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

[Kathy Mingo]

Maybe another possibility would be to get Kathy Mingo to do a reading for him - right there in a podcast. He would obviously try to give nothing away, and I'll bet she could amaze him.

David

Lolololol....I not sure if Jesus himself transfigured in front of him holding the key to eternal life he would be able to accept it. I actually sent him lots of love and healing as underneath it all there is just immense sadness and fear of which I feel empathy for. I guess we never truly know what is happening in someones life. I found some of his comments really irritating. He would never be receptive...would be like tuning into a house brick. I am too emotive I guess. I read lots of all of your amazing insights and really just want to lap up all of this knowledge like a sponge!

 

[Carl Olsen]

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

To which a logical response would be that lucidity/rationality is not the same as awareness. If one holds that the brain is solely responsible for awareness or consciouness of any kind, then reports of incredibly clear "dreams" while flatlining are no less easy to explain than reports of events verified by others. That is why Dr. Fischer and like-minded people insist that the reported events must have occurred when brain function was returning - despite all the contrary evidence.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

Occam's Razor

All things being equal, that which appears compatible with what I superficially think scientists believe, tends to obviate the need for any scientific investigation.

:D

 

[Carl Olsen]

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?

 

[Carl Olsen]

I just listened to that previous episode again, and noticed that while your guest takes issue with Dr. van Lommel’s methodology – rather obtusely and unfairly at that – neither of you addressed the critical issue of timing. Neither did Dr. Long in this episode - only Dr. Sartori. But surely this is the woefully weak link in the physicalist argument! I for one would love to see a follow-up discussion with either Dr. Long or Dr. Sartori and Dr. Fischer in which this issue of timing was explored in-depth, because I think that single, clear issue would expose the utter bankruptcy of the physicalist argument. To whit: If a person accurately describes an unexpected event that occurred when the patient was flatlining, then one cannot argue that it actually occurred when the patient was “waking”. I get the impression that Dr. Sartori in particular has excellent data on this. It needs to be thrown into the physicalists’ faces. A future program perhaps?

 

[Typoz]

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.


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.

"This implies that he is absolutely of the belief that the consciousness survives death."

In the case of Parnia, this is impossible to know. He rarely mentions his belief at all. What he does describe, in great detail, are the facts, The evidence uncovered, and what we conclusions we can draw from them. I've never heard him express any more than his own research will allow. That is, consciousness definitely survives for some limited period, a few minutes, a few hours, perhaps a bit longer. But Parnia doesn't declare that consciousness survives indefinitely, but only for a limited time.

Of course he may have his own private beliefs, but he himself regards them of being of little consequence., It isn't belief which matters, it is facts.

 

[Inner Space]

Dr Fischer's calling 'supernatural explanations' for those theories that say that NDEs are evidence of consciousness existing separate from the physical body, is (ironically) just poor philosophy on his part. Is any theoretical explanation of phenomena that can't currently be tested or proven by science 'supernatural'? By this definition, if someone in the 4th century theorised that lighting was the product of an unknown physical force (let's call this force 'electromagnetism'), this theorised force would have to be defined 'supernatural' as science at the time could not affirm there was such a force. Science was just not sophisticated enough to explain this hypothetical force, but it turns that such a force was part of the natural world. Science may not be sophisticated enough to explain how consciousness exists separate from the body. Heck, science is not sophisticated enough to explain how consciousness exists WITH a body! This does not make consciousness 'supernatural.'

 

[Alex]

I just listened to that previous episode again, and noticed that while your guest takes issue with Dr. van Lommel’s methodology – rather obtusely and unfairly at that – neither of you addressed the critical issue of timing. Neither did Dr. Long in this episode - only Dr. Sartori. But surely this is the woefully weak link in the physicalist argument! I for one would love to see a follow-up discussion with either Dr. Long or Dr. Sartori and Dr. Fischer in which this issue of timing was explored in-depth, because I think that single, clear issue would expose the utter bankruptcy of the physicalist argument. To whit: If a person accurately describes an unexpected event that occurred when the patient was flatlining, then one cannot argue that it actually occurred when the patient was “waking”. I get the impression that Dr. Sartori in particular has excellent data on this. It needs to be thrown into the physicalists’ faces. A future program perhaps?

I agree regarding timing... It clarifies things, but ultimately this seems to be more about beliefs and deep psychology than about science / logic / reason.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

Dr Fischer's calling 'supernatural explanations' for those theories that say that NDEs are evidence of consciousness existing separate from the physical body, is (ironically) just poor philosophy on his part. Is any theoretical explanation of phenomena that can't currently be tested or proven by science 'supernatural'? By this definition, if someone in the 4th century theorised that lighting was the product of an unknown physical force (let's call this force 'electromagnetism'), this theorised force would have to be defined 'supernatural' as science at the time could not affirm there was such a force. Science was just not sophisticated enough to explain this hypothetical force, but it turns that such a force was part of the natural world. Science may not be sophisticated enough to explain how consciousness exists separate from the body. Heck, science is not sophisticated enough to explain how consciousness exists WITH a body! This does not make consciousness 'supernatural.'

Great point IS and well put. I frame what these people do, in terms of the mode and type of inference they employ. This is how the greatest mistakes of science are made and perpetuated - and the reason why Kuhn-Planck Paradigm Shifts seem to be so beneficial.

This is what I learned to avoid in my career.

Linear Affirmation Bias - a primarily inductive methodology of deriving inference, in which the researcher starts in advance with a premature question or assumed answer they are looking for. Thereafter, observations are made. Affirmation is a process which involves only positive confirmations of an a priori assumption or goal. Accordingly, under this method of deriving inference, observations are classified into three buckets: ​

​

1. Affirming​

2. In need of reinterpretation​

3. Dismissed because they are not ‘simple’ (conforming to the affirmation underway).​

​

Under this method, the model is complicated by reinterpretations. Failing the test that a model should be elegant, not exclusively simple. By means of this method, necessity under Ockham’s Razor is assumed in advance and all observations thereafter are merely reconfigured to fit the assumed model. At the end of this process, the idea which was posed in the form of a question, or sought at the very start, is affirmed as valid. Most often this idea thereafter is held as an Omega Hypothesis (more important to protect than the integrity of science itself).​

 

[Dr. John Fischer]

Thank you Alex and Dr Fischer for a fascinating debate. I find the aspect that NDEs absolutely amazing. I look forward to the debate next time if you set it up.

Kathy and Alex and everyone at this forum:
Thank you very much for being willing to listen and to engage seriously with an alternative viewpoint. It takes a lot of class on the part of Alex to invite me, even though we have some differences. By the way, the bulk of my work has not been to "debunk" NDEs, but to support research on NDEs (almost a million dollars) by such major scholars as Sam Parnia (and others), and also to argue that they are REAL in every sense of the term, when properly interpreted. Unquestionably they are real and beautiful and have deep and positive effects. The only question is whether we have to take them to be a proof of the afterlife, and reasonable people can disagree.
Again, thanks to all of you for engaging with my work. I will be on Michael Shermer's podcast, Science Salon, in December, and an article and accompanying blog (come and participate) by me will appear soon in The New York Times. Of course, don't buy these books--get them at the library or used--you can also see how I seriously address the main questions about the "meaning" of NDEs and whether they are a "proof of heaven" in my two Oxford University Press Books on these subjects. In my 2019 book, "Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life" I argue that NDEs are real and have lessons for the meaning of life, and end-of-life. It might be more productive to read these discussions of many legitimate questions and issues you (and others) raise, rather than try to do this on a blog.
Also, I would welcome the chance to discuss these issues in a friendly but probing way with Jeffrey Long, MD, and I would arrange a venue and sponsorship at UC Riverside. I venture to say that we could all learn from further thought and discussion, even of viewpoints we don't antecedently share.

 

[Alex]

Kathy and Alex and everyone at this forum:
Thank you very much for being willing to listen and to engage seriously with an alternative viewpoint. It takes a lot of class on the part of Alex to invite me, even though we have some differences. By the way, the bulk of my work has not been to "debunk" NDEs, but to support research on NDEs (almost a million dollars) by such major scholars as Sam Parnia (and others), and also to argue that they are REAL in every sense of the term, when properly interpreted. Unquestionably they are real and beautiful and have deep and positive effects. The only question is whether we have to take them to be a proof of the afterlife, and reasonable people can disagree.
Again, thanks to all of you for engaging with my work. I will be on Michael Shermer's podcast, Science Salon, in December, and an article and accompanying blog (come and participate) by me will appear soon in The New York Times. Of course, don't buy these books--get them at the library or used--you can also see how I seriously address the main questions about the "meaning" of NDEs and whether they are a "proof of heaven" in my two Oxford University Press Books on these subjects. In my 2019 book, "Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life" I argue that NDEs are real and have lessons for the meaning of life, and end-of-life. It might be more productive to read these discussions of many legitimate questions and issues you (and others) raise, rather than try to do this on a blog.
Also, I would welcome the chance to discuss these issues in a friendly but probing way with Jeffrey Long, MD, and I would arrange a venue and sponsorship at UC Riverside. I venture to say that we could all learn from further thought and discussion, even of viewpoints we don't antecedently share.

thx John... I will pass this invitation along to Dr. Long.

 

[Carl Olsen]

Kathy and Alex and everyone at this forum:
Thank you very much for being willing to listen and to engage seriously with an alternative viewpoint. It takes a lot of class on the part of Alex to invite me, even though we have some differences. By the way, the bulk of my work has not been to "debunk" NDEs, but to support research on NDEs (almost a million dollars) by such major scholars as Sam Parnia (and others), and also to argue that they are REAL in every sense of the term, when properly interpreted. Unquestionably they are real and beautiful and have deep and positive effects. The only question is whether we have to take them to be a proof of the afterlife, and reasonable people can disagree.
Again, thanks to all of you for engaging with my work. I will be on Michael Shermer's podcast, Science Salon, in December, and an article and accompanying blog (come and participate) by me will appear soon in The New York Times. Of course, don't buy these books--get them at the library or used--you can also see how I seriously address the main questions about the "meaning" of NDEs and whether they are a "proof of heaven" in my two Oxford University Press Books on these subjects. In my 2019 book, "Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life" I argue that NDEs are real and have lessons for the meaning of life, and end-of-life. It might be more productive to read these discussions of many legitimate questions and issues you (and others) raise, rather than try to do this on a blog.
Also, I would welcome the chance to discuss these issues in a friendly but probing way with Jeffrey Long, MD, and I would arrange a venue and sponsorship at UC Riverside. I venture to say that we could all learn from further thought and discussion, even of viewpoints we don't antecedently share.

I for one would very much like to see a discussion featuring Dr. Long and yourself. Hope it can be arranged!

 

[Doug]

Likewise a debate between Dr Fischer and Dr Long would be most interesting, I hope it can happen.
I want nothing more than to be sure that NDE's are truly proof that consciousness can survive bodily death but as a medical doctor my scientific training urges me to be cautious because the implications are so huge in our understanding of reality. I listened to a Youtube video of Dr Parnia addressing NDE's published 20th June this year. In it he states that he has no doubt that consciousness can survive at least for a few hours beyond apparent bodily death. A most interesting talk. He reasonably states that no one knows what happens after the first few hours once irreversible cellular death of brain cells has occured (because you can no longer interview these people !).
The only way we can be absolutely certain of the issue of timing of NDE experiences is with well conducted studies (such as Aware 2) to establish veridical proo of the time line of experiences recalled during an NDE, although I heard from Alex's discussion with Dr Fischer that Dr Sartori's research does address this issue. Nevertheless , it is standard in medicine not to rely on just one line of evidence, we need more to really be sure.

 

[Michael Patterson]

I gave up this interview after a few minutes, because I think Skeptiko has developed beyond this kind of discussion.

I got the impression that Fischer was somewhat uneasy in the part of the discussion I listened to.

David

I was going to do the same thing, because it seemed like fighting a battle already won. But then I got curious. If Fischer had done his homework he would know that he was on a hiding to nothing on Skeptiko. So I don't think he did any homework.

But what really got me interested was getting some clue why these guys write BS books. I know academics have to publish, which is why so much incomprehensible shite is written, so I guess doing a book gets you better/more brownie points. [that's junior girl guides, not cookies].

So, had nothing to sell and bought nothing. At least we know the opposition hasn't developed any killer argument we need to be afraid of.

 

[Dan_LastName]

I appreciated this episode very much. For my own reasons, I'm basically sympathetic to much of what the guest had to say. Note, I am not a debunker of NDEs. For my own reasons--my own social reasons and my own psychological/emotional reasons, I prefer strongly agnostic interpretations and perspectives on these questions.

Regarding Penny Sartori's research, I had read a summary of her findings on the IANDs website years ago, and this part has always stuck with me:
"It must be noted that the sample is too small to be statistically significant ..."

This is from her paper "summarizing results from a five-year prospective study of NDEs conducted in a Welsh hospital in the United Kingdom." I am not an expert in the research, and not sure what to make of this piece. It's kind of tucked in a paragraph with other material and I'm not certain if she is talking about the sample size for the whole project or what. My gut feeling is that it means that the responses she got when asking her questions weren't strong enough to be statistically significant, which I take to mean that the answers could be explained by chance or by other explanations--either some people "guessed" right or Sartori's interview came after the patients had already been debriefed by their nurses or whatever.

Again, it is not my intention to be a debunker. I have my personal desires around these questions for my own reasons which I have mentioned here and in other posts. I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these questions with folks at this site because the conversations are helpful to me as I navigate my own feelings and ideas about the mysteries of life, of which I think there are many more than are typically acknowledged.

At any rate, I appreciated that the guest was relatively calm and measured throughtout the interview. That said, I think his attacking Alex on Alex's position on science was not necessary and seemed somewhat aggressive., To me, those comments by the guest detracted from the presentation of his ideas in an unfortunate way. Anyway, thanks again for the episode.

 

[Alex]

Likewise a debate between Dr Fischer and Dr Long would be most interesting, I hope it can happen.
I want nothing more than to be sure that NDE's are truly proof that consciousness can survive bodily death but as a medical doctor my scientific training urges me to be cautious because the implications are so huge in our understanding of reality. I listened to a Youtube video of Dr Parnia addressing NDE's published 20th June this year. In it he states that he has no doubt that consciousness can survive at least for a few hours beyond apparent bodily death. A most interesting talk. He reasonably states that no one knows what happens after the first few hours once irreversible cellular death of brain cells has occured (because you can no longer interview these people !).
The only way we can be absolutely certain of the issue of timing of NDE experiences is with well conducted studies (such as Aware 2) to establish veridical proo of the time line of experiences recalled during an NDE, although I heard from Alex's discussion with Dr Fischer that Dr Sartori's research does address this issue. Nevertheless , it is standard in medicine not to rely on just one line of evidence, we need more to really be sure.

I'll send the offer but I'd be surprised if he decided does it. I mean john has offered absolutely nothing that's new / interesting / scientific. I encourage you to read his book... there's absolutely nothing in there that even comes close to a solid scientific argument.

these debates can create a false equivalency kind of thing. it's would be like seeing a Michael Shermer debate Dean Radin on presentiment. It doesn't matter that the experiments have been repeated 50 times in seven labs around the world and generated a 6 sigma result, Shermer would still "debate."

 

[Dr. John Fischer]

I'll send the offer but I'd be surprised if he decided does it. I mean john has offered absolutely nothing that's new / interesting / scientific. I encourage you to read his book... there's absolutely nothing in there that even comes close to a solid scientific argument.

these debates can create a false equivalency kind of thing. it's would be like seeing a Michael Shermer debate Dean Radin on presentiment. It doesn't matter that the experiments have been repeated 50 times in seven labs around the world and generated a 6 sigma result, Shermer would still "debate."

Alex: Of course, I disagree with you about my book, but this is not the place for this discussion. This is your blog, with your followers, and I was honored to be your guest. My guess is also that Dr. Long won't want to accept, because I don't think that he will want to discuss these issues in ann academic context, with doctors and neuroscientists from the UCR medical school. But we would be pleased with his contributions. I always want to discuss alternative views, and that's why I came on your site, which you told me was "courageous". I wonder if Dr. Long is also courageous and open to subjecting his views to critical discussion. Interesting: I opened up my books and thoughts to you and your followers, being happy to hear/read/think about different perspectives. Will Dr. Long? (Not holding my breath, but it would be great, wouldn't it, for all of us?"

Note: Alex, you contended, against me, that Dr. Parnia holds that the data strongly suggest consciousness after the death of the body. But as pointed out in this discussion (very helpfully), Sam only thinks it is clear to him that this happens for a short time--maybe a few hours! I note and discuss this point in my book (2019). You criticize me (in your signature vigorous way), for not getting Parnia right, but does it offer you and/or any of your members here ANY solace to know that your souls will be around for a few hours? Is THIS what I'm not up on?

 

[Dr. John Fischer]

Finally, I again want to thank Alex and the participants here. I strongly believe in open-ness to various perspectives, and to respecting others. Some of you are noteworthy and admirable in these ways. I've always been puzzled as to why some supernaturalists are so angry! Where's the love and peace and sensitivity to others that come from NDEs? I've been called some interesting names, and told my final destination is Hell many times on many blogs. Fine, no worries--I'm in the kitchen, and I don't mind the heat. But think about it: where's the love? Where's the cool, thoughtful investigation of deep issues that we all care about? What's so bad about peace, loving, and understanding! Doesn't is seem a bit hypocritical to be so nasty (only a minority of the members of this site, of course).
So: I will continue to think about these matters, publish in academic journals and with academic presses, and think about all the thoughtful critique of my work, but I just don't think further exploration in this context is the most fruitful way to go to make real progress.
Again: thank you, and may love win out: that's really the lesson of NDEs.

 

[Alex]

Alex: Of course, I disagree with you about my book, but this is not the place for this discussion. This is your blog, with your followers, and I was honored to be your guest. My guess is also that Dr. Long won't want to accept, because I don't think that he will want to discuss these issues in ann academic context, with doctors and neuroscientists from the UCR medical school. But we would be pleased with his contributions. I always want to discuss alternative views, and that's why I came on your site, which you told me was "courageous". I wonder if Dr. Long is also courageous and open to subjecting his views to critical discussion. Interesting: I opened up my books and thoughts to you and your followers, being happy to hear/read/think about different perspectives. Will Dr. Long? (Not holding my breath, but it would be great, wouldn't it, for all of us?"

Note: Alex, you contended, against me, that Dr. Parnia holds that the data strongly suggest consciousness after the death of the body. But as pointed out in this discussion (very helpfully), Sam only thinks it is clear to him that this happens for a short time--maybe a few hours! I note and discuss this point in my book (2019). You criticize me (in your signature vigorous way), for not getting Parnia right, but does it offer you and/or any of your members here ANY solace to know that your souls will be around for a few hours? Is THIS what I'm not up on?

thx John... I get/respect yr point and yr push back :) Let's see what he says.

re Parnia... I've always found him to be extremely careful / cagey regarding the survival question:
116. Dr. Sam Parnia Claims Near Death Experience Probably and Illusion... - Skeptiko

one of my complaints with your book and your work in general is that it further perpetuates an academic climate that makes it difficult for these researchers to plainly speak their mind.

so let's consider Parnia's carefully parsed position... i.e. that consciousness survives for at least a few hours after death. now, pack that back into our current neurological model for consciousness -- it doesn't fit! it might make you and those who are dogmatically attached to a materialist worldview sleep better, but it shouldn't. any survival beyond the window that current biological-robot-in-a-meaningless-universe-science clings to is still a paradigm buster.

 

[Alex]

Finally, I again want to thank Alex and the participants here. I strongly believe in open-ness to various perspectives, and to respecting others. Some of you are noteworthy and admirable in these ways. I've always been puzzled as to why some supernaturalists are so angry! Where's the love and peace and sensitivity to others that come from NDEs? I've been called some interesting names, and told my final destination is Hell many times on many blogs. Fine, no worries--I'm in the kitchen, and I don't mind the heat. But think about it: where's the love? Where's the cool, thoughtful investigation of deep issues that we all care about? What's so bad about peace, loving, and understanding! Doesn't is seem a bit hypocritical to be so nasty (only a minority of the members of this site, of course).
So: I will continue to think about these matters, publish in academic journals and with academic presses, and think about all the thoughtful critique of my work, but I just don't think further exploration in this context is the most fruitful way to go to make real progress.
Again: thank you, and may love win out: that's really the lesson of NDEs.

noted. thx.