Dr. John Fischer, Another Philosopher Tries to Debunk NDEs |431|

#21
Okay, great response but why not just say that instead of referencing Dr. Long? You get that it's confusing when Dr. Long makes the claim that its impossible to experience awareness under anesthesia yet people do actually sometimes experience awareness. This is maybe the third time I've noticed this claim come up in debates and the skeptic side, in my understanding, has reasonable confusion about what is actually being talked about. People (such as myself) aren't going to understand that this is a 'lame' take on the issue if it's not refuted at the same level its posited.
I get yr point LE. then again, I was somewhat caught off guard because I expected higher level of discourse from John since he claims to have "thoroughly analyzed" Dr. Long's work.
 
#22
On the other hand I do agree that our understanding on the brain is fairly primitive, can we be sure the brain is incapable of producing experiences when our understanding is that it should not be?
John (like all NDE skeptics that pursue this lame path) is calling for a complete overturning of everything neuroscience claims to know about the correlation between brain activity and consciousness (EEG and fMRI... out the window) while at the same time claiming neuroscience still has enough in the tank to prove that NDEs are't real.

I am not a neuroscientist. I found it confusing about Sam Parnia's views. Does he or does he not believe in persistence of consciousness? He is a significant researcher in this area and I think his opinion is significant
that's because John doesn't know the research (there are better ref out there, but found this after a quick search):

from: https://awareofaware.co/welcome/blog/
As others, and myself, have noted, the tone of this article is completely supportive of the understanding that the consciousness, or soul is an individual entity that is able to survive death. This article was clearly sanctioned by Dr. Parnia, as it is related to the What happens when we die meeting that is due to take place at NYU in November. This implies that he is absolutely of the belief that the consciousness survives death.
 
#24
So Dr. Long and Dr. Sartori reference well-established science that people under general anesthesia as well as those who experience cardiac arrest, have no higher brain activity, yet typical (i.e. highly lucid) NDE's are reported. Dr. Sartori further makes the critically important point that many of the NDE cases she studied first-hand accurately described events occuring when by all scientific understanding, the NDE experiencers would have had no higher brain function at that time. This utterly destroys Dr. Fischer's argument that the experiences must have occurred upon resuscitation. When Alex points this out, Dr. Fischer (while claiming respect for Dr.'s Long and Sartori) vaguely suggests (with no evidence), that their methodology must be flawed, presumably because it doesn't jibe with his philosophical world-view. What rubbish! Dr. Fischer's contention that these medical doctors cannot draw the conclusion that a person with a non-functioning brain who experiences independently verified events as well as "other-worldly" events is experiencing consciousness independent of the brain is similarly rubbish. What other possible conclusion can one draw that accounts for all the facts - something that Dr. Fischer pointedly does not do? None so blind.
 
#25
How would you describe a supernaturalist research approach? Of course you wouldn't.

Magick = supernatural = mysterianism.

I mean only one point by that thought. Idealism is the real issue at hand, not the supernatural. There is no 'there' there though. No content, all form. I did get a 'D' in humanities btw!
Yes, :) we do not have to define something as supernatural in order to study it outside the context of monism. That is just dumb. To define it as 'supernatural' is an a priori trick one uses to obfuscate any alternative from being studied. This is a process called subception. In fact we should not ethically designate it as 'supernatural' at all (as you cite). (But they are 'sincere' he feigns objectivity :eek:)....

The task at hand is very straightforward (not 'simple') - It is a white crow falsification. Falsify monism (deduction). And that can be done.

Anyone who presents the argument as more complicated than that is conducting the pseudoscience of Methodical Deescalation.

Methodical Deescalation
/philosophy : pseudoscience : inadequate inference method/ : employing abductive inference in lieu of inductive inference when inductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed. In similar fashion employing inductive inference in lieu of deductive inference when deductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed.​
One of the hallmarks of skepticism is grasping the distinction between a ‘consilience of inductions’ and a ‘convergence of deductions’. All things being equal, a convergence of deductions is superior to a consilience of inductions. When science employs a consilience of inductions, when a convergence of deductions was available, yet was not pursued – then we have an ethical dilemma called Methodical Deescalation.​
 
Last edited:
#26
So Dr. Long and Dr. Sartori reference well-established science that people under general anesthesia as well as those who experience cardiac arrest, have no higher brain activity, yet typical (i.e. highly lucid) NDE's are reported.
Of course, Dr. Fischer could always argue that the contents of an NDE aren't in accordance with current science, and so are clearly irrational, thus not lucid!

I wonder if any irrational sceptic has tried that argument:)

David
 
#27
I listened to this show wondering what Fischer was flogging, so when Alex asked at the end whether NDEs were a case of philosophy first I wondered what Fischer meant by philosophy. It was apparent he had a bunch of undisclosed assumptions - metaphysical guesses essentially – and he was using these to interrogate a subject under the guise of doing philosophy. That’s fair enough, as something to do, and write books about. But it’s a Bullshit argument for saying that NDE researchers lack the philosophical wherewithal to examine NDEs. Since when was that a qualification?

Now to Alex’s question – No is the answer. The clue is in the word Experience. NDE researchers seem to honour the experiencer’s experience and the meaning drawn from it. Silly bitching about whether the brain is involved is idiotic. Here’s why. The brain does not cause consciousness – it mediates it most of the time – and now and then it doesn’t. If you want to narrowly focus on NDEs as a contentious subject you are just playing a game of intellectual ball clanging. Examine OOBEs first. They are way more problematic.

Fisher talks like a philosopher who operates from the proposition that the brain causes consciousness. But he pretends this isn’t so and that this patent bias is a legit tool for doing philosophy. It isn’t. That ain’t philosophy, even when philosophers do it. It’s just self-indulgent and lazy thinking.

I noted that he doesn’t say the brain ‘causes’ consciousness, but “underwrites” it. I don’t have an issue with the brain ‘underwriting’ an experience by delivering content in a comprehensible manner – but therefore mostly analogical content. This is certainly the case when dreaming. But that does not mean the self is in the body at the time of dreaming – only connected to it. Our sense of self, shaped by inhabiting a physical body, responds to brain generated analogues – which is why we have weird dreams. The deeper sense of self is free from such filters and has a more lucid experience.

I get that scientists get excited by whether the brain causes consciousness or not. If you are a materialist this is an important question. If you are not, it’s a waste of time. It doesn’t matter if the brain is involved and mediates the experience. Not saying it does in NDEs, just that it doesn’t matter if it does.

Fischer really should talk to Jeff Kripal and Elizabeth Krohn [Changed in a Flash]. Here philosophy lets him down. He really must get into ethnography and understand that 99% of humans believe in spirits. That should be his starting point – and not some macho BS materialism. This would open him up to the experience – something he lamely concedes at the end of the show.

For me a materialist philosopher is an oxymoronic notion. It seems to me that academics who have qualifications in philosophy labour under the mistaken notion that their intellectual adventures constitute philosophy. Maybe that’s the way things go in academia these days – but the rest of us don’t have to be sucked in.
 
#30
Dr. Fischer struck me as someone similar to a climate change denier, first of all. Just like all the people who resolutely cast about for ways to crush the obvious climate catatrophe hurtling toward us, Fischer has found a niche that makes NDE study dubious for the weakest of reasons: doctors/researchers aren't philosophically trained, so what do they really know? Since I think we're in a period of escalating open-mindedness about what has literally ALWAYS been taught openly or in secret (ageless wisdom, mystical knowledge, or you pick a name) because of the failure of materialism/physicalism to answer the most basic, crucial questions, then philosophy has to take a back seat. Scientific research looks for proof; good NDE research provides it. Alex did a great job keeping his temper; I would have given Fischer the bum's rush out the door after the fifth time he said, "I respect so and so" before poo-pooing yet another person because he/she is not a philosopher.
 
#32
This utterly destroys Dr. Fischer's argument that the experiences must have occurred upon resuscitation. When Alex points this out, Dr. Fischer (while claiming respect for Dr.'s Long and Sartori) vaguely suggests (with no evidence), that their methodology must be flawed, presumably because it doesn't jibe with his philosophical world-view. What rubbish!
agreed... total rubbish... so why does it persist?

I explored this little bit in this episode:
Latest Near-Death Experience Research Hit Job |326 - Skeptiko

but I think it might be worth revisiting how john got his hands on $4M from the templeton foundation. I mean, in a lot of circles $4M isn't a lot of money, but in terms of nde research grants it's massive. why john? by the templeton foundation which is supposed to be supporting spirituality / religion?
 
#33
For me a materialist philosopher is an oxymoronic notion.
sure seems to me that philosophy has lost its way... it's it supposed to launch us past science:

"There is but one truly serious philosophical question, and that is suicide." -- Albert Camus

ahh... now there's a philosophy proposition... and one that gets to the heart of the biological robot in a meaningless universe proposition.
 
#34
Dr. Fischer struck me as someone similar to a climate change denier, first of all. Just like all the people who resolutely cast about for ways to crush the obvious climate catatrophe hurtling toward us, Fischer has found a niche that makes NDE study dubious for the weakest of reasons: doctors/researchers aren't philosophically trained, so what do they really know? Since I think we're in a period of escalating open-mindedness about what has literally ALWAYS been taught openly or in secret (ageless wisdom, mystical knowledge, or you pick a name) because of the failure of materialism/physicalism to answer the most basic, crucial questions, then philosophy has to take a back seat. Scientific research looks for proof; good NDE research provides it. Alex did a great job keeping his temper; I would have given Fischer the bum's rush out the door after the fifth time he said, "I respect so and so" before poo-pooing yet another person because he/she is not a philosopher.
thx Kim, but are you sure about the climate change thing:
Special Report on Sea Level Rise | Climate Etc.

Nov 27, 2018 - I have now completed my assessment of sea level rise and climate change. First, I regard sea level rise to be the most consequential potential impact of predicted global warming...
 
#35
Dr. Fischer struck me as someone similar to a climate change denier, first of all.
Just to let you know, I am a Climate change denier - I wear it as a badge of honour, and I think Alex is too. So are a number of other people on this forum.

We poke into things like that, and I can pretty well assure you that it is a scam. Expensive electricity makes a lot of money for the power companies, and the whole subject has been taken up as a political drum.

Of course, you are perfectly at liberty to state the opposite, but I'd start by reading some of the existing climate change material on here.

PS. Do you know, or want to guess the the rise in temperature so far since 1880 (the date that is conventionally used). Try to answer first without trying to look it up.

I think we agree about Dr Fischer.

David
 
Last edited:
#36
Just to let you know, I am a Climate change denier - I wear it as a badg of honour, and I think Alex is too. So are a number of other people on this forum.

We poke into things like that, and I can pretty well assure you that it is a scam. Expensive electricity makes a lot of money for the power companies, and the whole subject has been taken up as a political drum.

Of course, you are perfectly at liberty to state the opposite, but I'd start by reading some of the existing climate change material on here.

PS. Do you know, or want to guess the the rise in temperature so far since 1880 (the date that is conventionally used). Try to answer first without trying to look it up.

I think we agree about Dr Fischer.

David
I definitely get your point... an overwhelmingly agree with your conclusions... but really detest the term climate change denier. I mean, I guess I wear it as a badge of honor inasmuch as it shows how this issue has been massively manipulated by those who see climate science as just another tool in the social engineering basket.

There was a great series of post recently on this forum about these topics. I can't pull them up now but they're easy to find. the main takeaway twofold:
1. we face many potentially species threatening environmental crises that are obscured / hidden / ignored in lieu of a phony carbon trading policy auction.
2. the ipcc has already tipped its hand regarding solar forcing... i.e. this whole fake global warming thing is going to morph into something else once they include solar factors into the model. again, they've already agreed to do this and everyone's in agreement on what the numbers are going to look like so it's really a matter of just letting that thing play out.
Global warming as we know it is going to go away in a couple of years or at least morph into something else ( probably something worse :))
 
#37
Global warming as we know it is going to go away in a couple of years or at least morph into something else ( probably something worse :))
It should cause global warming "believers" to question their sources of information (ie mainstream science, mainstream news, politicians, academia) and their other beliefs based on reports from those sources of information (materialism, "skepticism", economics, history, public policy, etc). It will be interesting to see if any of them will detect a larger pattern of deceit or not.

If the US Department of Justice ever comes out with the results of investigations into government corruption, it could provide a "double wammy" of exploding heads. But will it result in a lasting change for the better? Cognitive bias is a drug more powerful than any narcotic or hallucinogen so I am not making any predictions.
 
Last edited:
#38
I definitely get your point... an overwhelmingly agree with your conclusions... but really detest the term climate change denier.
I was, of course, only using it with tongue in cheek!

Quite apart from all the scientific issues, if this scam were real, they would be screaming for us to stop importing from China. It is embracing fossil fuels on a big scale:

https://mailchi.mp/2b23404ab9ff/the-new-coal-boom?e=63dcba451c

David
 
Top