malf
Member
Astrology is interesting given its relationship to the skeptical movement's history.
There was the time Shermer accidentally demonstrated that astrology might have some basis in reality.
And of course the Starbaby scandal.
Or is astrology another tool for "turning on" Ψ ? :)Astrology is interesting given its relationship to the skeptical movement's history.
There was the time Shermer accidentally demonstrated that astrology might have some basis in reality.
And of course the Starbaby scandal.
I'd really like to discover what skeptics think of this podcast! I mean once again, you have an avowed skeptic who simply hasn't studied any of the literature related to NDE's! I mean, it isn't that he wants to argue that the brain is still ticking over while an NDE is happening, or that he wants to argue that NDE's are confabulated later - he just doesn't seem to care about the challenge that this phenomenon creates for his interpretation of consciousness!
I used to expect Alex to discover someone who would seriously challenge the idea of non-materialistic consciousness, I am still amazed that this doesn't seem to be possible! Do any of you skeptics have any suggestions as to whom he should interview, who could make an even half reasonable case for materialistic consciousness, given that fact that people certainly experience NDE's, and often these involve viewing the resuscitation scene?
David
Graziano in the interview said:There is, I sense, a desire to maintain mystery – maybe partly because if the mystery is cleared up the field of consciousness studies goes away, and that is a whole line of work that many people rely on. Or maybe there are personal reasons or emotional reasons or religious reasons why people love this notion of an unexplainable mystery. And my approach to this entirely mechanistic, entirely rationalist, and the question I am asking in a sense is how far can we go in an entirely rationalist approach? How far can we get and be able to explain as much as possible? And I think that kind of is the mission of science, not to explain everything because I don’t think that will ever happen, but to see how much can be explained and in particular, to see how much can be explained by entirely rational and mechanistic means and testable means, to give a shot at that. And that is kind of the mission of science, that’s how I approach this question of consciousness. So that’s kind of what I mean by the unashamed rationalist.
to see how much can be explained by entirely rational and mechanistic means and testable means, to give a shot at that.
Not if you close your eyes, ears and turn your head to the other side for ever piece of evidence that doesn't fit in your pre-conceived tool-box.Consider carefully the quote from Graziano in the recent podcast:
This is an intelligent, honest approach. He sets out clearly his remit:
Is that not a worthwhile goal?
Claim that he's interested in a partial, incomplete explanation of the phenomena that is willfully ignoring entire trucks loaded of evidence contradicting his position.What should he do with the pieces he has though?
Claim that he's interested in a partial, incomplete explanation of the phenomena that is willfully ignoring entire trucks loaded of evidence contradicting his position.
This premise would be more honest than the one he used in the opening of the interview.
No of course not. No two people would tackle the same problem with exactly the same perspective.Do we really want everyone approaching the study of consciousness - or any topic for that matter - from exactly the same perspective?
No of course not. No two people would tackle the same problem with exactly the same perspective.
This is not an excuse to say that you can willfully ignore stuff of the highest importance to help your investigation.
It's a short sighted outlook. And constructive criticism is due :)
Speaking of which I would highly question the sketchy and cartoonish ( to borrow his own adjectives ) premise that Dr.Graziano does, as a foundation for his arguments.
That premise alone renders his subsequent reasoning very weak, imho.
cheers
Haven't people like Greyson or Van Lommel formulated an hypothesis based on their observations and then proceeded to run experiments the results of which have been published? So they aren't hunting fairies, right?I really don't know the answer to this question: even if a neuroscientist believed that the mind =/brain would they formulate their neuroscience experiments all that differently? Won't they still have a lot of work to do with the physical components of the brain?
Haven't people like Greyson or Van Lommel formulated an hypothesis based on their observations and then proceeded to run experiments the results of which have been published? So they aren't hunting fairies, right?
So, my proposal in a few words... "let's do more of that" :)
As regards Graziano, he's a lost cause. Might be harsh, but the interview speaks for itself.
One more thing even though I keep repeating myself: it's not an either / or argument.
Let's keep investigating the brain, there're centuries worth of discoveries ahead of us. But we need to look at this huge amount of psi, nde, obe, spiritual awakenings, precognition, RV etc... because they will never go away and we can't keep making excuses and turn our head the other side.
In one word: integration.
cheers
We're talking about the nature of consciousness here, not brain physiology. It's not that mainstream neuroscience have much better to offer.Sure - but they need to move towards the higher quality, more reliable studies to really get a foothold.
We're talking about the nature of consciousness here, not brain physiology. It's not that mainstream neuroscience have much better to offer.
And that's why it should be a joint effort instead of the usual belittling game from the academia.
ETA: Plus you do realize that what you are saying could be applied to "dark matter", "string theory", "Everett's interpretation of QM" and so on and so forth