Alex Tsakiris and Tom Jump Debate Near Death Experience Sceicne |408|

I have been really interested in David Chapman's material on his meaningness.com website. I don't think he considers himself a humanist, per se. He's into a few very specific ideas that can be found in specific Buddhist traditions as well as in some Western thinkers. PhD from MIT, I believe, and a former AI researcher who realized at some point a few decades ago that hard AI wasn't going to pan out. He is not sympathetic to folks who pursue "eternalist" perspectives, which would include most spiritual folks. He has done podcasts. I would love for him to have a venue where he could really lay out his position that attempts to situate itself between nihilism and eternalism. He has yet to do a great job of really laying it out on his site.

This page kinda gives some hints as to what he's trying to say about meaningness. There's a lot of material on his various websites; I wish he would make a good effort to summarize his main points in one place:
https://meaningness.com/objective-subjective

His reading list is interesting and you can kinda get a sense of some his general ideas from this page:
https://meaningness.com/further-reading

Kind of a wild-card, but Sabio Lantz is another guy that I found through Chapman. Not sure if he does podcasts, but I believe he has advanced degrees in religion/philosophy and also now is a physician. I believe he is an atheist, though he talks about inexplicable spiritual experiences on his site. My sense is he would be much less combative than Chapman. He seems to be a gentle soul, but very smart, I think. I don't think he has the "professional" cred or big presence that Chapman does, and I don't read his site regularly, so take with grain of salt:
https://triangulations.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/6507/
There's an interesting illustration there -- the stuff in red is to be avoided: note "Grim Hyper-rationalism" as an approach to avoid. These guys understand the problem of "biological robot in a meaningless universe" though I'm not sure how convincing or satisfying their approaches to having meaning would be.

There are a couple guys over at the Spiritual Naturalism Society. This link shows several of humanists:
https://www.snsociety.org/sn-today/
Daniel Strain is the head of the SNS, I believe, and B. T. Newberg teaches a class. I interacted with them a bit several years ago. This is humanism through and through. For me, their perspectives just weren't powerful enough or weird enough; they seemed too close to nihilism for me. I would say they are much closer to "warmed over biological robots/meaningless universe" than Chapman or possibly Lantz.
great let's get him on. would you mind reaching out. let me know if you'd like me to help.
 
I am rather fond of John Carroll - an Australian sociologist - https://scholars.latrobe.edu.au/display/jbcarroll. I particularly like his The Wreck of Western Culture, Ego & Soul, and The Existential Jesus. The sociological perspective is refreshing compared to the laborious cogitations of philosophers. He's a Christian of acute and stimulating character so his take on humanism has a bite, but without the gummy sentimentality of theological angst or the fraught intellectualisation of already dyed in the wool materialists.
thx. I have queued.
 
excellent radio lab. thx for posting.
Your welcome. Jad abumrad seemed intrigued, but so was I.


Another favorite episode is about a woman who teaches an adult how to understand sign language, supposedly, without any prior exposure or understanding of language since he was born deaf. Communicating the impossible is an apt metaphor for the work Raymond Moody is doing with his rational proof of the afterlife. I am really intrigued by it, but sadly some in the field don't feel that way. Also really looking forward to Sam Parnias next 'aware' study. Also really intrigued by Gary schwartz work.

Gary is known for many things, but for me its super synchronicity. I've had one happen to me.

It would be super useful to explain and critique these researchers work from an introductory layman's perspective -- without the usual bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Your welcome. Jad abumrad seemed intrigued, but so was I.


Another favorite episode is about a woman who teaches an adult how to understand sign language, supposedly, without any prior exposure or understanding of language since he was born deaf. Communicating the impossible is an apt metaphor for the work Raymond Moody is doing with his rational proof of the afterlife. I am really intrigued by it, but sadly some in the field don't feel that way. Also really looking forward to Sam Parnias next 'aware' study. Also really intrigued by Gary schwartz work.

Gary is known for many things, but for me its super synchronicity. I've had one happen to me.

It would be super useful to explain and critique these researchers work from an introductory layman's perspective -- without the usual bullshit.
nice. happy to see a link if you have it handy.

BTW have you seen:
Children With REAL SuperPowers (Third Eye)

 
nice. happy to see a link if you have it handy.

BTW have you seen:
Children With REAL SuperPowers (Third Eye)

I think you'll find this reply useful.

Yes. I've seen the scammers and the researchers involved with 'seeing without eyes' and its variants. It's amazing and mystifying. A quantum physicist and neuroscientist have been involved. If its a scam that lady (seen the video?) is quite good. Watch her pupils. Wow.


The radiolab episode of ildefanso learning the concept of words is inspiring. I summarize its relevance below the embedded video.


"Schaller may have been teaching language to Ildefonso, but more accurately, she was teaching him how to map a new set of symbols on a most likely already existent framework of symbolic competence." Why would that matter? NDE's cannot be put into words either. They are in fact partially nonsensical. We need a translator. Raymond Moody is approaching NDE's in a similar way. Sadly IANDS Jan Holden didn't agree. That deeply disappointed me. She views her work as science. Raymond doesn't view parapsychology as science and self diagnosed himself as being on the autistic spectrum...

Btw, I think Jan is retiring soon. And she won the Eminent Faculty Award at UNT.


The synchronicity I experienced recently is ongoing and didn't involve seeing the same object over and over, all though that has happened to me. I think that's normal. It's a thought responsive reality after all. (I kid, I kid).

It actually involved control over my laptop. I actually took a screenshot the last time it occurred. I did basic things to be sure, like googling the behavior online to see if it occurs in the same model. I reset it too of course, fully. Still happens. Its the behavior combined with the exquisite timing! Its batshit crazy. Lock me up! :)

It's an undeniable personal intelligence. Its weird. And you are probably swimming in this weird energy too.

Jan Holden mentioned it during her IANDS meeting once, Alex! As in, directly, Jan stated during a meeting "if you are here, you are attracted to this energy"

As for my laptop, that is a clear sign of a virus -- or just an error with the screen reader! :) or god calling me to the mothership. To the flame little moths! You'll see what I mean by viewing the attached image. However, Its just an error without prior coincidences.

The screenshot was the video skipping to a pertinent point -- but not when the laptop was asleep. This screenshot is a separate but related occurrence witin the synchronicity. It skipped right to saying 'weird things happen to me'. That is weird, but the other events combined are easily 1 in 100,000 event.

Basically:

1. turning on when in sleep mode but when I think about it, 'hey wonder if it will act weird again'
2. turning off when i think'oh, no longer listening to the quantum physics guru (the video playing was just audio, and it was already on the screen via youtube, but asleep).It turns off. Remember, black screen, sleep mode -- now just no audio. It didn't fully awake, just plays the youtube audio. on cue.
3. Then I think, 'really prove yourself!" turn back on. It did, and rewound the god damned lesson! On, off, on again. I got up and wrote this down before heading to bed.

Strange. But not crazy. And it happened before -- turning on in a thought responsive way. Accept it did it the first time RIGHT WHEN i WAS WRITING OUT MY MOST SIGNIFICANT SYNCHRONICITIES. It never had that behavior before that point! And it has occured in other ways. And remember i reset it! And the other things include the command, 'open the notepad program rather than just changing tabs!"

And it did alex. From this spooky behavior I learned that I am Nick Bottom. I am a vital character in this play! I provide comic relief. Someone finds me hilarious.

Ask Jan about watches. But be sneaky! Ask her about the secret that happened to Sam Parnia during his aware study! I had the insight to ask! I didn't know how to ask the right question but I did. I love good questions.

I hope you are paying attention. :)

The video that played during the first synchronicity event while writing the previous ones was a video by tom campbell talking about children who see without eyes! In other words, the video in question was my first synchronicity on the laptop. And yes it occurred while writing them down. The laptop awoke then.

 

Attachments

Last edited:
Alex...I thought maybe I could learn something here since I really enjoy these subjects, but all I hear is you with YOUR mind
already made up about this, so how are you different from any of the others you criticize?
TJump made some very good, rational points, while you pointed to the experts,
Yeah, but these dogs are dead in terms of reasoned and informed discussion. However I do confess I gave the fundy 'skeptics' a solid working out in the late 90s and early naughties - so I shouldn't begrude others the same road to disappointment and boredom.

There are all kinds of POV that do not merit serious engagement - because they are not well informed and they are not open hearted. Reguritated pre-digested fare is proper nourishment for some folk, and I do not want to disparage their needs. They are not compatible with mine. I don't mix with fundies, not because they are not good people but because we have nothing in common beyond the necessary pleasantries. I have family members like this. We meet and share a meal and engage in careful inconsequential chat and then we retire to our own ways.

I believe in inclusive and diverse workplaces - where we work together to do good things that benefit our shared community. But I don't talk politics or philosophy or religion because what unites us means more to me than what divides us.

Probably on some cosmic level what we are doing is counted as 'silliness' - but its our silliness and it does us some good. I am content to leave others to their sillinesses - unless it causes ill beyond their zone of conceit and delusion.

My point about materialistic atheism is that it has said nothing new in decades - and that's because its a small club of opinion that is not supported by any kind of evidence. It has backed itself into a corner. Its a POV that does not engage with contrary evidence in any open hearted or open minded way. It relies on reductionistic logic that has set rules nobody has agreed to - but we are induced to play to. It has made assumptions that it refuses to test or examine - but demands are true - because they just have to be.

Once you decline to accept then premise posed by the atheist the point of conversation dissipates. Now and then I get annoying Americian Christian missionaries at my door. Because I don't accept their premise about Jesus and the Bible we have no conversation. If they wanted to talk spirituality in a wider sense then we could have a conversation. But they know nothing but Jesus - and I know a lot more than that. I don't want to talk as if Jesus is the only game in town. I am cool that they think he is, but I'd rather they stayed away because a Jesus only conversation is boring to me - been there, done that and now I am over it.

The same is with atheistic materialists. I don't mind metaphysical atheists. Materialistic atheism is not even remotely intelligent even though its adherents have a remarkably high opinion of themselves. It doesn't really have any content - kinda like a philosophical puffed wheat - neither substantial nor nourishing but undoubtedly present. I do know that there's a kind of materialist philosophy - but there's a difference between arguing from an asserted premise and inquiring as to what is true. The former is theology for theists - and hence atheology for atheists. In each case the rules for what you can believe are set before the argument begins - and everything asserted must obey the rules. I listened to nigh on 80 hours of staged debates between atheists and theists. I subjected myself to that torture because I wanted to know whether either side evolved their debate in consequence of hearing the other side. They did not. It was all posturing to one's own - just a sport - mere entertainment and propaganda. It was not truth seeking.

I don't waste my time talking to people who are not truth seeking. I used to do that, but I came to understand it was a waste of time - mere sport. I do not want to cast aspersions on TJump's character. He might be a delightful and pleasant person to know. He is entirely free to think as he does. But I have heard it all, before and I am unimpressed and bored.

That's just me. I have been in a shitty mood lately. Decided to say something because it was a POV not being expressed.

Please give an example of the Very Best EVIDENCE that your research has discovered if that is possible, if that is a book I can read I would love to.

Thanks in advance!
 
nice. happy to see a link if you have it handy.

BTW have you seen:
Children With REAL SuperPowers (Third Eye)

Alex,

That was an extraordinary video! The teacher said it wasn't supernormal, but I guess that was just a semantic quibble. Do you have a link to where you found this?

I have always wondered whether kids could develop ψ abilities if they started at a young age - just as kids can pick up music, or ice skating, or art much faster than adults can.

TJump made some very good, rational points,
Why not select one of his points and we can discuss it here?

David
 
Top