Why We Need Skeptics in the Skeptiko Forum

But in the past private experiences of spiritual depth have achieved significant social penetration. Now, in part because of a cynical era, and in part because of legitimate concerns around the truth of claims presented, they do not. Again, I really don't see the point in advocacy forums, etc, unless the attempt is being made to increase social penetration in one form or another. Again, if you are ALREADY happy with the extent to which NDEs are recognized and/or addressed in society, then what exactly ARE you aiming at by even talking about them with others?

I don't have any particular aim in mind. I talk about these topics because they are vital to me. Do I need any other reasons? I'm certainly not aiming to support anyone's agenda including yours, even if I had a clear understanding of what your agenda is, which I don't. Do you see NDEs as a means to change the world? I can't figure you out. If you are interested in changing the world, the best way to do that is to change yourself. I'd say it is the only agenda for change that works.
 
I don't have any particular aim in mind. I talk about these topics because they are vital to me. Do I need any other reasons? I'm certainly not aiming to support anyone's agenda including yours, even if I had a clear understanding of what your agenda is, which I don't. Do you see NDEs as a means to change the world? I can't figure you out. If you are interested in changing the world, the best way to do that is to change yourself. I'd say it is the only agenda for change that works.

I would say that advocacy bears an agenda. I'm not saying the agenda is necessarily a bad thing. I'm not trying to change the world particularly, but I would point out again that unless people here in general felt that there was something worth changing, most of these conversations wouldn't exist. The question that follows from it, though, is...is this advocacy serious in wanting the change(s) that it quests for?
 
I would say that advocacy bears an agenda. I'm not saying the agenda is necessarily a bad thing. I'm not trying to change the world particularly, but I would point out again that unless people here in general felt that there was something worth changing, most of these conversations wouldn't exist. The question that follows from it, though, is...is this advocacy serious in wanting the change(s) that it quests for?

Perhaps if it is advocacy you see in what I say, then it is purely a matter of demonstrating how I think about things. Maybe I'm simply demonstrating the possibility of a different approach. You can take it, leave it, ignore it, argue with it, agree with it, or move on to do something else. Change is an individual undertaking. You change yourself. You can't presume to change others because you don't have the standing to do so. None of us do. All the others out there have to engage in their own agenda for change. It's a personal thing, not a movement, not a religion, not a concensus.
 
Well it's clear enough to me from many, many of the discussions here that advocacy is an issue, as is criticism of those who (in one way or another) are seen to be 'obstructing' the cause of this advocacy. Again, I'm not saying that I see that as a bad thing. If one is happy believing in near death experiences and one does not want to see research on them, does not want to see them come (perhaps) to be recognized as public truth, does not want to see (perhaps) a whole new field of human endeavor open up with (perhaps) a spiritual content, weakening (perhaps) the material suppositions of the past two hundred years...then indeed, you have no advocacy. If however, you would prefer to see some of those things happen, then you are an advocate. These things won't happen on their own, any more than a house can be built on its own.
 
Well it's clear enough to me from many, many of the discussions here that advocacy is an issue, as is criticism of those who (in one way or another) are seen to be 'obstructing' the cause of this advocacy. Again, I'm not saying that I see that as a bad thing. If one is happy believing in near death experiences and one does not want to see research on them, does not want to see them come (perhaps) to be recognized as public truth, does not want to see (perhaps) a whole new field of human endeavor open up with (perhaps) a spiritual content, weakening (perhaps) the material suppositions of the past two hundred years...then indeed, you have no advocacy. If however, you would prefer to see some of those things happen, then you are an advocate. These things won't happen on their own, any more than a house can be built on its own.

I think at least if... "we"... ( the many intelligent and thoughtful posters that make this forum so enjoyable...not necessarily myself of course though I hope) are discussing a particular NDE case we should at least be honest about the facts as a starting point.
 
I think at least if... "we"... ( the many intelligent and thoughtful posters that make this forum so enjoyable...not necessarily myself of course though I hope) are discussing a particular NDE case we should at least be honest about the facts as a starting point.

Sorry Tim...in what way was I being dishonest in anything I have said?
 
Interesting, Kai but the NDE is not a religion, there are no prophets ( Eben Alexander and Dannion Brinkley are not ). It can be a religious experience for some and some not but I do believe it's basic "message" is getting through, that's lives are reviewed and we are going to feel the pain that we've caused others so in a way it supports what the great religions tell us but it also contradicts them as well..and I don't want to get into that it's a minefield. .

And yes I agree that it would be the greatest discovery in human history. That is why we must investigate to get to the truth by being open to the evidence which is strongly suggestive that consciousness continues when brain function ceases.

What is so is so and wishing it would go away because some of us are very comfy in materialist beds is not the best way to live in my opinion.
Just as socialism (as espoused by Marx and Engels) has been shown to be a stagnant dead end, we can have a better future (not religious as in enslaving ourselves to silly illogical rituals) "knowing" that life is not pointless. We shouldn't do anything with the NDE other than listen and get on with whatever we want to do here as long as we don't piss others off.
So, is that a "no"?

Pat

no
 
Well it's clear enough to me from many, many of the discussions here that advocacy is an issue, as is criticism of those who (in one way or another) are seen to be 'obstructing' the cause of this advocacy.
It depends where you want to place the skeptic, culturally. On this board skeptics typically represent themselves as a beleaguered and misunderstood minority, who are merely trying to signal a few germane points proponents may have missed. In the wider cyber world, proponents are cranks who'd plunge civilisation back into the dark ages and close science courses at the drop of a hat.

Personally speaking, I have no interest in converting anyone to anything, though I would like the freedom to discuss a topic I'm convinced has legs with like minds, without deconstructing words like 'science' and 'evidence' each time a subject is raised. I believe skeptics on this board are pretty convinced of their ground, know they have academia and much of the media on their side, and enjoy pulling the wings off the proponents' butterfly, just to see how they work. In that sense, obstruction is a good choice of word.
 
Sorry Tim...in what way was I being dishonest in anything I have said?

Well I wasn't accusing you in particular. Kai.. but did you ...or do you... accept the word of Spetzler in the Pam Reynolds case ? Because some didn't and still don't. You don't have to but if you don't I think you should.
 
Well I wasn't accusing you in particular. Kai.. but did you ...or do you... accept the word of Spetzler in the Pam Reynolds case ? Because some didn't and still don't. You don't have to but if you don't I think you should.

I haven't really been following the Spetzler discussion. But my basic comment on it is that he would really need to make a *public statement* of his own clearing up these issues.
 
"But my basic comment on it is that he would really need to make a *public statement* of his own clearing up these issues."

Kai, he has.... many times on TV documentaries

 
Hello Tim, yes, I've seen that before. I meant with respect to the narrower point that was being argued earlier on the thread. He does not seem to make a public statement about that on this video.
 
About her brainwaves being absent ? I will post them for you tomorrow.

Here at 7.34 " ......."without any brainwave activity it is inconceivable to me that the brain can receive, internalise and maintain a memory......(He is referring to the conversation)

 
But what I was looking for was comments directly remarking upon the impossibility of a specific observation at a specific time, not his 'perplexity' in general.

Something like this, stated publicly. "Yes, I can definitively state that Mrs Reynolds heard the portion of conversation about the vein, or glimpsed the bone saw, during the time of hypothermic circulatory arrest, and in no way at some other time."
 
But what I was looking for was comments directly remarking upon the impossibility of a specific observation at a specific time, not his 'perplexity' in general.

Something like this, stated publicly. "Yes, I can definitively state that Mrs Reynolds heard the portion of conversation about the vein, or glimpsed the bone saw, during the time of hypothermic circulatory arrest, and in no way at some other time."

You're winding me up, Kai, surely :-) quite amusing really. I've already provided the email > Spetzler's assertion that when she heard the conversation her brainwaves were flat. In the above video I provided a "public" statement from Dr Spetzler "without any brainwaves....etc etc"

Why have you now moved the goalpost to the "STANDSTILL PART OF THE OPERATION" ? Burst suppression is perfectly adequate to get rid of ones brainwaves. No experience should have been possible then.

This is is not scepticism, Kai it's a refusal to face up to the facts.
 
You're winding me up, Kai, surely :) quite amusing really. I've already provided the email > Spetzler's assertion that when she heard the conversation her brainwaves were flat. In the above video I provided a "public" statement from Dr Spetzler "without any brainwaves....etc etc"

Why have you now moved the goalpost to the "STANDSTILL PART OF THE OPERATION" ? Burst suppression is perfectly adequate to get rid of ones brainwaves. No experience should have been possible then.

This is is not scepticism, Kai it's a refusal to face up to the facts.

It's my science background Tim, I can't help it. I'm quite happy in general to accept anything Spetzler has said about the surgical procedure he conducted, as I can't imagine anyone better qualified to state it. However, I would need to see it stated publicly.

I also think it is an interesting case, that may (at least) show some likely evidence of an extrasensory component. I find it somewhat implausible that this conversation could have been heard by anything resembling ordinary mean if those plugs were in at the time, etc.

Nonetheless, in science, plausibility should never be a satisfactory stopping point. One wants to aim for formal closure. This is where the Parnia protocol, correctly executed, is capable of succeeding where the OR anecdote cannot. Properly executed, it can eliminate the possibility, which is definitely there in the Reynolds case, that these perceptions were obtained from other members of the surgical team. To exclude that properly, one needs formal information control. There is just, simply, no way around this at the end of the day.
 
It's my science background Tim, I can't help it. I'm quite happy in general to accept anything Spetzler has said about the surgical procedure he conducted, as I can't imagine anyone better qualified to state it. However, I would need to see it stated publicly.

I also think it is an interesting case, that may (at least) show some likely evidence of an extrasensory component. I find it somewhat implausible that this conversation could have been heard by anything resembling ordinary mean if those plugs were in at the time, etc.

Nonetheless, in science, plausibility should never be a satisfactory stopping point. One wants to aim for formal closure. This is where the Parnia protocol, correctly executed, is capable of succeeding where the OR anecdote cannot. Properly executed, it can eliminate the possibility, which is definitely there in the Reynolds case, that these perceptions were obtained from other members of the surgical team. To exclude that properly, one needs formal information control. There is just, simply, no way around this at the end of the day.

"I would need to see it stated publicly." I thought I just had provided that. He has stated this many times in public (documentaries) Remember, He is not trying to bolster research into the NDE, that would be inappropriate at least in the Barrow Institute dedicated to life saving "impossibly difficult" operations.

I don't see how the observations could be the results of contamination. They were too accurate and she said she heard them during the operation.
The plugs were an additional reason why she couldn't possibly have heard... and add to that... the 100 decibel clicks ....but burst suppression trumps
those.
 
"I would need to see it stated publicly." I thought I just had provided that. He has stated this many times in public (documentaries) Remember, He is not trying to bolster research into the NDE, that would be inappropriate at least in the Barrow Institute dedicated to life saving "impossibly difficult" operations.

I don't see how the observations could be the results of contamination. They were too accurate and she said she heard them during the operation.
The plugs were an additional reason why she couldn't possibly have heard... and add to that... the 100 decibel clicks ....but burst suppression trumps
those.

I didn't say by contamination, I meant via extrasensory component from other members of the surgical team, rather than 'direct observation.'

With respect to Spetzler, I haven't heard him declare the kind of thing I stated previously.
 
Back
Top