Carrol, Novella vs Alexander, Moody

Carroll and Novella won by four percent. Four. With the quality of Moody and Alexander's argument, the negative should have won by a landslide. Pick two people on this board and they would have done better for the affirmative.

Greyson would have needed to be more than drunk to lose that debate. Maybe they could have had him juggling chainsaws or something to keep things fair.
 
Carroll and Novella won by four percent. Four. With the quality of Moody and Alexander's argument, the negative should have won by a landslide. Pick two people on this board and they would have done better for the affirmative.

Greyson would have needed to be more than drunk to lose that debate. Maybe they could have had him juggling chainsaws or something to keep things fair.

Yeah really the skeptics "won" by default. Moody was a complete liability. Honestly Carroll was a liability as well for the other side, but he got away with it because he clearly knows how to appeal to a crowd's preconceived notions by utilizing snark. I respect Moody's ability to compile evidence, and I'm thankful to him for that, but his explanations and perspectives are painful to listen to. It's fish-in-a-barrel sort of nonsense. Alexander had 2-3 good moments. His introductory argument, his citation of Irreducible Mind, and his reference to Carl Sagan's comments on past-life regression. Novella came across as credible, as usual, but of course he painted stuff as black or white which is of course totally misleading.
 
Didn't catch it but sounds like I didn't miss much either: same old, same old, right? As someone commented above, the quality of discussion on these pages seems to far outstrip anything the "experts" can manage, in public at least. I was surprised, however, that the online vote went in favour. I would have expected the organised skeptics to organise a block vote. Perhaps things are changing in the public at large.

By the way, anyone catch this in the comments section?

Tuesday, 06 May 2014 16:18posted by Jon Donnis
I am a physical medium who produces ectoplasm in flows where dead spirits materialise in full body and all vitals so don't tell me there is no afterlife!

Jon Donnis Forests
RIP BFF - Arouet Eveshi

Our old troll, Darryl/Forests, doesn't miss an opportunity.
 
Last edited:
While I don't think there's any slam dunk evidence for the afterlife, I do think proponents should read Clifton's Empirical Case Against Materialism.

It's 34 pages, but it really does lay out the case of immaterialism, refuting Dennet/Churchland/etc, which gets you to an agnostic position. You're at least addressing the materialist conditioning most people have, and beyond that there seems to be some reasons to consider the Idealist case:

"As for Idealism in general, there's a good bit of philosophical argument and suggestive evidence that goes beyond witness testimony posted here, here+here, with interpretations of the Measurement Problem elucidated here, here, and here, and a proof reliant on known QM here that offers only Idealism or Multiverse as reality."
 
I didn't watch the debate, and from the descriptions I don't think I am going to, but I am wondering if either Moody or Alexander mentioned the AWARE study. That would have been enough to counter skeptical suggestions that there is no good empirical evidence. True, the study has yet to be published, but in the Nour Foundation videos Parnia is pretty insistent that the OBE components of NDEs are not consistent with hallucinations.

I agree that Dr. Greyson would have been a much better choice than either Moody or Alexander. Ed Kelly would have been, too. In fact, I continue to be surprised that no one from DOPS ever takes part in these debates. It is shame to leave proponents represented by Chopra...
 
I didn't watch the debate, and from the descriptions I don't think I am going to, but I am wondering if either Moody or Alexander mentioned the AWARE study. That would have been enough to counter skeptical suggestions that there is no good empirical evidence. True, the study has yet to be published, but in the Nour Foundation videos Parnia is pretty insistent that the OBE components of NDEs are not consistent with hallucinations.

I agree that Dr. Greyson would have been a much better choice than either Moody or Alexander. Ed Kelly would have been, too. In fact, I continue to be surprised that no one from DOPS ever takes part in these debates. It is shame to leave proponents represented by Chopra...

Probably because unlike Eben Alexander, and the others, they're actually doing the research, rather than shamelessly promoting their books or viewpoints.
 
Probably because unlike Eben Alexander, and the others, they're actually doing the research, rather than shamelessly promoting their books or viewpoints.

I can sort of see that reasoning, but if there's some good evidence it's not a bad idea to let the public know. As Troy says, letting Chopra and the like hold the banner is probably not the best idea, though the man does have a huge following...
 
Sorry, I was being a bit facetious, but why should Alexander do research ? As an NDE experiencer he probably is not interested ? He is more likely to keep talking and making money !

Moody is around 70 years old, he has done his bit ?
 
I really expected more from both sides.

I think one of the problems with the larger immaterialist advocate context is that Skeptiko is a rarity. This is one of the few places where you get a wealth of information ranging from specific cases, to science, to philosophy as well as history/spirituality for context.

It also seems there's a lot of info out there, but it's scattered and put up around political lines. As such, you might have Christian or Muslism Apologists (note this is a formal term) making excellent philosophical cases for immaterialism but they might only associate with the Intelligent Design people of their own respective faiths. Meanwhile you have Psi proponents in their corner, NDE researchers in another, alien abduction believers, and so on with some mixing of those by Pinchbeck style left leaning types trying to bring it all home into a New Age or Eastern package, along with some appeal to psychedelic using immaterialists.

There's some mixing in of these groups, but I think Skeptiko is one of the few places where you get a good mix along with some skeptics to keep us honest.
 
As a proponent I would have changed from for to against on the strength of this 'argument' !:(

Eben spent the whole thing arguing the case on the strength of his own NDE ? He is convinced, the point was to try convince others! Moody kept saying that basically the question couldn't be argued using science, and seemed to be past caring ? That's fine - but why enter the debate ?

Alexander used Gary Schwarz's name when the point against Novella saying PSI was not proven was just crying out for Dean Radin ! In my opinion it would be far easier to argue the case against Psychics than it would against PSI, even Frank Matera here on this forum, he himself a psychic, has expressed dismay at how corrupted the psychic field has become. Why did he leave it until the final summary, when he could not confront Novella with the question, did he bring up Autistic Sauvants and better (imo) , deathbed lucidity, where the people have been making no sense for years sometimes and shortly before dying talk perfectly normally to relatives ?

Jeez, I'm a nobody that has had a stroke, and if I could talk properly I could have put up a better argument !!! :eek:

I thought that even though Moody seemed a bit 'dreamy' in his thoughts, that he is closest to the truth. This world we live in is deliberately confusing, it is by design I believe. Until we are destined to have a personal experience for whatever reason, we cannot be 100% sure( even then there may still be a tiny bit of doubt). It felt like Alexander and Moody were feeling for an answer where the other two were convinced they already have the answer. Instinctively I think they are wrong, the answers are beyond all our imaginations.
 
I thought the debate was okay. I wish Alexander wouldn't waste his breath going through his NDE as steve said (and the clues to when which bit happened when his brain wasn't working etc) in front of Novella. Novella is a smart talker, talk is all it is of course there's no real substance ...but he will carry on saying it anyway and if anyone challenges him he'll produce his credentials Yale neurologist etc.

Novella >>>We'd love to believe in an afterlife but "there's no evidence" and NDE/OBE's etc can be reproduced in the laboratory>>> (Carrol) and anyway why do children see santa clause and hindus not see jesus heh?? What about that ??? and anyway just for good measure it violates the laws of physics don't you know ...... wishful thinking is what it is after all no one wants to die etc clap clap clap (with laughter).... c'mon get real, we have one life....

Over to the Barrow Institute where a patient under burst suppression (Pamela Reynolds) is floating over the shoulder of the surgeon and looking down at the immense number of heads in the room. She see's the tool that Spetzler is using on her skull and overhears (crystal clear) that the arteries in her leg are too small. She notes the way her hair has been shaved and is surprised they didn't take all the hair off. An interesting box of bits like her fathers socket wrench case attracts her attention as does the heart lung machine which she didn't like and then she sees a pinpoint of light in the distance........>>>

Over to the Canisius hospital in the Netherlands and a Mr Beekhuison has just been brought in to the resus room in cardiac arrest. He is stone cold with blue lividity, no pulse or circulation. The nurse removes his upper denture and places it onto a pulled out wooden shelf on a cart with bottles on it and begins the long drawn out resuscitation. The man is in terrible condition and is eventually transferred to intensive care

A week later the same nurse enters the ward where the patient is now recovering

"Heh..you, you know where my teeth are ! "

Nurse is very surprised ....speaks to him later.....now tell me, how can you know this ?

"Yes you were there when they brought me in, you took the denture out of my mouth and put it on that trolley with bottles onto a drawer that was pulled out.

"You saw it.......?"

Yes from a position above the metal cupboard and there were two female nurses with you. There was a little wash basin behind a curtain, as I remember

"But you were ...dead "
....................................................................
meanwhile back in the auditorium.....

Novella and Carroll win the debate
 
Last edited:
As a proponent I would have changed from for to against on the strength of this 'argument' !:(

Eben spent the whole thing arguing the case on the strength of his own NDE ? He is convinced, the point was to try convince others! Moody kept saying that basically the question couldn't be argued using science, and seemed to be past caring ? That's fine - but why enter the debate ?

Alexander used Gary Schwarz's name when the point against Novella saying PSI was not proven was just crying out for Dean Radin ! In my opinion it would be far easier to argue the case against Psychics than it would against PSI, even Frank Matera here on this forum, he himself a psychic, has expressed dismay at how corrupted the psychic field has become. Why did he leave it until the final summary, when he could not confront Novella with the question, did he bring up Autistic Sauvants and better (imo) , deathbed lucidity, where the people have been making no sense for years sometimes and shortly before dying talk perfectly normally to relatives ?

Jeez, I'm a nobody that has had a stroke, and if I could talk properly I could have put up a better argument !!! :eek:

I thought that even though Moody seemed a bit 'dreamy' in his thoughts, that he is closest to the truth. This world we live in is deliberately confusing, it is by design I believe. Until we are destined to have a personal experience for whatever reason, we cannot be 100% sure( even then there may still be a tiny bit of doubt). It felt like Alexander and Moody were feeling for an answer where the other two were convinced they already have the answer. Instinctively I think they are wrong, the answers are beyond all our imaginations.

Hi, Steve,
I remember you saying that you had a stroke, that was tough on you and it's to your credit that you're staying positive. Has your speech been affected much ? I'm only asking because I believe some stroke victims can recover quite a bit of their original capabilities, the TV set as it were can re-wire itself to some degree.

BTW Everybody is a nobody in the scale of things and if they don't realise it then they ought to IMHO.....and strokes can happen to anyone anytime. Friend of mine recently had three (in his brain) and his speech has been affected too.
 
Thanks for that Tim. I was going to answer by PM but I think it might be useful for everyone that reads here on the forum to know my thoughts on stroke recovery. After all most people, if they don't know anyone whose had a stroke, probably will eventually.

Rather than go OT I'd rather start a new thread in Other Stuff.
 
The first problem with these debates is the skeptical side is either unaware of the pro-psi/nde data, or they believe they can miss out the evidence using rhetorical tricks. Those games appeal to the audience the debate is aimed at, but do absolutely nothing to advance public knowledge of whether psi or ndes are real. The second problem is people can build solid academic careers and high public profiles by sticking to their guns on these subjects, but are much less well known for carefully weighing the evidence and embarking on years of often tedious research.
 
Back
Top