Mod+ 246. DR. MICHAEL GRAZIANO LIKENS NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE RESEARCH TO ASTROLOGY

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by alex.tsakiris, Jun 3, 2014.

  1. Szechuan

    Szechuan New

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Messages:
    170
    Well, you're just asserting your belief again...and it's an 'ism', just like the materialist, the dualist, the whatever-ist.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2014
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  2. Inner Space

    Inner Space New

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    Hard to see how the example experiment quoted from 'You Are Not Your Brain' disproves Dr Graziano's theory. All Dr Graziano has to do is respond that the connection between brain and mind or brain and thought is a correlative one and not a causative one. However, like many neuroscientists, Dr Graziano is placing physical processes (brain function) as more ontologically fundamental then mental processes. Dr Graziano does so at his own conceptual peril. He claims to be taking a rationalist approach to understanding consciousness but how rationalist is it to explain conscious behaviour in terms of brain activity: "sorry your Honour but I am not accountable for my actions because it was really just a bunch of neurons firing in my brain that caused me (a mere brain) to commit fraud." Many scientists and philosophers pull the wool over people's eyes by talking as if a brain (which they know is a just a piece of energetic meat) was doing something as if it had a subjective side to it. Hence, they say silly things like the 'brain constructs a model of the world" or the brain 'sees' a mixture of different wavelengths of light as white. But hey, brains don't literally "see" anything - only conscious entities do. If brain's do have a subjective side to them then may be that subjective side of the brain contains a squirrel in it and neither Dr Graziano or anyone else can prove otherwise.
     
    Dmitch and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  3. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    No . . in fact .what's going on is that you are reasserting your belief that what I am stating is a belief.

    And since what I stated is neither a philosophy or an ideology it isn't an -ism. 'Course, if when you put your hand over a gas stove you see recognizing that the heat is generated by the flame as an -ism, then maybe it is an -ism. [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2014
  4. Szechuan

    Szechuan New

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Messages:
    170
    That italicised statement is your belief. You may think it to be completely and indisputably true, but that by definition makes it a belief. Like I said, I tend towards the same view but it is a statement of faith to assert it as a fact about reality.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2014
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  5. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    637
    Surely it is a belief, as any statement which we think is "true" in some way. The question is the type and strength of the support for the belief - is this belief supported by repeatable experiments? and/or by personal experience? and/or by logical-mathematical calculations? and/or by philosophical arguments? By the type and strength of the support, we may classify the form of belief and its relevance; but even the strongest support does not make belief a fact.

    My choice of ontological idealism, epistemological anti-realism and axiological (ethical and esthetical) relativism is a philosophical choice and a philosophical position, supported by the philosophical arguments which - as I think - lead to the better interpretations of other forms of experimental and experiential evidence. I do not claim that it is "absolutely true"; it is just the position which, in my evaluation, appears to be the most parsimonious and coherent metaphysics known to me, because it is strictly based on the cathegories which can be directly known: phenomenal experience, semiotic constructs and social relations. It does not require me to believe in an permanently unperceivable "objective reality", totally unimaginable "objective knowledge" and entirely unthinkable "objective values". It is based on the things which exist for sure: observer-dependent, participatory, relative, constructive reality, knowledge and values.

    Of course, something strongly objective still might exist. But, since I fail to imagine any way to find it or to prove its existence, I prefer my own beliefs. maybe they turn out to be wrong one day - but here and now, I think them to be the best ones available.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  6. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    [​IMG]

    To spare other people reading this thread from more of this ongoing silliness, I'll spell it out for you:

    -I posted a statement which you read and felt moved to respond with "that's your belief."

    - What you are expressing in that response is your own belief. To use your own words - " you may think it to be completely and indisputably true" however it is simply your belief about what I stated.

    - This approach can be used by anyone about anything which is what I've been attempting to let you come to by your own realization. It goes nowhere.You express your belief that what someone states is a belief. And what then? Do you decide that your belief is somehow "fact? Do you look for others with beliefs similar to your own as a way to convince yourself that it is a "fact"? Do you go read up more things hoping that you'll find some argument to shore up your belief? And even after all that . . . what? It will still remain your belief about what I stated.

    Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that you alter your own beliefs to accept based on what someone else states. Yet you have engaged a meaningless to-and-fro. You cannot prove that your belief about my statement is correct and I cannot prove to you that it isn't. The only accurate oppositional responses to my statement are "I don't believe that" and "I believe otherwise." However I'd guess you wouldn't favor those responses since they mean you have to own your own perspective as being just that.


    BTW there is knowing beyond intellect but I'd guess you don't believe that either. [​IMG]
     
  7. Szechuan

    Szechuan New

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Messages:
    170
    Saiko,

    The facepalming ought to occur when you look in the mirror. You have contextualised your beliefs in such a way that you want others to view them as correspondents of reality using absolutist, everyone-else-is-wrong assertions
    like these.

    I, on the other hand, think it is practically impossible to really know what is 'going on' out there because there are epistemological obstacles that can't be surmounted. I have ideas, opinions and beliefs but I recognise the fallability and ultimate inprovability of our meta-narratives. At best, we construct coherent models that help us make sense of our lives in the world. You, however, are using the language of fundamentalism, and your posts display the tone: "This is the way it is. I am right. All contrary views are wrong." I've had enough fundamentalism in my life. Your next reply will determine whether or not I put you on ignore.
     
  8. Szechuan

    Szechuan New

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Messages:
    170
    Yes, I agree, and that is why I was underlining that Saiko's assertions are beliefs about reality, that they are epistemological entities and that when one grants privileged ontological status to their own beliefs they have fallen into fundamentalism.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  9. Don DeGracia

    Don DeGracia New

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    204
    Wow, is this supposed to be cool? Brains fool us that we have consciousness. That is SOOO avante garde, SOOOOO cool, SOOOO off the wall. Wow wow wow! How original. I fell over when I heard this. Man, I am enlightened now. Nothing left to do in life. Might as well just die now that I know everything. Yay!! Bye everyone, I'm in nirvana now.

    This is classic stuff: consciousness reduced to an information function. How weird. It is so nihilistic. Unbelievable delusion in this way of thinking. Let's just ignore 99% of everything and make up some dumb idea. Ugh, sorry Alex, you were great, but I feel like I wasted 38:55 minutes of my life, like a bad youtube video. ugh. My only consolation is when you rant: "holy crap they are teaching this shit to our kids". Unbelievable.
     
  10. Don DeGracia

    Don DeGracia New

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    204
    At 28:45: "Its almost impossible to demonstrate that there is no functioning, no activity..." Yeah right. Here is the protocol:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772257/

    It happens everyday, thousands upon thousands of times, in hospitals around the world. And people that have cardiac arrest generally fall into this class. This one is relevant to the discussion:

    "Electroencephalography: Brain death confirmed by documenting the absence of electrical activity during at least 30 minutes of recording that adheres to the minimal technical criteria for EEG recording in suspected brain death as adopted by the American Electroencephalographic Society, including 16-channel EEG instruments. The ICU setting may result in false readings due to electronic background noise creating innumerable artifacts."

    So, 30 min of no EEG activity is a lot longer than a typical resuscitation where the EEG may be flatlined for 1 to maybe 15 minutes. I can tell you 30 min of no blood flow to the brain means the brain is already beginning to liquify. However, Alex's point is correct. The EEG flatlines completely in seconds and is wholly absent by about 1 min. It is literally impossible for neuron electrical condition when cerebral blood flow is zero after about 6 minutes. At that point, all the neurotransmitter has been used up due to what is called "excitotoxicity".

    Having read none of the NDE studies or researchers Alex cites, I do not know the relevant time frames of their patient's reported NDEs. But if they can be shown to occur after 6 min of complete cardiac arrest, then there is no way the brain is functioning electrically at that point.
     
  11. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,596
    The really sad thing is that many people who have had NDEs feel like they have to at least try and embrace this POV, even though their own personal experiences fly in the face of such nonsense. Remember, NDEs can happen to anyone. Even scientists. You can spend years being afraid to even admit to having had an NDE, because of fears that others will think you are a "bad scientist" or "some kind of new age nutbar".

    There is a terrible disconnect between how people experience the world and how they are told they "should" or "do" experience it by some scientists, doctors and academics. That disconnect is even more pronounced for those who have had profound spiritual experiences. It leads to people losing their trust in science.
     
  12. Graziano actually thinks puppets can be conscious entities, and makes a variety of other errors in thought.

    He actually had an article in the NYTimes. Bernardo tried to write a counterpoint but as he isn't a professor I don't think it got selected. You might want to try and see if you can get an article through given the weight you bring to bear with your own scientific work.
     
  13. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    This is excellent information. It's a shame NDE researchers haven't done a better job of addressing these point. I'm sure many of them are well-versed in all of this. Sam Parnia is a recognized expert in resuscitation, van Lommel is no slouch, and neither is Jeff Long. I think the NDE researchers spent so much time and energy dealing with the absurdity of mind=brain stuff that they can't dig into the really interesting questions surrounding what might be going on during the brain death process.
     

Share This Page