tim
New
You've addressed that post to Bertha and yet you are addressing me !
I haven't attacked your desire to discuss the concept of God. Where did I do that ? Discuss away, by all means, Johnny and the best of British luck with it. Tatta !
Mod+ 276. DR. ALAN HUGENOT, IANDS AND THE FUTURE OF NDE RESEARCH
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
You've addressed that post to Bertha and yet you are addressing me !
I haven't attacked your desire to discuss the concept of God. Where did I do that ? Discuss away, by all means, Johnny and the best of British luck with it. Tatta !
Bertha Huse
New
Sorry Johnny. I was just agreeing with Tim. God is a subject I generally avoid discussions about - primarily because often this is what ensues!
Cheers Mate,
Bertha
Johnny
New
But I
My initial engagement wasn't with you and my discussion was about the NDE experiencer who met God. If you personally have no interest in discussing God, then why engage with me, ?
You then state in other comments you don't think the topic of God can be approached, to which I already gave rebuttals. But again if you have no interest in the topic please feel free to skip my posts. There is no need for us to argue.
Vortex
Member
To clarify: I should have formed my question a bit differently. "Are you sure about his expert status in physics?" would be a more precise and correct formulation. This is an important addition, since I do not question Hugenot's expertise in engineering and technology - I did read his CV, and found it quite impressive.
Johnny
New
That's fine. I respect your position.
tim
New
" !If you personally have no interest in discussing God, then why engage with me, ? "
Well, I thought you appeared friendly so I was just passing the time of day, you know the kind of thing, Johnny .....maybe I was misled by your avatar. If I was you I'd change it to Yosemite Sam. Oh wait, some other hot head has grabbed that :)
Johnny
New
I agree with your comment in part, but I don't see how you conclude that Alex is about to turn born again Christian , I found nothing in this interview that indicated that, in fact it was the opposite, I found Alex to have no concern regarding any religious association. He just wants bare facts.
I also understand Alex's frustration with the aware study model, and that it hasn't produced any conclusive information.
My only response would be what does Alex suggest as an improvement or a better model.?
Too much emphasis appears to be given to what exactly the being of light is. I recall that one of IANDS' own newsletters reported a group NDE where each of its members saw "something" meaningful to them, yet they were aware that they were not seeing the same thing. One saw the Buddha, another an angel and the last one a family member. If you think that trying to explain the anecdotal differences is bad, try actually experiencing it.
Typoz
Member
In a few cases (perhaps many) the light-being may have no identifiable features, it is recognised only by the love, compassion and wisdom which is emanated. I'm sure I've seen cases where the experiencer has later used earthly knowledge and logical deduction to assign a label to the being afterwards.
I think another of the problems is our reliance on the use of words to describe something which cannot be put into words. The experience is often summarised as impossible to describe, and yet we depend upon descriptions.
Typoz
Member
Well, I got around to listening to the podcast. I must say it had me cringing a bit and shouting at my computer at the start.
First, Alex started off on the wrong foot by asserting (incorrectly) that the original AWARE study had used a computer screen displaying images. In fact there were shelves installed upon which were placed a printed image (or possibly some other object). It kind of suggested that Alex hadn't really done his homework, which could weaken any arguments made. Of course Alan responded politely and tolerantly. This might account for a tendency later for the two to speak past one another (which was a comment made earlier in this thread).
Second what was it supposed to achieve? Well, NDErs report floating outside their body. The experiment was hoping to test whether that was an objective experience, or simply a mentally imagined experience. More broadly I suppose the aim was to pin down the experience in both time and space, but even if it can only be pinned down to a particular time (as was done in the AWARE study) that represents a positive result, in that an experience was reported at a time where according to conventional theories the patient could not have been conscious.
I think Alex's statement "He [Parnia] did get kind of a no-result from it" suggests that Alex has succumbed to the sceptical spin, portraying a positive result as a zero.
Then Alex goes on to state that the NDE defies any materialistic explanation. Now that is stating a conclusion which the AWARE study was/is aiming to prove. Perhaps this may be self-evident to Alex, but I guess that simply means he wasn't in the target audience for this particular study. Luckily there are many other researchers looking into NDEs, all using their own particular perspective to bring some light to the subject.
I could say more, I have a fair amount of sympathy with Alex's views, but I don't find myself fully in agreement, perhaps talking to too many sceptics has induced a certain pessimism which in my opinion may be colouring his viewpoint.
In particular I don't see the unknowable nature of some of the deeper NDE content as 'placating the atheists'. I don't describe myself as an atheist, but I don't feel nearly as uncomfortable as Alex appears to be with some of the ideas which were discussed.
First, Alex started off on the wrong foot by asserting (incorrectly) that the original AWARE study had used a computer screen displaying images. In fact there were shelves installed upon which were placed a printed image (or possibly some other object). It kind of suggested that Alex hadn't really done his homework, which could weaken any arguments made. Of course Alan responded politely and tolerantly. This might account for a tendency later for the two to speak past one another (which was a comment made earlier in this thread).
Second what was it supposed to achieve? Well, NDErs report floating outside their body. The experiment was hoping to test whether that was an objective experience, or simply a mentally imagined experience. More broadly I suppose the aim was to pin down the experience in both time and space, but even if it can only be pinned down to a particular time (as was done in the AWARE study) that represents a positive result, in that an experience was reported at a time where according to conventional theories the patient could not have been conscious.
I think Alex's statement "He [Parnia] did get kind of a no-result from it" suggests that Alex has succumbed to the sceptical spin, portraying a positive result as a zero.
Then Alex goes on to state that the NDE defies any materialistic explanation. Now that is stating a conclusion which the AWARE study was/is aiming to prove. Perhaps this may be self-evident to Alex, but I guess that simply means he wasn't in the target audience for this particular study. Luckily there are many other researchers looking into NDEs, all using their own particular perspective to bring some light to the subject.
I could say more, I have a fair amount of sympathy with Alex's views, but I don't find myself fully in agreement, perhaps talking to too many sceptics has induced a certain pessimism which in my opinion may be colouring his viewpoint.
In particular I don't see the unknowable nature of some of the deeper NDE content as 'placating the atheists'. I don't describe myself as an atheist, but I don't feel nearly as uncomfortable as Alex appears to be with some of the ideas which were discussed.
Bucky
Member
What is exactly a group NDE? You mean a shared death experience, or is it something else?
David Bailey
Member
Unfortunately, I think these two videos illustrate that Alex doesn't always get the best out of some of his interviewees.
Alex, I would urge you to watch these videos to see the point. At one point Alan Hugenot sounded quite frustrated with the interview - I guess he hoped to talk more freely.
David
Alex
Administrator
this is a fair critisim... but I was kinda peeved... I mean, the folks as IANDS recommended Alan in order to spread the word about the conference, so I wanted to talk about NDE research. I was dissatisfied with the way he handled the topic.
Alex
Administrator
agreed... I don't know what he means either. then again, I never really understood what he meant when he said NDEs are probably a trick of the brain.
Alex
Administrator
agreed. but this leaves all having to read tea leaves in order to figure out what he really means.
[/QUOTE]I found the interview frustrating, Alex has definite opinions and Dr Hugenot frustrated him I think by returning to things about NDE's and consciousness that Alex has long since moved past here on Skeptiko. Even I squirmed a little when Dr Hugenot quoted Shermer and Susan Blackmore as evidence that 'we' we're making progress. Although fair does to Dr Hugenot, he only let Alex push so far without pushing back. You know that he's basically given up when Alex goes quiet. :)[/quote]
you're right... Alan pushed my buttons... I'm sure I pushed his. despite everything, I'm still an optimist... I like to think that organizations like IANDS can make a difference... and advance science. I get frustrated when I don't see that happening.