabit.
    Nature is merely processes of compression and decompression (action-reaction) at work.
    Action-reaction is very useful to frame existence.
    No need for suspicion.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  20. I didn't say anything about NDEs being proof of the afterlife. I'd suggest minding your manners and being less prejudicial. ;-)

    Why do you think the Laws of Nature are "self-consistent and were not created"?
     

Share This Page